Page:Vol 2 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/804

784 this union springs a new people destined in time to revive the faded glories of the past.

 Mexican history during the viceregal rule has one attraction not possessed. by the preceding annals of the conquest, that of novelty; since, as I have intimated, no narratives of this period exist in English beyond vague generalizations and bare fragmentary outlines, in connection with treatises on modern Mexico and its resources. Even the works in Spanish, by Cavo, Ribera, and Zamacois, are most unsatisfactory, especially for the sixteenth century, which is treated in a brief, uneven, and fragmentary manner. This is chiefly owing to their neglect of, and want of access to, the voluminous documents in different ancient and modern collections, and even in a number of quite attainable chronicles and histories. The lack of research is augmented by a neglect of generalization, of institutional topics, of local annals, and of the critical and philosophical treatment of subjects so essential to proper history.

The sources for material on the period subsequent to the fall of Mexico change as the din of battle ceases, and the cross takes possession of the field opened for its labors, For a while it advances side by side with the sword; at times it even becomes the precursor, and finally the peaceful symbol becomes dominant. Yet soldier-chroniclers continue for some years as leading narrators of events, notably Cortés, in his clear, concise Cartas, supplemented by Oviedo with testimony from different sources, while Las Casas furnishes views from the other side, exaggerated though they may be from excess of zeal. Gossipy Bernal Diaz, so full and thorough for the earlier period, becomes fragmentary and less reliable, describing now this expedition from personal experience, now a number of others from vague hearsay; or he jots down events as they occur to his fading memory. Gomara concentrates his coloring upon the closing achievements of his patron, while disclosing many important points. But Herrera, who so far had followed him pretty closely, maintains an even tenor, borrowing now from more varied sources wherewith to fill his bald and stulted decades. Despite his false method, want of breadth, and pronounced Castilian tendencies, he stands forth brimful of facts, the most complete general writer on American events for the first half of the century. Elegant Solís, like philosophic Clavigero, stops with dramatic tact at the fall, but a successor arises in Salazar y Olarte, a man who, in undertaking to continue his narrative from the material offered in a few printed versions, seeks also to clothe it in florid language befitting the original, only to degenerate into a verbose and spiritless declaimer whose word-painting excites derision. Robertson's attractive outline dwindles into a brief philosophic review of progress in Spanish-American colonies, and Prescott becomes after the fall merely the biographer of his hero, and his allusions to contemporary history do not pretend to be more than a culling from a few accessible authors.

The places gradually vacated by soldier-chroniclers and their followers are occupied by civilians, visitadores, judges, viceroys, and municipal bodies, who in voluminous reports or less complete letters disclose political unfoldings and factions, dwell on the development of settlements and mines, and discourse on local affairs and social features. Singly they furnish but