Page:Vol 6 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/673

Rh was applied the same cognomen for his proficiency in Aztec, like his father Antonio, and Tezozomoc, liberally contributed to the history of different sections of the valley of Mexico. The brave Tlascaltecs found less finished recorders of their annals in Tadeo Niza, Camargo, Zapata y Mendoza, Pomar, Agüero, and the brothers Ortega. There is noticeable in their productions a lack of embellishment, implying poverty of language. Indian characteristics often crop out. Religious influences have impressed upon the mind its littleness in self-abasement. In the course of years, the defects of language have disappeared, the educated Indian of Mexico using the Spanish language with the same perfection as his fellow-citizen of pure European descent. Peculiarities of character possibly remain, but must have been greatly modified by changes in social and political condition.

The most conspicuous white writers on history of the 16th and 17th centuries, aside from Cortés, Bernal Diaz, and others among the conquerors, were fathers Mendieta, Torquemada, Vetancur, and Tello, Mota Padilla, and Friar Beaumont. Contemporary with Vetancur were the friars Baltasar Medina and Dávila Padilla, both Mexicans, and ranking as Franciscan and Dominican chroniclers, respectively, both verbose and involved. Their worst features appear in the Jesuit chronicles of the same period by Francisco de Florencia. Prose, except that of Sigüenza and Tello, made little advance in the first two and a half centuries of colonial rule, either in treatment or style. The rarer mestizo element evinced less appreciation for letters, with a marked prevalence among them of aboriginal traits. This is apparent in Duran, Historia de las Indias, and Suarez Paralta, Noticias Históricas. Toward