army, the sworn depositions before the royal notary by leading officers, the narratives of Andrés de Tápia, and others. Still stronger confirmation is given in the complaints and memorials issued by enemies and rivals of the great captain, who in their efforts to detract from his character and achievements provide the historian with material that enables him to avoid the pitfalls abounding even in the honest narratives of partisans, either from sympathy, from lack of thorough knowledge, or from hearsay. Such testimony is abundant in the residencia investigations of Cortés, Alvarado, Guzman, and others, all which contain voluminous testimony on the most important questions. Prescott’s opportunities for consulting new material were vastly superior to those of his predecessors. If mine have been correspondingly greater, it may perhaps to some extent be due to the example set by him in his earnest researches, and because since the publication of his volumes, private individuals and learned societies have striven with increased enthusiasm to bring to light hidden material, notably from the rich archives of Spain and certain Latin-American states.
From this mass of what may be termed documentary evidence we turn to the regular historians and narrators, beginning with Peter Martyr and Oviedo, who both adhere chiefly to Cortés, though the latter adds other versions by different eye-witnesses. Sahagun’s account contains a strange admixture of native absurdities and vague recollections of converted soldiers. A more complete version is given by Gomara, the biographer of the great captain, who had access to private and public archives and individual narratives now lost; but he frequently colors the incidents to the credit of his hero and his profession. Nevertheless the value of the text is testified to by his Mexican translator Chimalpain, who adds some interesting facts from native records and