separate and embodied form, some of them provided with occasional observations, but for the great part they contain nothing of any value to the student. Those after Prescott’s time follow him as a rule. Mexican accounts might naturally be expected to present useful features, but such is hardly the case. Alaman, Ramirez, Icazbalceta, Orozco y Berra, Bustamante, and certain writers in the Boletin of the Mexican Geographical Society, have brought to light several documents and monographs bearing on particular incidents and features; but no complete account of real value has been written, Carbajal’s pretentious version being almost wholly a plagiarism from Clavigero, Mora’s a hasty compilation, and so on. As for the new bulky Spanish version by Zamacois, it is not only verbose but superficial and narrow in its research, blundering even where Prescott points the way, and representing more a feuilleton issue than a history.
Bernal Diaz del Castillo is, as I have said, the main historian of the conquest, from the exhaustive thoroughness of his material, as compared with other original writers, and from his participation in all its leading scenes, including the discovery voyages. For about half a century he survives, and sees comrade after comrade disappear from the field till but five of Cortés’ original company remain, “all of us very old, suffering from infirmities, and very poor, burdened with sons and daughters to marry, and grandchildren, and with but a small income; and thus we pass our days in toil and misery.” He is not so badly off, however, as he would have us believe, for a comfortable encomienda supplies every want, and numerous descendants throng round to minister to his comfort and listen to his tales. But as he recalls the great achievements wherein he participated, he swells with the importance of the events, and dwelling on the multiplied treasures he has assisted to capture, the reward sinks to insignificance. It is but the chronic grumble, however, of an old soldier