While there was no little exaggeration, and some downright mendacity, such were the number of the witnesses, the time, place, and circumstances of their several relations, and the clearness of their testimony, that we find no difficulty with regard to any important matters in determining truth and falsehood. When in addition to the writings of the Spaniards we have native records and architectural remains as collateral evidence, every honest searcher after truth may be satisfied.
In regard to the two writers by the name of Diaz who accompanied the first expedition to Mexico, I have spoken of the Itinerario de Grijalva of the priest, and before closing this volume I will review the Historia Verdadera of the soldier.
Following these were the memorials of the relatives of Velazquez, wholly unreliable; the relation of the Anonymous Conqueror, whose statements were for the most part true; many documents, such as the Carta del Ejército, and Probanza de Lejalde, as well as the Cartas de Cortés, in the main true, but which may properly be accepted only after close scrutiny and careful comparison; the reports of Zurita, and the innumerable papers and documents lately brought to light by Navarrete, Ramirez, Icazbalceta, Ternaux-Compans, and others, and published as Coleccion de Documentos Inéditos, Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, etc.; native and Spanish historians, Tezozomoc, Camargo, and Ixtlilxochitl; Duran, Veytia, Sahagun, Mendieta, and Las Casas; Oviedo, Peter Martyr, and Gomara; Herrera, Torquemada, Solis, and Clavigero; Bustamante, Robertson, Prescott, and Brasseur de Bourbourg.
These and others of but little inferior importance offer ample foundation on which the modern historian may safely rear his superstructure.
I say that it is easy enough to determine truth from falsehood in such a study as this, where the evidence is so abundant and the witnesses are so widely separated.