Chapter VI (2)

Of much less importance than the preceding are the writings of Francisco Lopez Gomara, particularly his history of the Indies, which is an imitation rather than a genuine original, and of which too much has been made, notwithstanding Muñoz pronounces it the first history worthy the name. Although Icazbalceta, a high authority on the subject, gives the name Gómara, or Gómora, with the accent on the first syllable as the Peninsular pronunciation, with the remark that it is commonly called Gomára in Mexico, I have not thought best to depart from an almost universal usage. Bustamante goes out of his way to signify an accent where it would naturally fall, writing Gomára. Born in Seville in 1510, of an illustrious family—it seems exceptional to find any man of note in Spain whose family was not illustrious—and educated at the university of Alcalá, he became a doctor of both civil and canonical law, and filled for a time the chair of rhetoric. From the military life designed for him by his parents he was driven by literary tastes into the priesthood; and in 1540, upon the return of Cortés from his last visit to Mexico, he became chaplain and secretary to the marquis. From this some have inferred and erroneously stated that he spent four years in America prior to publishing his history. At Saragossa in 1552-3 appeared his _La Historia General de las Indias_, in two folio parts, the first general, and dealing chiefly with Peru, the other devoted to Mexico. The book was popular; and in 1553 from Medina del Campo issued another folio edition; and another from Saragossa the year following, with this difference as to the last, however, that its second part was treated as a separate work and entitled _Cronica de la nueua España con la conquista de Mexico, y otras cosas notables: hechas por el Valoroso Hernando Cortes_, while the first part appropriated the original title of _Historia General_, etc. Then appeared an edition at Antwerp, 1554, and one in which the date, 1552, is evidently spurious. The author seems to have handled government affairs too roughly; for in 1553 we find the book suppressed by royal decree, which, however, was not fully enforced, and was revoked in 1729. Barcia printed a mutilation of the two works in his _Hist. Prim._, ii., in 1749, and the two were again published, in a correct form, in _Biblioteca de Autores Españoles_, xxii., Madrid, 1852. A somewhat singular case occurred in Mexico in 1826, when was issued, in 2 volumes 8vo, _Historia de las Conquistas de Hernando Cortés, escrita en Español por Francisco Lopez de Gomára, traducida al Mexicano y aprobada por verdadera por D. Juan Bautista de San Anton Muñon Chimalpain Quauhtlehuanitzin, Indio Mexicano. Publílcala para instruccion de la juventud nacional, con varias notas y adiciones, Carlos María de Bustamante_, which being interpreted, at best is confused. It says that the work, written in Spanish by Gomara, was translated into the Mexican language, and there leaves it. On turning over the leaves we find the book printed in Spanish, and not in Nahuatl, as we were led to suppose. Nor does a lengthy preface by Bustamante make the matter clear in every respect. Turning to other sources, and by comparing all information, we finally learn that Bustamante and others once believed in the existence, somewhere, of a history of Mexico, by the learned and noble native Chimalpain. Probably it lay hidden in some one of the libraries or government offices about Mexico. Boturini spoke of various historical manuscripts written by Domingo de San Anton Muñon Chimalpain, some in Castilian, and some in Nahuatl. Note, in passing, the difference in the name, here Domingo, and in the title Juan Bautista. Clavigero, Leon Pinelo, Beristain, and Antonio de Leon y Gama also vaguely mentioned some work or works by Chimalpain. Bustamante claimed, at first, to have found the Mexican history of Chimalpain in manuscript, and obtained contributions of money from various sources to enable him to print a translation of it, with notes. But before the translation was fairly issued in Spanish, the editor was obliged to confess himself mistaken as to its being an original work; it was only Gomara rendered into Mexican by the learned Indian, and now translated back again into Spanish by Bustamante, the text much marred by the double transformation, but enriched by notes from both editors. There are men so uncharitable as to say that Don Carlos María Bustamante never found Chimalpain's translation, because Chimalpain never made one. I do not know. Any one of three or four ways was possible. Bustamante may have found the alleged translation of Chimalpain, and while translating into Spanish what he believed an original work, may have discovered it to be Gomara; it may have been then in type or printed, or too far advanced to stop; or it may be Bustamante, having received the money, felt bound to go on with the work, and concluded to trust to his own and Chimalpain's notes to satisfy those concerned and the public; or Bustamante may have perpetrated a deliberate fraud. This last, although he is openly accused of it by his countrymen high in authority, I can scarcely believe to be the true solution of the mystery, and rather lean to the first possibility; but I must say that Bustamante committed a serious mistake in not admitting this frankly, if true. Gomara's history was translated into Italian, and published at Rome, one edition, 4to, in 1555, and one in 1556; and at Venice, one in 8vo, 1565, one in 4to, 1566, and in 8vo again, in 1576. In French, at Paris, six editions in 8vo, 1569, 1578, 1580, 1584, 1587, and 1597, the last five reprints of the first, except slight augmentations in the last three. London furnished an English translation by Henry Bynneman, in 4to, in 1578. The prologue warns all persons against translating the book into Latin, as he was engaged thereat himself; but his Latin version never appeared. Gomara wrote well. His style is better than that of any predecessor; but while his opportunities were great, for he had culture, leisure, and access to the knowledge and material of Cortés, it is painfully apparent that his desire was greater to please the master than to present a plain unvarnished tale.

And now, after a century of writing and discussions, comes Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas as royal historiographer to gather, arrange, and embody in one general history all knowledge available at that time. It was a work needing attention; for if it were further postponed much information then obtainable would be lost. He was born in Cuéllar in 1549, and although the father bore the name of Tordesillas and the mother of Herrera, for the sake of euphony, distinction, or other unknown vagary, the son took the name of his mother, a thing not unusual then or now in Spain. At an early age we find him in Italy holding the position of secretary to Vespasiano Gonzaga, viceroy of Naples, upon whose death Herrera was so well recommended to Philip II. that, in 1596, he was made chief historiographer for the Indies. Honored also with the title of historiographer of Castile and Leon, he fulfilled the duties of both offices through portions of the reigns of the three Philips, II., III., and IV. He was likewise nominated for the first vacant place among the secretaries of state, but died before that vacancy occurred, in the 76th year of his age. As an historian Herrera has made a respectable place for himself, but his reputation rests principally, though not wholly, for he wrote much, on his _Historia General de los Hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas i Tierra Firme del Mar oceano ecrita por Antonio de Herrera coronista mayor de sv M:d d las Indias y sv coronista de Castilla_, 4 vols. folio, Madrid, 1601-15. On the elaborately engraved title-page of the first volume is added, _En quatro Decadas desde el Año de 1492 hasta el de 1531_, which refers only to the first two volumes, as the whole four volumes consist of 8 decades, comprising general events to 1554. The first two volumes were printed in 1601, and reprinted at Valladolid in 1606; the second two volumes appeared in 1615. The work was freely translated; the first decade appearing in French, at Paris, in 1659, and with the second decade the year following, the remaining decades in 1671. A most vile translation into English was made by John Stevens and published in London, in 6 volumes, the first two in 1725 and the last four in 1726, new editions of which appeared in 1740 and 1743. There were two reprints in Spanish; one in Antwerp, in 1728, by Verdussen, without maps and otherwise faulty; and one in Madrid, 1728-30, with notes, corrections, and index by Barcia, and therefore better than the first edition, in fact the best extant. At the end of the second volume of the first edition, and as a prefix to the first volume of the Barcia edition, should appear the _Description de las Indias Occidentales_, with maps, translations of which were made in Latin, Dutch, and French. An attempt was made to carry on Herrera's history, and it was continued for three decades, from 1555 to 1584, by Pedro Fernandez del Pulgar, the chronicler who succeeded Solis, but it was not deemed of sufficient importance to print. The original manuscript is in the Royal Library at Madrid. Herrera was quite a voluminous writer, being author of a general history during the reign of Philip II.; of a history of Scotland and England during the life of Mary Stuart; of Portugal, and the conquest of the Azores; of France from 1585 to 1594, and of moral and political tracts, and historical, political, and ecclesiastical translations. But though all his works were highly prized for their erudition, none attained the celebrity of his History of the Indies. Even to-day he may be called chief among historians of Spanish-American affairs; not for his style, bald, and accurately prolix; nor for his method, slavishly chronological, and miserably failing in the attempt to do several things at once; but because of his massed material. His position as state historiographer gave him, of course, access to everything, and he made use of his opportunity to an extent then exceptional. At a later period in the art of history-writing his work must have been regarded as crude even for early times. But from one who lived when piety and patriotism were ranked as the highest virtues, higher than truth, integrity, or humanity, the more searching philosophy cannot be expected. Beside the faults of style and arrangement there are evidences everywhere of inexperience and incompetent assistance. Now that we have before us many of the sources of Herrera's material we can see that his notes were badly extracted, and compiled in a bungling manner; so much so that in addition to the ordinary errors, from which to some extent the most carefully executed work cannot be expected to be wholly free, there are many and serious discrepancies and contradictions for which there is no excuse, the cause being simply carelessness. Yet, for all that, Herrera's is not only the most complete, but one of the most reliable of the New World chronicles, and for this the writer merits the gratitude not alone of his countrymen but of the world.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: COMMENTARY ON THE EARLY CHRONICLERS.]

Before closing this note, I will give clearly my opinion regarding the credibility of the early chroniclers, including in that category for the present purpose all the early writers, conquerors as well as historians, such as Columbus and Cortés, Bernal Diaz, Solis, Torquemada, Boturini, and the Anonymous Conqueror; for I have been assailed by those who, to gain cheap notoriety in refuting them, have attributed to me doctrines which I have nowhere expressed or held. They who cannot build for themselves seem to think it gravely incumbent on them to demolish any structure another may rear, and with one scurrile sweep they would wipe out the work of twenty years. They are correct enough to this extent, that, if ever a building is found so frail as to fall under their attacks, it does not deserve to stand. Hence we find it the fashion in certain quarters, under cover of criticism, to repudiate the early writings, in so far at least as they interfere with cherished theory or dogmatic opinion. Spain had lately emerged from the Moorish wars with great glory, they say, and Spaniards in the New World, so long as it remained with them to tell the story, would not be in the least behind their brethren at home in this new field of fiery exploits. Hence, for their accounts, naked barbarians were gorgeously apparelled, and surrounded by stately pageantry; art, science, and literature wholly mythical were given them, and cities equal, at least, to the average of civilization were built. Instance the Tenochtitlan, the Tezcuco, the Tlacopan of Cortés and his contemporaries, which must have been pure fictions. Else where are the vestiges of the walls and gardens and palaces? There are no ruins of splendid cities, they continue with the effrontery of ignorance, no remains of aqueducts, stone carvings, and tumuli. There are some fine ruins in Central America and Yucatan, they admit, displaying no mean advancement in architectural art; but they must have been the work of Egyptians, or Phœnicians, or some other foreigners, because they resemble the ruins standing among those nations, and because no aboriginal people capable of such performance exist in America to-day. There was no human sacrifice in Mexico, because bigoted ecclesiastics in those days were apt to invest with religious significance every hieroglyph, statue, and consecrated stone. One, more virulent than the rest, himself of Indian origin and apparently jealous lest other aboriginals should outshine his Cherokee ancestry, and knowing little either of the Mexicans or their conquerors, denies the existence of a Nahua or Maya civilization and denounces every one who differs in opinion with him, on the ground that all American societies of which he knew aught were formed on one skeleton, a most earthy, red, and ignoble one, and that the conquerors, not understanding this social structure, could not correctly describe it, and therefore their statements are not to be relied on.

I can only say that I have studied these chronicles some score of years, that I have studied the monumental and literary remains of the nations conquered, that, apart from the modern writings of both those who believe and those who disbelieve, I have instituted comparisons and weighed evidence with no more desire to reach one conclusion than another, except always to arrive at the right one; and that in my own mind I am well enough satisfied as to about the measure of truth that should be accorded the respective writers of early New World annals. Others, my assistants and friends, equally earnest and unbiassed, equally desirous of reaching only the truth, and for whose convictions I entertain the highest respect, have devoted many years to the same research and with similar results. It is not my purpose, nor has it ever been, to appear as the champion of the sixteenth-century chroniclers. It is not my province to champion anything. It is a matter of profound indifference to me what these or those are proven to be, whether angels of light or devils of darkness; it is a matter of lively apprehension with me that I should estimate men and nations at their value, and deduce only truth from statements fair or false. While I entertain a distinct conception of the status of the Aztecs and Quichés relatively to other nations of the globe, I have no theory concerning the origin of the Americans, or the origin of their civilization—except that it seems to me indigenous rather than exotic; nor should I deem it wise in me to husband a doctrine on this or any other palpably unprovable proposition.

I am not prepared by any means to accept as truth all that has been said by priest and soldier. No one is readier than I to admit their frequent attempted deceptions. Navigators the world over have been notoriously untrue in regard to their discoveries, giving strange lands strange sights, stocking barren shores with boundless wealth in pearls, and gems, and precious metals, peopling the ocean with monsters, and placing islands, straits, continents, and seas wherever the gaping savans at home would have them. Many of these stories are false on their very face, being contrary to nature and to reason. Some of them are unintentional falsehoods, the off-float from imaginations warped by education, and now morbidly excited under new conditions. By bodily suffering and perils the mind was now and then reduced to the border of insanity; at which times the miracles, the visions, and the supernatural interpositions they record were real to them. But the best of the early writers wilfully lied in some things, and held it serving God to do so.

[Sidenote: WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.]

Although the temptation and tendency was to exaggerate, to make the New World conquest equal or superior to any Old World achievement; although assertions were at the first not open to contradiction, and the sailors and soldiers of those times, returned from foreign parts, were no more celebrated for telling the truth than those of our own day, yet in the main and as a whole the writings of the Spaniards earliest in America are unquestionably true. Most of the several phases of error and misstatement are easily enough detected, the events described being either impossible or opposed to preponderant and superior evidence. For example, when Las Casas, who was conscientious and in the main correct, asserts that Manicaotex opposed Columbus at the head of 100,000 warriors in Española, we may safely put it down as exaggeration simply from our general knowledge, gained from other sources, of the aboriginal population of these islands and the adjoining continent. Here was a multitude of witnesses, European and American, whose verbal or written statements were usually subordinate to substantial facts, unknown to each other, and giving their evidence at widely different times and places. Often the conquerors fell out and fought each other to the death, writing to Spain lengthy epistles of vindication and vilification, many of which have been preserved; so that where one extolled himself and his achievements, there were a dozen to pull him down. Thus from a mass of contradictory statements, on either side of which the less penetrating are apt to linger, to the patient and laborious investigator unfold the clearest truths. He who habitually practises deceit is sure somewhere to expose himself; and the taking of evidence does not proceed far before the examiner can tell the witness more than he himself knows or remembers of the scenes through which he has passed. The native witnesses, living at the time of the Conquest and subsequently, were likewise naturally inclined unduly to magnify the glories of their ancestors and of their nation; yet to verify their statements they point to the monuments and material remains then and now existing, to manuscripts, huge piles of which it was the infamous boast of the fanatical conquerors to have burned, but of which enough have been preserved to authenticate all the more important parts of their stories; they also refer to tradition, which is worth as much, and no more, than that of other nations.

Blank assertions similar to those advanced against the New World chroniclers might with equal reason and effect be brought forward to overthrow the early records of any nation. Christ and Confucius may be denied, Homer and Shakespeare, but that does not prove they never lived. That Columbus made his seamen swear that no doubt Cuba was Zipangu, does not prove that there was in those days no Japan. Because Drake's chaplain chose to tell the most monstrous and wilful falsehoods respecting the climate, metals, and inhabitants of California; because Cook, Meares, and Vancouver sailed by the mouth of the Columbia, superciliously scourging those who had spoken of it, this does not prove the non-existence of Marin County, or of the River of the West. In such ways as these neither the truth of the one statement nor the falsity of the other is established. But, as I have observed, before us is abundant evidence, palpable and incontestable, that the early writings on America are for the most part true; and if, in the following pages, it does not clearly appear which are true and which false, then has the author signally failed in his effort. I do not in the least fear the overthrow of the general veracity of these writers until there come against them enemies more powerful with more powerful weapons than any that have yet appeared. How senselessly speculative their reasonings! Because the natives of the present day cannot tell who or whence were the authors of the carvings, or the builders of the structures upon whose ruins they have gazed since childhood, these works must forsooth have been done by foreign visitors. Europeans now and then may have found their way to America, but I find no evidence of such visits before the time of Columbus except by the Northmen; no one knows of such, nor can know until more light appears. The material relics, I fancy, will always prove a stumbling-block to those who would reject American aboriginal civilization.

That different conquerors, teachers, and travellers of various creeds and nationalities, in various pursuits, in different lands and at various times, together with native testimony, hieroglyphic writings, and traditions, to say nothing of carvings in stone and other monumental remains, should all combine, with satanic inspiration, to perpetrate upon the world one grand and overwhelming fraud is so preposterously ridiculous that the marvel is how there could be found, outside the walls of a lunatic asylum, a single individual with cool impudence enough to ask men to believe it. And yet there are several such, and they find believers. So charmed by the sound of their own voice are these captious cavillers, that they apparently do not deem it possible for such things to exist in this enlightened age as pedantic ignorance and literary fanaticism, of which they are bright examples. They do not seem to know that the petty and puerile theories which they would pass upon the simple as startling conceptions, original with themselves, are as old as the knowledge of the continent. They do not consider that before taking the first step toward proving origin, migration, or kinship by analogy, they must first dispose of the universal relationship of man, the oneness of human nature, human needs, and human aspirations, and then show how men first came upon this earth, and which was land and which water then and since. But those who thus array themselves against American aboriginal civilization and the early Spanish writers on the New World do not pretend to offer counter evidence, or to refute with reason; they rely chiefly on flat contradiction. I have yet to find among them all any approach to reasonable propositions or logical argument. They have nothing on which to base argument, neither fact nor plausible supposition. Their hypotheses are as chimerical as their deductions are false. They would have the world exercise a far more irrational credulity in accepting their hollow negations, than in believing every word of the most mendacious chronicler. And when they come to deny the presence of a native civilization upon the Mexican table-land, they betray lamentable ignorance both of the facts of history and of the nature of civilization.