Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés was of the noble family of Oviedo in Asturias. In early childhood, before entering the service of Prince Juan, he was with the duke of Villa Hermosa. While watching the fall of Granada he met Columbus, and afterward witnessed his triumph at Barcelona. After the death of his young master in 1497, who in fact was of his own age, Oviedo went to Italy, where art and science were enlivened by war, serving under Frederico of Naples, and sometimes jewel-keeper to Queen Juana. Married at Madrid, in 1502, to the beautiful Margarita de Vergara, whom he lost in childbirth ten months after, he plunged into the excitement of war, serving as secretary to Córdoba in the French campaign. Marrying again, he hovered about the court until, in his thirty-sixth year, his dwindling fortunes sent him with Pedrarias to Darien, in the capacity before mentioned. His doings there will be told in the text of this history; suffice it to say here that most of his time there was spent in broils with the governor, beside which he had to endure the loss of his wife and child, imprisonment, and the dangerous wound of an assassin's knife. But, obtaining at last the appointment of Pedro de los Rios in place of Pedrarias, and for himself the governorship of Cartagena, which office, however, he never exercised, after three years' further residence in Tierra Firme, this time in Nicaragua, he returned to Spain in 1530, spent two years in arranging his notes, resigned his veeduría, and received the appointment of Cronista general de Indias. In the autumn of 1532 he went to Santo Domingo, and although appointed the following year alcalde of the fortress of Santo Domingo, the remainder of his life was passed chiefly in literary work. After an eventful life of seventy-nine years he died at Valladolid in 1557, while engaged in the preparation for the press of the unpublished portion of his history. Throughout the whole of his career Oviedo seems to have devoted every spare moment to writing. Even before he was appointed royal chronicler he was an indefatigable collector of material. He was well acquainted with the prominent persons of his time, and few expeditions were made without adding to his store. Want of discrimination in the use of authorities is more prominent in his writings than want of authorities. Of twelve literary efforts but one, beside those relating to America, found its way into print. He formed the plan of writing about the New World long before he first crossed the ocean, and actually began his history, according to José Amador de los Rios, before 1519, keeping open the general divisions for additions to the day of his death. After his return from the second voyage to Darien he wrote at the request of the king, and chiefly from memory, as his notes were at Santo Domingo, De la Natural Hystoria de las Indias, printed at Toledo in 1526. This work was republished by Barcia, Historiadores Primitivos, i., translated into Italian by Ramusio, Viaggi, iii., and garbled by Purchas in His Pilgrimes, iv. 5. This, it must be borne in mind, is totally distinct from the Historia General y Natural de las Indias, Islas y Tierra-Firme del Mar Océano, por el Capitan Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés, primer cronista del Nuevo Mundo, and which alone admits the author to the first rank as a historian. The General History was originally divided into three parts, containing in all fifty books. The first part, comprising nineteen books, with the preface and ten chapters of the fiftieth book—not 20, 21, or 22 books as different bibliographers state—was published during the author's life at Seville in 1535, under the title Historia General, etc., and republished at Salamanca in 1547 as Hystoria General. This rare issue contains in several places a few columns of additional matter which have not escaped my attention. An Italian version of the same parts was published by Ramusio in his Viaggi, iii.; the first ten books were translated into French and published as Histoire Naturelle, etc., Paris, 1556; the twentieth book, or the first of the second part, was published separately at Valladolid in 1557 as Libro XX., etc. Thirteen chapters of Book XLII., relating to Nicaragua, were published in French by Ternaux-Compans, Histoire du Nicaragua, in his second series of Voyages, iii., Paris, 1840. Finally, the fifty books complete were beautifully and accurately printed at Madrid in four folio volumes, with plates, by the Real Academia de la Historia in 1851-55. The editor, José Amador de los Rios, gives in an introduction the best notice of the life and writings of the author extant. Oviedo was not a learned man like Peter Martyr, and it is doubtful if a further insight into the books of the day would have made him any wiser; yet a man who could dictate the natural history of a new country without his notes cannot be called illiterate. He knew Latin and the modern languages; but his familiarity with Latin was not sufficient to prevent an unpleasant parade of it. Nor did he possess the genius or practical sagacity of Las Casas; yet his extraordinary opportunities were not wholly wasted, nor did life at court, political quarrels, or gold-gathering at any time wholly stifle his ambition to achieve the useful in letters. Oviedo was a fair example of the higher type of Spaniard of that day; he was intelligent, energetic, brave; but cold, unscrupulous, and cruel. And this is true, without going full length with Las Casas in his fiery fanaticism when he says:—"Oviedo should regret what he has written of the Indians; he has borne false witness against them; and has calumniated them in every way.... He should have inscribed on his title-page, 'This book was written by a conqueror, robber, and murderer of the Indians, whole populations of whom he consigned to the mines, where they perished'.... His work is as full of lies as of pages." To which sentiment I by no means subscribe. Probably no kind of work, however thoroughly and conscientiously done, is more open to criticism, is more certain to be criticised on every side, than contemporaneous history from facts for the first time gathered, and from many and conflicting witnesses. Ternaux-Compans says well:—"Oviedo n'est pas exempt des préjugés de son temps contre les Indiens, mais après tout, ce qu'il dit se rapproche plus de la vérité que les peintures fantastiques de l'évêque de Chiapa, qui veut retrouver l'âge d'or même chez les nations les plus féroces." Both of these authors, Las Casas and Oviedo, wrote in the heat of the engagement of the abnormal and ill-understood scenes passing under their immediate notice. What they wrote was certainly true to them; it is our business to analyze and sift, and make their records true to us. In the showy criticisms of these and a kindred class of authors we see generally something brought in about style and arrangement. The latter is always bad, and the index worse than none; but critics should find something better to do than find fault with the words and their arrangement of these old fighting chroniclers. Of course their style is bad, abominable; but who cares for style in them? One wants only the facts. Their books are not made to be read, but to be used. Rios seems to entertain a proper appreciation of the matter when he writes:—"Mas ya fuera porque procurase dar á su lectura aquella diversidad, tantas veces por él apetecida, ya porque la misma fatiga é irregularidad con que recibia los datos, le impidiese someterlos á un plan maduro é inalterable; es lo cierto que la crítica de nuestros dias, al par que aprecia y agradece tan interesantes inquisiciones, echa de menos cierta cohesion y armonia en la exposicion de las costumbres de los indios, no hallando mayor enlace en la narracion de los descubrimientos y conquistas, que ni se refieren siempre en órden cronológico, ni guardan entre sí la conveniente relacion para que pueda comprenderse sin dificultad su influencia recíproca."
PETER MARTYR'S WORKS.
While the Protector of the Indians and the First Chronicler of the New World were thus gathering and recording historical data in the several parts of America, one of the most learned men of Europe, Pietro Martire d'Anghiera, or latinized Anglerius, commonly called Peter Martyr, was collecting similar facts in Spain, and recording them, copiously diluted with the philosophy of the day, in the form of ten-year epochs, constituting in the end a series of decades. The duchy of Milan was the early home of this chronicler, and 1457 the year of his birth. His family was of noble descent, and originally of Anghiera. Going to Rome in 1477 to finish his education, he became so conspicuous for learning and eloquence that ten years later the Spanish ambassador invited him to try his fortune at the court of the Spanish sovereigns. By them he was graciously received, especially by Isabella, who wished to occupy him in the instruction of the young nobles of Castile. The ardent Italian must have a taste of war, however, before settling into permanent sagedom; so he fought before Baza, and laid not down the sword till the city of the Alhambra fell. Then he became a priest, and turned toward pursuits more in keeping with his natural bent and erudition. He opened various schools of learning, which youth of quality made it the fashion to attend. Having risen into high consideration at court, in 1501 he was sent by the crown on missions to Venice and Cairo, in which he acquitted himself creditably, and wrote on his return the De Legatione Babylonicâ, an account of Lower Egypt in three books. On Ferdinand's death he was appointed by Jimenez ambassador to the Sultan Selim, but refused the honor on account of his age; and afterward he did not find Charles less inclined to acknowledge his merits. During the three years following his return from Egypt he was appointed prior of the cathedral of Granada, and by the pope apostolic prothonotary, and in 1518 he took his seat in the Council of the Indies. His life was one of rare industry, in which he gathered and disseminated much knowledge, and which gained him the respect of princes; his death occurred in 1526, in the 69th year of his age, and he was buried in his cathedral at Granada. Peter Martyr is the author of at least two great works, viewed historically. They are written in Latin, of anything but Ciceronian ring, for patristic is to the patrician Latin as the 'Frenche of Stratford atte Bowe' is to the French of Paris. Of these his two notable works the chief is De Orbe Novo, an account of the New World and its wonders, in eight decades, or books. The first, and the first three, of these decades were published at different times during the author's life, but the eight decades complete did not appear before 1530, when they were printed at Alcalá under the title De Orbe Novo Petri Martyris ab Angleria Mediolanensis Protonotarii Cæsaris senatoris decades. Three of the decades translated into English by R. Eden were printed in 1555, and reprinted in 1577, with another decade added by R. Willes. The best complete edition of the eight decades, in their original Latin, next appeared in Paris, published by R. Hakluyt, 1587. Indeed, beside the edition of 1530, this is the only complete original edition of the De Orbe Novo. In 1612 appeared the work entire in English, the result of the 'Industrie and painefull Trauaile of M. Lok Gent.' This has been included in a supplement to Hakluyt's Voyages, London, 1812. Beside these important editions, partial translations, extracts, and compilations have appeared at various times and in various languages. In 1534, at Venice, in Italian, were published, in three several parts, summaries of the history of the Indies taken from Peter Martyr, Oviedo, and others. The other of the two works alluded to is a collection of Peter Martyr's letters, in Latin, which brim with notices of contemporary events, and run from 1488 to his death. Two editions of these collected letters were published, the first at Alcalá in 1530, the second at Amsterdam, by the Elzevirs, in 1670. The title runs thus—Opus Epistolarum Petri Martyris Anglerii Mediolanensis, etc.; a translation of the letters has never been published. So confused, misdated, and interposed are the epistles that Hallam expressed his disbelief in any connection whatever between actual and ostensible dates and service. But the De Orbe Novo may be regarded equal in authority to the relations of the eye-witnesses Las Casas and Oviedo. Peter Martyr was the first of the chroniclers to write and to publish on the New World, his decades beginning to appear about the time Oviedo first went to the Indies. Immediately Columbus set foot on shore, on his return from the first voyage, the eloquent and philosophic scholar began to question him and those who came with him, and to write, and he never ceased writing until death stopped him. There was so much for a man of his mind to think and talk about. For a time after this marvellous discovery the learned and intelligently curious lived in a ferment concerning it. It was to some extent the revolutionizing of science and philosophy. The lines of tradition were snapped; the cosmos had lost its continuity. Peter Martyr, a grave man of broad and deep capabilities; well situated for procuring information, meeting daily, many of them at his own table, those who had returned from the Indies—discoverers, conquerors, explorers, sailors, priests, and cavaliers—having access to the official letters, diaries, charts, and relations of these men, his account, I say, should be as reliable and as valuable as that of one who had actually mingled in the scenes described. In some respects it should be more so, able as he was to see with a hundred eyes instead of two, and to determine disputes more coolly and equitably. It is true his, records are marred by the haste with which they were written, and by the admitted lack of correction or revision by the author; order and method are nowhere present; mistakes and contradictions are frequent. But we have the raw material, which is far better than any elaboration. Las Casas was the first of the chroniclers to visit the Indies, and the last of the three thus far named to begin to write and publish history, which was in 1552. Oviedo began to write at about the date the history of Las Casas terminates. It was four years after the death of Peter Martyr that Oviedo was appointed official chronicler of the New World. The general relations of the three historians were antagonistic; from which their writings may all the better be brought to harmonize with truth. Of the hundreds who have made their criticisms on the writings of Peter Martyr I will mention but two. Says Las Casas, Hist. Ind., i. 32: "De los cuales cerca destas primeras cosas á ninguno se debe dar más fe que á Pedro Martir;" and Muñoz remarks, Hist. Nuevo Mundo, xiii.: "Merece indulgencia por el candor con que lo confiesa todo, por su ningun afan en publicar sus borrones, y principalmente porque tal qual es la obra de las décadas contiene muchísimas especies que no se hallan en otra parte alguna, y estas escritas con la conveniente libertad por un autor coetáneo, grave, culto, bien instruido de los hechos, y de probidad conocida."
GOMARA AND HERRERA.
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.
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.