The world soon saw—though the sale of the book was not large at once, and the author died very poor two years later (1686)—that the strange story had been given its highest setting. Solis gives no notes; and one needs to know the literature of the subject, to track him to his authorities. If this is done, however, it appears that his investigation was far from deep, and that with original material within his reach he rarely or never used it, but took the record at second hand. Robertson, who had to depend on him more or less, was aware of this, and judged him less solicitous of discovering truth than of glorifying the splendor of deeds. This panegyrical strain in the book has lowered its reputation, particularly among foreign critics, who fail to share the enthusiasm which Solis expresses for Cortés. We may call his bitter denunciations of the natives bigotry or pious zeal; but Ticknor accounts for it by saying that Solis “refused to see the fierce and marvellous contest except from the steps of the altar where he had been consecrated.” The religion and national pride of the Spaniards have not made this quality detract in the least from the estimation in which the book has long been held; but all that they say of the charm and purity of its style, despite something of tiresomeness in its even flow, is shared by the most conspicuous of foreign critics, like Prescott and Ticknor. Rich, who had opportunities for knowing, bears evidence to the estimation in Spain of those qualities which have insured the fame of Solis.[1212]
The story was not told again with the dignity of a classic,—except so far as Herrera composed it,—till Robertson, in his History of America, recounted it. He used the printed sources with great fidelity; but he was denied a chance to examine the rich manuscript material which was open to Solis, and which Robertson would doubtless have used more abundantly. In a Note (xcvii.) he enumerates his chief authorities, and they are only the letters of Cortés and the story as told by Gomara, Bernal Diaz, Peter Martyr, Solis, and Herrera.[1213] Of Solis, Robertson says he knows no author in any language whose literary fame has risen so far beyond his real merits. He calls him “destitute of that patient industry in research which conducts to the knowledge of truth, and a stranger to that impartiality which weighs evidence with cool attention.... Though he sometimes quotes the despatches of Cortés, he seems not to have consulted them; and though he sets out with some censure on Gomara, he frequently prefers his authority—the most doubtful of any—to that of the other contemporary historians.” Robertson judged that Herrera furnished the fullest and most accurate information, and that if his work had not in its chronological order been so perplexed, disconnected, and obscure, Herrera might justly have been ranked among the most eminent historians of his country. William Smyth, in the twenty-first section of his Lectures on Modern History, in an account which is there given of the main sources of information respecting the Conquest, as they were accessible forty or fifty years ago, awards high praise—certainly not undeserved for his time—to Robertson. Southey accused Robertson of unduly depreciating the character and civilization of the Mexicans; and others have held the opinion that he had a tendency to palliate the crimes of the invaders. Robertson, in his later editions, replied to such strictures, and held that Clavigero and others had differed from him chiefly in confiding in the improbable narratives and fanciful conjectures of Torquemada and Boturini.
Francisco Saverio Clavigero was a Jesuit, who had long resided in Mexico, being born at Vera Cruz in 1731; but when expelled with his Order, he took up his abode in Italy in 1767. He had the facilities and the occasion for going more into detail than Robertson. His Storia antica del Messico cavata da’ migliori storici spagnuoli, e da’ manoscritti; e dalle pitture antiche degl’Indiani: divisa in dieci libri, e corredata di carte geografiche, e di varie figure: e dissertazioni sulla terra, sugli animali, e sugli abitatori del Messico,[1214] was published in four volumes at Cesena in 1780-1781. He gives the names of thirty-nine Indian and Spanish writers who had written upon the theme, and has something to say of the Mexican historical paintings which he had examined. H. H. Bancroft esteems him a leading authority,[1215] and says he rearranged the material in a masterly manner, and invested it with a philosophic spirit, altogether superior to anything presented till Prescott’s time.[1216] It is in his third volume that Clavigero particularly treats of the Conquest, having been employed on the earlier chronicles and the manners and customs of the people in the first and second, while the fourth volume is made up of particular dissertations. Clavigero was not without learning. He had passed three years at the Jesuit College at Tepozotlan, and had taught as a master in various branches. At Bologna, where he latterly lived, he founded an academy; and here he died in 1787, leaving behind him a Storia della California, published at Venice in 1789.[1217]
Fifteen years ago it was the opinion of Henry Stevens,[1218] that all other books which have been elaborated since on the same subject, instead of superseding Clavigero’s, have tended rather to magnify its importance.[1219]
The most conspicuous treatment of the subject, in the minds of the elders of the present generation, is doubtless that of Prescott, who published his Conquest of Mexico in 1843, dividing it into three distinct parts,—the first showing a survey of the Aztec civilization; the second depicting the Conquest; while the final period brought down the life of Cortés to his death. Charton[1220] speaks of Solis as a work “auquel le livre de Prescott a porté un dernier coup.” Prescott was at great expense and care in amassing much manuscript material never before used, chiefly in copies, which Rich and others had procured for him, and he is somewhat minute in his citations from them. They have since been in large part printed, and doubtless very much more is at present accessible in type to the student than was in Prescott’s day.[1221]
Prescott was of good New England stock, settled in Essex County, Massachusetts, where (in Salem) he was born in 1796. His father removed to Boston in 1808, and became a judge of one of the courts. A mischance at Harvard, in a student’s frolic, deprived young Prescott of the use of one eye; and the other became in time permanently affected. Thus he subsequently labored at his historical studies under great disadvantage,[1222] and only under favorable circumstances and for short periods could he read for himself. In this way he became dependent upon the assistance of secretaries, though he generally wrote his early drafts by the aid of a noctograph.
WILLIAM H. PRESCOTT.
This cut follows an engraving in mezzotint in the Eclectic Magazine (1858), and shows him using his noctograph. The likeness was thought by his wife and sister (Mrs. Dexter) to be the best ever made, as Mr. Arthur Dexter informs me. See other likenesses in Ticknor’s Life of Prescott; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., iv. 167; and N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg. (1868), p. 226.