228

SOLÍS.

[Book VI.

considered them as part of the grand confederacy of Satan, not merelybreathing the spirit and acting under the invisible influence of thePrince of Darkness, but holding personal communication with him ; heseems to have regarded them, in short, as his regular and organizedmilitia. In this view, every act of the unfortunate enemy was a crime.Even good acts were misrepresented, or referred to evil motives ; forhow could goodness originate with the Spirit of Evil ? No better evi-dence of the results of this way of thinking need be given, than thatafforded by the ill-favored and unauthorized portrait which the historianhas left us of Montezuma, — even in his dying hours. The war of theConquest was, in short, in the historian’s eye, a conflict between lightand darkness, between the good principle and the evil principle, be-tween the soldiers of Satan and the chivalry of the Cross. It was aHoly War, in which the sanctity of the cause covered up the sins ofthe Conquerors ; and every one — the meanest soldier who fell in it —might aspire to the crown of martyrdom. With sympathies thus pre-occupied, what room was there for that impartial criticism which is thelife of history 1

The historian’s overweening partiality to the Conquerors is stillfurther heightened by those feelings of patriotism, — a bastard patriot-ism,—which, identifying the writer’s own glory with that of his coun-trymen, makes him blind to their errors. This partiality is especiallyshown in regard to Cortés, the hero of the piece. The lights andshadows of the picture are all disposed with reference to this principalcharacter. The good is ostentatiously paraded before us, and the badis winked out of sight. Solis does not stop here, but, by the artfulgloss which makes the worse appear the better cause, he calls on usto admire his hero sometimes for his very transgressions. No one, noteven Gomara himself, is such a wholesale encomiast of the great Con-queror ; and, when his views are contradicted by the statements ofhonest Diaz, Solis is sure to find a motive for the discrepancy in somesinister purpose of the veteran. He knows more of Cortés, of his ac-tions and his motives, than his companion in arms, or his admiringchaplain.

In this way Solis has presented a beautiful image of his hero,—butit is a hero of romance ; a character without a blemish. An eminentCastilian critic has commended him for “ having conducted his historywith so much art, that it has become a panegyric.” This may be true ;but, if history be panegyric, panegyric is not history.

Yet, with all these defects, — the existence of which no candid criticwill be disposed to deny, — the History of Solis has found such favorwith his own countrymen, that it has been printed and reprinted, withall the refinements of editorial luxury. It has been translated into the