self. Vol. xiii. 527. Zamacois professes an impartiality which his treatment of questions does not always bear out. His Spanish instincts (he is a Spanish Basque) warp his judgment. He depicts in glowing colors the prowess and wisdom of his countrymen and government, but touches faintly upon their evil actions; and where he cannot avoid setting forth some heinous deed, he manages to provide extenuating circumstances, except in one or two instances. Even when describing the massacre of the Indian nobles in the temple of Mexico by order of Alvarado, while he disapproves the deed, be defends the motive which prompted it, taking Bernal Diaz, one of the actors, as an infallible authority. But so far as the conquest is concerned, Zamacois has evidently not consulted half the authorities, yet he assumes to chide Prescott for mistakes, and frequently raps at his fingers for deviating from Bernal Diaz, whose work is Zamacois' historical gospel. The fact is, that Prescott found many facts in works not known to the latter. It must be acknowledged, however, that full credit is given to the Indian allies of the Spaniards for their share in the conquest. Much space is devoted to the system of administration by Spain in Mexico and other colonies, comparing it with that of other nations, particularly of England in her North American colonies, invariably giving the fullest preference to the former. The author delights in showing the Anglo-Saxon to have been in those days fanatical and ignorant, as well as given to piracy upon 'harmless' Spain. He rarely misses an opportunity of airing his ill feeling against the English, and abusing their successors in North America. In his reckless onslaught he often exhibits much ignorance. He professes to have consulted, in the preparation of his work, Clavigero, Gomara, Benavente, Sahagun, Camargo, Ixtlilxochitl, Muñoz, Oviedo, Zurita, Acosta, Bernal Diaz, the Anonymous Conqueror, Solis, Las Casas, Gama, Torquemada, Betancurt, Herrera, Robertson. Zuazo, and, as he assures us, 'one hundred other illustrious writers,' among whom appear Prescott, Caro, Alaman, Zavala, Mora, Bustamante, Arrangoiz, Liceaga, Rosains, Tornel, the Riveras, and several manuscripts obtained from friends; he likewise states that he levied contributions from the Archivo Nacional of Mexico, and from precious documents which, till a recent date, enriched the religious houses of Mexico, Cortés' letters, and the letter from the town council of the Villa Rica to the king. Aside from Cortés' own letters, the author gives more credence to Bernal Diaz than to any one else, on the ground that he was an eyewitness, and a frank soldier, who in his narrative did not draw upon imagination. Robertson's work he considers truly estimable, and yet containing 'inexactitudes y contradicciones palpitantes que forman un desagradable lunar en la obra.' Raynal and Pauw are harshly criticised in a few lines as unworthy of credence. Alaman's Hist. Méj. and Disertaciones are spoken of in the highest terms of praise, and full reliance seems to have been at once placed on them, though with the saving clause that the author disagrees with the Mexican on many points. It is noticeable that, while Zamacois copies from that author page after page, giving him full credit, he also takes a large amount of facts, often almost in Alaman's own words, without crediting him therefor — which looks very much like the trick of a common plagiarist. Another peculiarity is observed in this connection: foot-notes are taken verbatim et literatim from Alaman's book, so that the reader is left to suppose that the copyist obtained them direct from the Mexican author's original sources. Zamacois shows a peculiar pleasure in correcting what he calls mistakes of Prescott, Robertson, Solis, and others, coolly asserting in divers places that the escritores extrangeros are ever disposed to misrepresent facts, or to make exaggerated appreciations of them, with the view of stigmatizing Spanish character. He repeatedly enters upon a comparison between Spanish civilization and advancement, as well as political and religious policy in America, and those of England — which is always his bugbear — invariably awarding the superiority to the former, and it may be, in some instances, not altogether wrongly. To the charge of the 'autos de fé,' as telling against Spanish civilization, he answers that they cause horror now, but when practised in Mexico — and they were very few in number — public opinion deemed
