Bartoleme Las Casas [pp. 829-851]

Bartoleme Las Casas.
the chief royal chronicler of the Indies, and chronicler for Castile, was
ordered by the supreme council of
the Indies to prepare his.Description. It is presented in the form of
annals, where events are recorded
in the year in which they transpired.
Consequently the breaks are incessant in the regular sequence, to conform to chronological arrangement.
But historical effect was not designed; historical accuracy in the statement of facts being all that was demanded.
To this end, Herrera consulted
every book, in print or in manuscript,
known to him, and had access to
every official document in the archives of Simancas and Seville, to
insure accuracy and verify every assertion. He does not often explain
the policy or intentions of the governmnent; because statecraft, in those
days, enjoined the silence of Italian
diplomacy and practised the secrecy
of the Venetian Council of Ten. The
royal purpose in what was done or
ordered, was above the sphere of the
annalist; the introduction of personal or private biography was below
it. He took for his model and guide,
through the intricate maze of voyages,
discoveries, and adventures, the Historitz of Las Casas. He adopted
that part only, however, which his
duty required; he rejected that which
was uncertain, untrue, or purely of
personal interest. In rejecting, he
did not discredit Las Casas, believing him to be of undoubted veracity,
and in general very accurate. But
Las Casas had unavoidably fallen in to errors, from defect of memory, with
advancing years, and from misinfor mation, or from facts misunderstood
by the manner in which they reached
him. That Herrera should improve
upon him or defer to his accuracy as
a historian is not singular, and ex presses a high appreciation of his ex VOL. V. —53
cellence. Nor can it be surprising,
when called upon to pronounce, in his
Description, between the statements
of Las Casas and his enemies, Oviedo and Gomara, he should decide
that Las Casas had good cause for
much feeling against them. When
the voluminous work of Herrera was
printed, it was found to be a masterly
production; nor has its authority
been seriously questioned since. At
the present day it stands, as imputing perfect verity. It ranks with the
Annual Register and National Almanac; it is of the same class of publications, but far more extensive in its
design.
The imperfections of Las Casas in
his Historia and those portions not
quoted by Herrera are the parts
which first claim attention. In understanding his peculiar position
toward those with whom he was
thrown in contact, his inferences of
the motives by which they were actuated cannot be implicitly relied on.
He did not comprehend fully their
situation; he could not account for
their conduct, because explanations
were not made which at a flash would
have revealed the difficulties. In the
absence of those he could not refrain
from ascribing bad motives to some
officials, such as Fonseca, Bishop of
Burg,os. Others he honored, because
they were disinterested, pure, virtuous personages, with their sensibilities excited at the wrongs done to
the aborigines, and who sympathized with him in his praiseworthy enterprise. Such, in his opinion, were
Cesneros, Cardinal Ximenes, and
Adrian, Cardinal de Tortosa. These
prelates were in turn prime minis ters, but their mode of receiving
Las Casas was different. Xime nes was cold and austere in general,
with his thoughts absorbed in af fairs of state. To Las Casas his
deportment was not reserved; he
833