The History Of The Conquest Of Peru (2nd ver) | Page 5

rebel Spaniards, themselves, - till the
supremacy of the Crown is permanently established over the country. It

is not till this period, that the acquisition of this Transatlantic empire
can be said to be completed; and, by fixing the eye on this remoter
point, the successive steps of the narrative will be found leading to one
great result, and that unity of interest preserved which is scarcely less
essential to historic than dramatic composition. How far this has been
effected, in the present work, must be left to the judgment of the reader.
No history of the conquest of Peru, founded on original documents, and
aspiring to the credit of a classic composition, like the "Conquest of
Mexico" by Solis, has been attempted, as far as I am aware, by the
Spaniards. The English possess one of high value, from the pen of
Robertson, whose masterly sketch occupies its due space in his great
work on America. It has been my object to exhibit this same story, in
all its romantic details; not merely to portray the characteristic features
of the Conquest, but to fill up the outline with the coloring of life, so as
to present a minute and faithful picture of the times. For this purpose,
have, in the composition of the work, availed myself freely of my
manuscript materials, allowed the actors to speak as much as possible
for themselves, and especially made frequent use of their letters; for
nowhere is the heart more likely to disclose itself, than in the freedom
of private correspondence. I have made liberal extracts from these
authorities in the notes, both to sustain the text, and to put in a printed
form those productions of the eminent captains and statesmen of the
time, which are not very accessible to Spaniards themselves.
M. Amedee Pichot, in the Preface to the French translation of the
"Conquest of Mexico," infers from the plan of the composition, that I
must have carefully studied the writings of his countryman, M. de
Barante. The acute critic does me but justice in supposing me familiar
with the principles of that writer's historical theory, so ably developed
in the Preface to his "Ducs de Bourgogne." And I have had occasion to
admire the skillful manner in which he illustrates this theory himself,
by constructing out of the rude materials of a distant time a monument
of genius that transports us at once into the midst of the Feudal Ages, -
and this without the incongruity which usually attaches to a
modern-antique. In like manner I have attempted to seize the
characteristic expression of a distant age, and to exhibit it in the
freshness of life. But in an essential particular, I have deviated from the
plan of the French historian. I have suffered the scaffolding to remain

after the building has been completed. In other words, I have shown to
the reader the steps of the process by which I have come to my
conclusions. Instead of requiring him to take my version of the story on
trust, I have endeavoured to give him a reason for my faith. By copious
citations from the original authorities, and by such critical notices of
them as would explain to him the influences to which they were
subjected, I have endeavoured to put him in a position for judging for
himself, and thus for revising, and, if need be reversing, the judgments
of the historian. He will, at any rate, by this means, be enabled to
estimate the difficulty of arriving at truth amidst the conflict of
testimony; and he will learn to place little reliance on those writers who
pronounce on the mysterious past with what Fontenelle calls "a
frightful degree of certainty," - a spirit the most opposite to that of the
true philosophy of history.
Yet it must be admitted, that the chronicler who records the events of
an earlier age has some obvious advantages in the store of manuscript
materials at his command, - the statements of friends, rivals, and
enemies, furnishing a wholesome counterpoise to each other; and also,
in the general course of events, as they actually occurred, affording the
best commentary on the true motives of the parties. The actor, engaged
in the heat of the strife, finds his view bounded by the circle around
him, and his vision blinded by the smoke and dust of the conflict; while
the spectator, whose eyes ranges over the ground from a more distant
and elevated point, though the individual objects may lose somewhat of
their vividness, takes in at a glance all the operations of the field.
Paradoxical as it may appear, truth founded on contemporary testimony
would seem, after all, as likely to be attained by the writer of a later day,
as by contemporaries themselves.
Before closing