This volume is a remarkable contribution to research and writing in Hispanic studies. The author has spent considerable time in Spanish archives, notably the Archivo General de Indias and the Archivo General de Simancas. Additionally, he has utilized an exhaustive bibliography of primary and secondary sources from the 16th century to the present. Those who have an appetite for history with footnotes will find it assuaged in the work of Luis Arocena which is documented in such a manner that it meets the most rigorous canons of historical methodology. Indeed, there are many instances in which a given page contains more notes than the text.
The book may be divided into three basic themes. There is an initial survey of the post of Official Chronicler of the Indies from Juan López de Velasco to Don Antonio de Solís y Rivadeneyra, a biographical treatment of Solís, and a final portion, about two-thirds of the text proper, which is an evaluation of Solís as a chronicler and of his place in historiography. The last two hundred pages are devoted to appendices and indices.
In the early years of Philip II’s reign there was a growing demand for reliable information on Spain’s New World colonies. To this end the Ordinances of 1571 called for the creation of the post of Official Chronicler and Cosmographer of the Indies; and the first man to enjoy these titles was Juan López de Velasco, who by 1574 had completed a draft of his Geografía y descripción universal de las Indias. The Geografía was regarded by Philip II as a guide to good government, and accordingly it was turned over to the Council of the Indies for its consideration as an aid to future legislation. After the services of the first cosmographer-historian were terminated, Philip was apparently of two minds about conferring the dual title on one man. There was a brief experiment in dividing the responsibilities; however, in Pedro Ambrosio de Ondériz, Philip combined the two functions until the mid-1590’s. With the unexpected death of Ondériz, the dual responsibilities were divided in 1596 between Andrés García de Céspedes (cosmographer) and Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas (chronicler). In the years between the appointment of Herrera (1596) and Solís (1660), the most distinguished name to serve as chronicler was Antonio de León Pinelo. Pinelo’s immediate successor was Antonio de Solís.
To explain the appointment of the new chronicler in 1660 and factors which profoundly influenced him as a historian, Arocena provides an excellent biographical sketch of Solís. In Spain’s Golden Century Solís was renowned as a man of letters and a gifted poet. As such he moved in a circle of extraordinary talent that included Velásquez and Pedro Calderón de la Barca. His connections at court plus his reputation as a writer ultimately won Solís the position of Cronista Mayor de Indias. In the later years of his life, Solís accepted Holy Orders. Thus, according to Arocena, the predominant influences on Solís were his literary skills, his awareness of the past glories of Hapsburg Spain as compared with the sad days of Charles II, and a tendency to interpret history in the light of divine intervention.
Arocena makes note that Solís considered and then rejected the task of writing a broad survey of the Indies. Apparently he was one of the first scholars to recognize the New World as being more dissimilar than similar. As a consequence, Solís settled upon the conquest of New Spain as his magnum opus.
Historians are often quick to acknowledge that their perspective has been improved by standing on the shoulders of their fellow artisans. Not Solís. Bernal Díaz was criticized for disparaging the heroic image of Hernán Cortés; Herrera was dismissed as one who attributed “efectos grandes a causas ordinarias”; Gómara was condemned to the anonymity of “dicen algunos escritores”; Las Casas was accused of rank dishonesty; and Oviedo was virtually ignored. Only in the case of Acosta did Solís acknowledge a man of sound judgment.
It is Arocena’s opinion that Solís’ Historia de la conquista de México has enjoyed continuing respect and praise since the date of its completion, despite pointed criticism from William Robertson, W. H. Prescott, and others.
To this reviewer the chief criticism of the book is not that Arocena fails to present the views of those who have accorded praise and criticism to Solís, but rather that there is too much of this and not enough Arocena.
The binding on this volume is faulty, and in the first 100 pages there is bad job of typesetting that results in words being run together. However, these imperfections are minor and do not substantially detract from a first-rate piece of research.
