ןויי that, whatever may have been Mr. Irving's intentions, his preface does not convey, to our minds, any just idea of the obligation, which a comparison of the two works demonstrates that he owes." To these opinions, we reiterate our unshaken adherence, and we are grossly misled, if their correctness be not, now as before, susceptible of actual demonstration. golden opinions of the great, by the ready exercise of | was, that our countryman had appropriated "withvenal tongue and pen. The truth, however, or what out full acknowledgment."1o We said, that under we honestly believed to be the truth, was on our side, the peculiar circumstances, it was due to himself, and we felt it our duty, for the sake of our litera- to have spoken more fully and more freely, than ture, not to conceal it. While we had no aspira- would have been otherwise necessary. Our very tion which could prompt us to envy Mr. Irving, and | words were these: "We confess, and with regret, no "prejudice or pique" which could induce us to injure him, we nevertheless owed him no allegiance. He had not bound us to silence by favors, nor had we a debt of any kind to him, which we hoped to pay by hosannas. We had abiding confidence in the judgment of the reading public, and believed that they would give us an impartial hearing in despite of their preconceived opinions. We decided, therefore, to present our views as the first First: As to Mr. Irving's indebtedness, and, as a of an intended series of articles on Spanish litera- preliminary thereunto, as to Mr. Navarrete's labors: ture. The responsibility which we assumed, af- Having condensed for our first number, the acfected us no farther than to render us especially count of Navarrete's labors from his own work, careful in our adherence to facts which could not we should deem it unnecessary to go, even briefly, be gainsaid. If it were the consequence of such a over the same ground, were it not that the defence course, that any reputation should founder in has been carefully delayed, until time has dimmed harbor," a result which the Knickerbocker so feel-all distinct recollection of the matters specified in ingly deprecates, we knew that it could only be be- the accusation. We are charged too, by the cause of the false colors under which the public Knickerbocker, not only with having “silently apmight decide that it had sailed, and this was of course neither our fault nor our concern. What we have written, the public have seen. We shall calmly now, proceed to review the grounds on which we rested, and to controvert the few, if any, which have been assumed against us. 66 propriated" to ourselves, Don Martin's modest account of his toil, when we actually referred our readers1 to the volume and page whence we took it—but with (strange to say) both "translating and exaggerating it." How the performance of these two opposite things, at the same time, is possible, Our readers will sustain us in the assertion, that is a matter which one, so technical as our oppowe have never, for a moment, denied the high nent, in grammatical purity, may perhaps be able merit and value of Mr. Irving's History. On the to explain; but we defy any one who can undercontrary, the text of our first article contains, in stand the original, to point out the particular in full, the tributes paid to it by Bancroft and Pres- which we have varied a tittle from the substance cott, for a knowledge of which the Knickerbocker of its text. Our readers cannot doubt, in view of which refers to them, is doubtless, as for other in- the spirit of our "puncturer," that if such variances formation, indebted to our pages. To these, we had existed, they would have been duly exposed to ourselves added, that the critical world had con- their proportionate battery of opprobrious epithet. firmed, by their approbation, his choice of his sub- Let us then recapitulate': For five and thirty ject, and his fitness to do it justice-annexing fur-years, Don Martin Navarrete, with his associates, ther our humble opinion, that he "had surely per- had been engaged, under pay of his government, in formed his task, with accuracy, judgment, and seeking out, among the libraries of Spain, manuinfinite beauty." We expressly admitted, that he scripts relating to her elder voyagers. Amid dust had "acted wisely and well in availing himself of and the worm, in war and peace, he had gone on, his predecessor's labors," and that he had displayed through all that time, with an industry that never the highest order of historical merit by combining flagged, amassing folio on folio, until, in 1825, he his materials with taste and talent. It is utterly published, as the first fruits of his labor, two vountrue, that we did ever stigmatize Mr. Irving's lumes relating to the life and voyages of Columwork as merely "an unacknowledged re-production bus. These volumes, covering a thousand closely of Don M. F. Navarrete's collection." Precisely printed pages, contain a learned and comprehenin the same category, is the twin assertion of the Knickerbocker, quoted above, that we labored to prove that "Mr. Irving made no researches, &c. but without acknowledgment, stole his materials ready prepared to his hand." We challenge the production of a sentence or a word, in any way countenancing such allegations. Our accusation own hand; together with the narrative of Diego ; sive introduction; the history of the first voyage to America, written by Columbus himself, and occupying near two hundred pages; that of the second voyage, by Dr. Chanca, the companion of the discoverer, with a memorial from Columbus himself; those of the third and fourth from the great man's Mendez, numerous letters of Columbus, and other | being "accessible," if Navarrete had not advised illustrative documents, comprising among them near-him and the world, of their existence, importance, ly two hundred diplomatic papers, bearing upon the subject. Very many of these documents-nay, all the most important of them, were, for the first time, brought to light. All of them were original and accurate-taken from sources which could not be questioned-copied and verified with scrupulous exactness. It had required the united talents of a band of antiquarians, to decipher them from their originals-all the libraries and archives of Spain to furnish them—all the toil of a third of a century, to make the collection complete. The work was just from the press, when Mr. Irving was found in Madrid. In twenty-one months thereafter, his History, in three octavo volumes, came, finished, from his hands! and location? It was easy enough to find them, after he had been told where they were. All discoveries are readily "accessible," when the "open sesame" has once been spoken. America was just as 66 accessible" before the discovery as after, but still Columbus has some merit in having found out its accessibility. Let us take an example: In vol. 2., p. 159 of our edition of the History of Columbus, a note will be found, which embodies a slight sketch of Diego Mendez. It is there stated, that "his curious and characteristic testament is in the archives of the Duke of Veraguas, in Madrid." Now Mr. Irving states, in his preface, that he inspected those archives personally, and the inference naturally follows, that he inspected this tes How much did Navarrete contribute to the value tament also, it being an important paper. Of the of that History? fact of such inspection, we have, indeed, no doubt. But yet, if we turn to 1 Navarrete's Collection, pp. 314 to 329, we shall find that all the pertinent portions of the instrument, had been faithfully trans These preliminaries then being settled, we recur to our question: How much did Navarrete contribute to the value of Irving's work? The Knickerbocker states, as "the result of a careful examination, that all the facts which Mr. Irving did actually derive from this source, (Navarrete,) not accessible elsewhere, would not, col-cribed from the same archives, and placed in Mr. lectively, fill six of the twelve hundred pages, con- Irving's hands before he began his work. In other tained in his Life of Columbus." Such a statement places, Mr. Irving quotes the document, himself, leaves but two conclusions open to us. Either its from Navarrete. Now, the question is, whether author has never read Navarrete, or he thinks, with Mr. Irving is entirely free from obligation to NaFag, in the Rivals, that his little aberrations from varrete, simply because the document is "accessithe right line are "nothing, unless he supports ble elsewhere;" and whether Navarrete is to be them." Before we proceed to combat so reck- left without credit, although he first drew public less an assertion, it is necessary that we should attention to the paper, published it himself, and make one or two obvious remarks on its lan- indicated where others could find it, if they wished guage. If, by saying that the facts of which to go beyond his pages? Who is entitled, in such he speaks, would not, "collectively, fill" six pa- a case, to the merit of industry, research, and ges, the Editor means it to be understood, that learning? The point is too clear for argument. the mere enumeration of those facts would not fill such space, we shall certainly not dispute the proposition; for, in the edition which we have (Philad. 1835) of the Life, the united tables of contents of The History of Columbus contains every new the two volumes do not go beyond six pages and and valuable fact, and the results of every new and a quarter. If, however, it is intended to be said, valuable discovery, which Navarrete only had prothat Mr. Irving has not filled six pages, with nar- mulged. It contains, in its whole extent, referrative drawn from materials, which but for Navar-ences to but two13 original documents not to be rete he would never have known-a simple inspec- found in Navarrete. One of the two is utterly intion of the references is abundantly sufficient, as significant, and the other was taken from a certified we shall show, to prove the utter groundlessness copy, already prepared for another historian. It of the boast. Again: It will be observed that the proposition which we oppose, is particular in its reference to facts, "not accessible elsewhere." Can the Editor mean to convey the idea, that Mr. Irving owes no obligation to Navarrete for facts and documents, which are "accessible" in other places than his collection? If so, then it is easy to prove that Mr. Irving has no indebtedness at all-for all the documents in Navarrete's volumes are cessible elsewhere," that is to say in the places where he found them. But what would have signified the importance of all those documents, if no one had known of their existence? And what advantage would Mr. Irving have derived from their ac refers to no manuscript work of any importance, scripts, printed by Navarrete, and quoted as if from the 66 from Navarrete. Mr. Irving, in his Preface, pro- | Irving acknowledged his indebtedness to the work, fesses only to have examined the Royal Library of which formed "the only authentic basis of his Madrid, that of San Isidro, the archives of Vera- own?" How fully has he given credit to "reguas, the papers of Munoz, and the collection of searches," the "results" whereof were all that he Mr. Rich. Over the first four, Navarrete's whole could add to what the world had "before known?" compilation and introduction show that he had pre- In the opening of this part of the subject, we ask viously passed; and there is no reference, made our readers to bear us witness, that we never have by Mr. Irving, to any important fact or document charged Mr. Irving with neglecting his predeceswhich his predecessor has not given us therefrom. sor altogether. We particularly quoted his lanIf the library of Mr. Rich were, as the Preface guage of acknowledgment, such as it is, and constates, his "main resource throughout the whole tented ourselves with saying, that, to us, it did not course of his labors," where is there a reference to appear "quite explicit enough”—it conveyed the a single valuable fact or document with which that idea that the History was principally the result library made him acquainted ?16 We have searched of his own particular researches, made originally carefully for such a thing, and it cannot be found. and personally"--it "led the mind of the AmeriIf it can, let it be pointed out. We pause for a can reader, to a notion of independence and origireply. And yet, in the face of facts like these, it nality, which did not exist." These views we is imagined, and gravely too, that men are to be propose again to verify. We will, however, first frightened from their propriety by a roll-call of observe, that we cannot understand the force of hard names—that a reading community are to have the Knickerbocker's argument1—that because the eyes, and see not! It is strenuously insisted, that names of Irving and Navarrete "go side by side" Mr. Irving, in twenty-one months, did not only in the Paris edition of the latter, therefore there "collate all the works he could find relative to his has been no harm done. Had Mr. Irving any subject, in print and manuscript," but that he did share in the production of the Paris edition? Has actually discover all the original documents, and he transferred its introduction to any subsequent make a comparison," as far as in his power!" edition of his own? Does he any where quote it This too, without the interposition of a solitary or refer to it? Has he any where used it, so as miracle! It is evident to every honest mind, that himself to place Navarrete "side by side" with such a comparison could only have been made with himself? If he have not, as is the fact, how can the documents as published by Navarrete, or as such a thing establish his fairness? He must be made "accessible elsewhere," by his industry and tried on his own merits, and so we shall proceed toil-wasted life. In either case, to whom must with him. posterity award the meed of fame, when they come to render that impartial judgment which can neither be purchased nor forced; which cannot be averted by the assumption of dignity, nor escaped by the small parade of unreasoning denunciation ? 1. As to his preface, we invite the reader to take it up, as we analize it, and to judge for himself, whether we treat it fairly, or commit on it the manifold "impudent and impertinent" misdemeanors, which have been ascribed to us, with equal truth and decorum. We hold ourselves then, fully justified by the facts, in all our positions as to Mr. Irving's indebt- Our historian was called to Madrid by Mr. Everedness. A repetition of Mr. Prescott's opinion ett, who desired that he should translate Navarmust place them beyond controversy. The two rete's work, then in the press. When that work volumes of Navarrete, says that eminent historian, was published, he found it "to contain many documust be regarded "as the only authentic basis, on ments hitherto unknown, which threw additional which any notice of the great navigator can here- light on the discovery of the New World, and after rest. Fortunately, Mr. Irving's visit to which reflected great credit on the researches of Spain, at this period, enabled the world to derive the learned editor: still, the whole presented rather the full benefit of Sr. Navarrete's researches, by a mass of rich materials for history, than a history presenting their results, in connection with what-itself." The work, though precious, was disjointever had been before known of Columbus, in the lucid and attractive form, which engages the attention of every reader."17 ed, and therefore unpromising for translation. Yet, still, the subject was national, and he was unwil ling to abandon it. On reflection, he perceived, The second question then is-how far has Mr. that there were, in many languages, many incomplete works on the subject, with many valuable 16 The only traces of Mr. Rich's library, which a 64 careful examination" discloses, are to be found in two copies of tracts existing only in manuscript. He thought the MSS. of Bernaldez--by no means a rare book, and that a digest of those materials would be a task at quoted by all historians-and a rare edition of the Itinera- once agreeable to himself, and acceptable to others, rium Portugalensium containing a letter of Vespucci, which and he determined to undertake it. He found enwas and is, without difficulty, "accessible elsewhere:" Vide Hist. Col., edit. ut supr., vol. 1, 289; vol. 2, 334 and American Consul, Mr. Rich, had a rare and extencouragement in the facilities about him. The 250. 17 2 Prescott, Ferd. and Isab., 133 in not. 18 Lit. Mess., March 1811, p. 233. 19 Aug. Knick. 197. sive library which was put at his command, and descant on his own "labors;" takes up Don Mar"formed his main resource, throughout the whole tin again, for a compliment to his high qualities, in course of his labors." The Royal Library of Ma- the abstract, and drops him finally, without a syldrid, and that of San Isidro, were likewise open to lable of frank confession, to dwell on the more proaccess. "From Don Martin de Navarrete, he re-minent theme of his own "collations," "compaceived the most obliging assistance, communica- risons" and "researches." Is not the idea palpably ting various valuable and curious pieces of infor- conveyed and enforced, that he went beyond Don mation, discovered in the course of his researches. Martin's work, to find and digest manuscript Nor can he refrain from testifying his admiration "tracts" of his own, in addition to those which his of the self-sustained zeal of that estimable man, predecessor had published? Is it not obvious, that one of the last veterans of Spanish Literature, the line is designed to be clearly drawn, between who is almost alone, yet indefatigable in his la- Navarrete's labours and his own, so that the reader bors, in a country, where, at present, literary ex- may consider the one independent of the other, ertion meets but little excitement or reward." He and above it? Now, as we have said-if those then acknowledges the liberality of the Duke of valuable "tracts" were found-if those manuscript Veraguas, and other gentlemen-ending the mate-"letters, journals, and public acts," were discoverrial portion of his remarks, by saying that "he has ed and digested by Mr. Irving, where and what are diligently collated all the works he could find, rela- they? Let the hand be laid on one of them-let tive to his subject, in print and manuscript, compar- the volume and page which they have illustrated ing them, as far as in his power, with orginal docu- or supplied, be mentioned or referred to. We have ments, those sure lights of historic research." as yet, seen no one who has been able to point Here, then, the reader has the sum and sub- them out-but if they exist, it is surely much stance of Mr. Irving's acknowledgments. We do easier, and more rational, to indicate them, than to not deny that they contain handsomely turned fret and fume through a laboured tirade, in violacompliments to Navarrete. But we have shewn tion of good taste, good sense, and good manners. that Mr. Irving is indebted to that gentleman If, however, no such original discoveries do exist, for every fact, not "known before," which he as the absence of all reference to them must rather details. We have sought in vain, for a single re- conclusively prove, then, we ask, in all reason, ference to an important original document-from whether Mr. Irving's Preface does justice to Nathe collection of Mr. Rich, or from any other-varrete or himself? And yet, because we have, which is not to be found in Navarrete, or was not with these things before us, dared to say what is made "accessible" by his toil. We have shewn, evident, and have not, like the great Sancho, to that, to have compared all extant works on the sub- whom we are likened, been willing to have our eyes ject, with all the documents, would have been be- bandaged, and swear that we see constellations, yond human power, in a mere score of months," before God and our conscience," we are to be viwithout Navarrete's assistance. We have proven sited by the Knickerbocker's wrath, to a degree as by facts, corroborated by the testimony of Pres- terrible, as that which haunted meek Ichabod, cott, that Navarrete's book was "the only authentic basis" on which Mr. Irving could, and did build. Now, we ask, in view of these things-not whether the preface contains compliments-but whether it contains one becoming acknowledgment? Could any one infer from it, the extent of the obligations under which its author was resting? How could Mr. Rich's library have been his "main resource," and Navarrete his "only authentic basis?" And how can he be deemed to have paid his debt, by talking in general terms, of "rich materials"-" great credNot only does that Preface convey to our minds, it”—“self-sustained zeal,” and “various" pieces of no just idea of Mr. Irving's obligations, but it has information? The question is not-has he paid been equally uninstructive to those of his friends, any tribute? but has he paid enough? and of the who have relied on it, without examining for themright sort? Does he, any where, speak of Navar- selves. As we proved by quotations in our first rete's labors, as having guided, lightened, strength- number, which can be too easily referred to,20 to ened and sustained his own? Does he put himself need repetition, the Legislature of the State of and Navarrete" side by side," in the credit of his New-York, their Committee on Colleges, and the preparation? No where. It is palpable to the Secretary of State, together with numerous redullest glance, that he first praises Don Martin, in echoing periodicals, have laid the whole merit of the widest generalities; announces that he forsook profound, protracted and original research excluhis collection for a broader field-for a digest of sively at Mr. Irving's door. Of Navarrete there written works and manuscript tracts; proceeds to 20 March No. 1841, Lit. Mess. pp 235, 236. when he thought of Hans Van Rippel's vengeance for the desecration of his Sunday saddle! It ought certainly to be a source of painful regret to us, that we have not a happy fancy, or unscrupulous facility, which might avert so serious a calamity. But we have not yet done. We now, in the due course of things, have come to: 2. The impression which Mr. Irving's Preface has left upon the public. This is certainly the fairest test of its frankness. 66 is neither thought nor word. With the authors of defence, which is argued with even more than the those praises we have no quarrel, for it cannot be author's characteristic disregard of fact and prosupposed, that they had ever seen any of the few priety, a paragraph is triumphantly paraded from copies of Navarrete, which were in the country; the Introduction to Navarrete's third volume. At their only fault, therefore, was, that of too great first sight, we had imagined that some new and confidence. They had their "idol," as the Knick- shining light had fallen on the question, but we diserbocker neatly expresses it, and they were no covered, upon further examination, that we, our"iconoclasts." But we must repeat, solemnly and selves, had furnished the Knickerbocker with this, as seriously, our utter inability to comprehend how with the rest of his newest information on the subject. Mr. Irving himself could gather together this It is an unacknowledged' copy, literally taken from a friendly incense, and burn it, with his own hand, translation of our own, which we published originally, before his own image. We have before us a copy that the public might have the whole merits before of the Abridgement of his History, written by him- them. We beg our readers to recur to it." They self; entered in his own name, in the District will find, however, that while our opponent was Clerk's Office of New-York, and printed in 1838. not above making this "silent appropriation" of Prefixed thereunto, is the whole long list of flatter- our "inflated and ungrammatical" labours, he ing notices to which we have alluded-the mani- could not consent to leave our typography unmofold outpourings of friendly admiration. The chief lested. Navarrete's admission that Irving had “an of these the very articles which honor him most opportunity of examining excellent books and preas a son of the State of New-York-claim for cious manuscripts," is duly marshalled in conspicuhim the praise of having, of his own mere motion, ous italics, while the declaration that "he had always sought and "discovered in the libraries of Spain" at hand, the authentic documents which we (Navarby his assiduous "personal researches," during rete) had just published," is reduced from the prosome years of his life," "the original and unpub-minent position which we gave it, to the humility of lished documents," by means whereof "he has common type. Most important too, of all, the Knickbeen enabled to correct the errors, and supply the erbocker has entirely (of course accidentally) omitdefects of preceding writers!" That these praises ted our allusion to Navarrete's other assertion, that in their extent, are utterly unfounded, and as to his work had been "translated" in this country→ Navarrete, grossly and sadly unjust, Mr. Irving an assertion taken from the self-same page of his himself would not deny. From their having been Introduction, with that which contains the passage written and promulged, it is perfectly clear that so carefully transplanted. As we have said, we do their intelligent writers derived from Mr. Irving's not charge the fact of "translation" ourselves, but Preface no knowledge at all—much less a thorough Mr. Navarrete's idea on the subject, may well understanding of his obligations to Navarrete. From the other fact of their being found in the place whence we have taken them, in Mr. Irving's own book, one of two consequences is inevitable. We are very far from conceding, that any exEither they found their way there by Mr. Irving's pressions of satisfaction on the part of Navarrete, privity, or they did not. If they did not, as we even if distinctly made, would be at all conclusive fain would hope, what apology can be given for Mr. of this controversy. No one here can know, how Irving's surrendering his own reputation, and that far that gentleman's knowledge of our language of his "venerable friend," into the hands of his would enable him to distinguish between the amiabookseller, with such strange and reckless readi- ble compliments of Mr. Irving's Preface, and the ness? If they did-then we might, but for our more positive avowals which the case required. Beown sake, quote the language of the Knickerbock-sides, who can say with what small acknowledgments er, and suggest that "larcenous perceptions" be the Spanish author's proverbial modesty would be no more mentioned, in this controversy. illustrate his notions of Mr. Irving's history, when the fact is known, that, save in Irving's pages, there is no compend or version of Navarrete among us. satisfied, or by what private tributes, the general But, we are told, that from our decision, and expressions of the Preface may have been explainfrom the incontrovertible facts on which it rests, ed into ample recognition. We have information our opponent appeals to a higher tribunal, viz: to of a letter which was published in Seville, and Navarrete himself. It is said that this "venerable which accompanied the gift of Irving's History to friend" (dulcissime rerum!) had read the histo- Don Martin. We have not ourselves seen the ry, and had “avowed satisfaction and admiration." "tract," but if our informant were not in error, He saw no evidences of "a translation of his its language was less diplomatic than that of the book" (a thing, by the way, which we never Preface. Perhaps the Knickerbocker can favor dreamed of charging,) no signs that it had "served as a text-book," no "juggling promises of unperformed researches." And yet, he had seen all that we had seen and read, with such widely different conclusions. To sustain this portion of the' us with its republication. In any event, however, inasmuch as the question is not, whether Navar. rete is satisfied, but whether Irving is original and fair, we must claim to form our own opinions from 21 Sou. Lit. Mess., March No., 1841, pp. 237. |