In general, Mr. Wilson contents himself with the barest, though broadest, denial of the statements of his authorities, or with silently substituting his own version of the facts in place of theirs.  But he sometimes condescends to argue the point.  His logic is ingenious, but singularly monotonous.  His arguments are all drawn from one source, namely, his own personal experience.  The Tlascalan wall, described by Cortes and Diaz, can never have been in existence, for Mr. Wilson has been on the very spot and found no remains of a wall.  Other travellers, it may be remarked, have been more fortunate.  Cortes states, that, in a march across the mountains, some of his Indian allies perished of thirst.  This Mr. Wilson pronounces “impossible,” because he himself travelled over the same route, and did not perish of thirst, as neither did his horse, though the “sufferings of both,” from that or some other cause, were great.  One of the most remarkable acts in the career of Cortes was his voluntary destruction of the vessels which had brought his little army to the Mexican coast, in order, as he avers, that his men might stand committed to follow the fortunes of their leader, whatever might be the dangers of the enterprise.  “This event,” says Mr. Wilson, “has been the subject of eloquent eulogies for centuries.  Among these Robertson is of course pre-eminent.”  We are here left in doubt whether Robertson is to be regarded as a preeminent century or a pre-eminent eulogy.  However this may be, our author denies that the stranding of the vessels was the voluntary act of the Spanish general.  He is confident that they were cast away in a storm.  His “most potent” reason is, that he himself has “witnessed, not only hereabout, but elsewhere, upon this tideless shore, wrecks by the grounding of vessels at anchor.”  This he calls “submitting the narrative to the ordeal of proof.”

However, as we have already intimated, it is seldom that his authorities are submitted to this “ordeal,” which we admit to be a trying one.  Usually they are informed that their assertions “rest on air,”—­that they are “foolish” and “baseless,”—­“wild figments,” or “intolerable nonsense.”  Cortes states that some of his men, who had been taken prisoners by the Mexicans, were offered up as sacrifices to the Aztec deities.  Mr. Wilson, after telling that their hearts were cut out, and their bodies “tumbled to the ground,” complains that “to this most probable act of an Indian enemy, is foolishly added—­it was done in sacrifice to their idols, though the very existence of Indian idols is still problematical!” Cortes, who had seen too many Indian idols to entertain any doubts of their existence, ought, nevertheless, not to have mentioned them, because to Mr. Wilson the matter is still a problem.  Whenever that gentleman finds it inconvenient to “reduce” the statements of the Spanish historians to “realities,” he omits them altogether.  Thus, he says not a