ambitious; withal no easy master to serve. Commenting on the reproaches he afterwards heaped upon Cortes for his ingratitude towards him, Oviedo says that it was no whit worse than his own had been towards his benefactor, Diego Columbus, and hence it was "measure for measure." His desire to explore and conquer by deputy, and to win distinction vicariously, was defeated by the impossibility of finding men possessed of the required ability to undertake successfully such ventures, combined with sufficient docility to surrender to him the glory and profits resulting from them.
The two fundamental versions of the historic quarrel between Cortes and Velasquez are contradictory. One is furnished by Gomara, the other by Las Casas, and, upon one or the other, later historians have based their accounts. The version ot Las Casas is that of an eye-witness, for he was present in Cuba at the time, and knew both men well. He stood high in the favour of the Governor, but, even allowing something for the bias of personal friendship and possibly something more for the influence of Velasquez's position, his acknowledged integrity excludes the possibility of a conscious mis-statement of facts, and hence the greatest weight attaches to his testimony. Gomara, on the other hand, was never in Cuba in his life and only began his Cronica de la Conquista some twenty-five years or more after the events of which he wrote, under the inspiration and direction of Cortes, then Marques del Valle, whose chaplain he had shortly before become. Gomara's chronicle was somewhat of the nature of an apologia, and it no sooner appeared than its accuracy and veracity were impugned by participants in the events he described; notably by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, whose work was undertaken for the declared purpose of correcting Gomara, and was called with emphasis the "True History" of the conquest. Gomara's account is briefly as follows: Cortes at that time paid court to Catalina
