ever undertaken by Spain
within eastern United State.-, v.e have four original authorities. First is the
brief, hut evidently truthful (Spanish) report of Biedma, an officer of tin' expedi-
tion, presented to the King in 1544. immediately after the return to Spain. Next
in order, hut of first importance for detail and general appearance of reliability, is
the narrative of an anonymous Portuguese cavalier of the expedition, commonly
known as the i lentleman of Elvas, originally published in the Portuguese language
in 1557. Xext comes the (Spanish) narrative of Garcilaso, written, hut not pub-
lished, in 1587. t'nlike the others, the author was not an eyewitness of what lie
describes, hut made up his account chiefly from the oral recollections of an old
soldier of the expedition more than forty years after the event, this information
being supplemented frompapers written by two other soldiers of De Soto. Is might
he expected, the ( iarcilaso narrative, although written in flowery style, abounds in
exaggeration and trivial incident, and com]. ares unfavorably with the other accounts,
while probably giving more of the minor happenings. The fourth original account
is an unfinished (Spanish) report by Ranjel, secretary of tin- expedition, written
-o ,ii after reaching Mexico, and afterward incorporated with considerable change by
Oviedo, in his "Historia natural j general de las Indias." As this fourth narrative
remained unpublished until 1851 and has never been translated, it has hitherto been
entirely overlooked by the commentators, excepting Winsor, who notes it inciden-
tally. In general it agrees well with the Klvas narrative and throws valuable light
upon the history of the expedition.
The principal authorities, while preserving a general unity of