[230] The distinction Alfonso makes between _ordering_ the _materials_ to be collected by others (“mandamos ayuntar”) and _composing_ or _compiling_ the _Chronicle_ himself (“composimos este libro”) seems to show that he was its author or compiler,--certainly that he claimed to be such. But there are different opinions on this point. Florian de Ocampo, the historian, who, in 1541, published in folio, at Zamora, the first edition of the Chronicle, says, in notes at the end of the Third and Fourth Parts, that some persons believe only the first three parts to have been written by Alfonso, and the fourth to have been compiled later; an opinion to which it is obvious that he himself inclines, though he says he will neither affirm nor deny any thing about the matter. Others have gone farther, and supposed the whole to have been compiled by several different persons. But to all this it may be replied,--1. That the Chronicle is more or less well ordered, and more or less well written, according to the materials used in its composition; and that the objections made to the looseness and want of finish in the Fourth Part apply also, in a good degree, to the Third; thus proving more than Florian de Ocampo intends, since he declares it to be certain (“sabemos por cierto”) that the first three parts were the work of Alfonso. 2. Alfonso declares, more than once, in his Prólogo, whose genuineness has been made sure by Mondejar, from the four best manuscripts, that his History comes down to his own times, (“fasta el nuestro tiempo,”)--which we reach only at the end of the Fourth Part,--treating the whole, throughout the Prólogo, as his own work. 3. There is strong internal evidence that he himself wrote the last part of the work, relating to his father; as, for instance, the beautiful account of the relations between St. Ferdinand and his mother, Berenguela (ed. 1541, f. 404); the solemn account of St. Ferdinand’s death, at the very end of the whole; and other passages between ff. 402 and 426. 4. His nephew Don John Manuel, who made an abridgment of the Crónica de España, speaks of his uncle Alfonso the Wise as if he were its acknowledged author. It should be borne in mind, also, that Mondejar says the edition of Florian de Ocampo is very corrupt and imperfect, omitting whole reigns in one instance; and the passages he cites from the old manuscripts of the entire work prove what he says. (Memorias, Lib. VII. capp. 15, 16.) The only other edition of the Chronicle, that of Valladolid, (fol., 1604,) is still worse. Indeed, it is, from the number of its gross errors, one of the worst printed books I have ever used.