Mariana[i] related the chief events of his life as popular tradition has collected them from history and fable, and contented himself with adding, “Some persons hold a large part of this account to be fabulous; I also relate many more statements than I believe, because I do not dare to pass over in silence what others assert, nor would I like to assert as certain that which I doubt for reasons which compel me to do so and which others have stated.” Prudencio de Sandoval[u] questioned many single items and declared whole episodes to be unhistorical. He was followed by Ferreras.[v] When finally, in 1792, the Augustine Manuel Risco,[w] supported by the _Gesta Roderici Campidocti_ which he had discovered, tried to rescue some part of the old traditions, the Jesuit, Juan Francisco de Masdeu, doubted not only the genuineness of this document but the very existence of the Cid. The English historian Dunham[h] was even more firmly sceptical. Robert Southey,[x] who published an English translation of the _Chronicle of the Cid_, tried hard to steer between history and story and rescue as much as possible of the latter. Victor Aimé Huber[y] has the credit of being the first to distinguish between the historical and mythical elements with great critical ability. The material used by Huber was not materially enriched until the Dutch orientalist R. Dozy[z] discovered in the library at Gotha, in 1844, an Arabic account of the Cid and his most celebrated deed of arms, the conquest of Valencia. This was found in the third volume of a history of literature (_Zakira_) written by the Moorish author Ibn Bassam,[aa] in the year 503 of the Hegira, according to his statement (1109 A.D.), that is, only ten years after the death of the Cid. It is thus the oldest, the only really contemporary account of the celebrated Spanish hero that we possess, and is of great historical value even though written by an enemy. The Dutch scholar was not satisfied merely to publish the text with a French translation, but also enumerated the known sources in order to distinguish between the historical and the more or less legendary traits of the same and to get as historically accurate a picture as possible of the Cid. At the same time he put entirely too much confidence in the Arabic account, placing himself in fact on the side of the Moors. Hence in order to get a correct idea of the Cid’s character one should not follow Dozy blindly, but should rather consider as to how far the Arab historian deserves credence on his own account. [Illustration: THE CID (From an old engraving of an alleged portrait)]