Southwestern Historical Quarterly
defense, creation. of counties and courts, and contested elections than
with the possibility of further conflict with Mexico.
Reading and reviewing a series, especially a document series, over a
period of years conditions the reviewer to expect certain practices-
that is, a particular structure or organization, an emphasis on particu-
lar issues, and a dependence on predictable and long-established
sources. The compiler of the Robertson Papers, Malcolm McLean, fits
well into that pattern. He has been relatively consistent in his practices
throughout his series, and Volumes XIV and XV continue in the same
spirit. McLean's diligence in seeking and locating biographical informa-
tion on virtually every name mentioned has been remarkable from the
beginning, and he is perhaps at his best in Volume XV. As always, the
documentation is thorough, if sometimes argumentative; typographical
errors are few and of little consequence. His inclination to include any-
thing even tangentially related to the Robertson Colony began in the
publication of Volume I and in most respects shows no indication of
change in these two volumes.
But it is the all-inclusive character of the series that makes an omis-
sion in Volume XV particularly noticeable. Generally functioning in an
adversarial role, Stephen F. Austin from the early volumes of the series
until near the end of Volume XV is a character almost as important as
Sterling Robertson. Indeed, in Volume XV McLean includes several
documents related to the long-standing dispute between Robertson
and Austin and presents a predictable series of annotations. Through-
out the series McLean has challenged traditional evaluations of Austin,
raising questions about motivation and even, at least indirectly, about
character and integrity. Whatever else has been accomplished, it is fair
judgment to say that the Papers Concerning Robertson's Colony zn Texas has
affected the writing of nineteenth-century Texas history. The writer of
a recently published monograph on the revolution acknowledges the
influence of McLean's work, and the evaluation of Austin contained in
his monograph supports his statement of obligation.
But Austin died on December 27, 1836. Six more months of docu-
ments appear in Volume XV. Yet, no document, no annotation-noth-
ing-makes reference to the death of Austin. Did his demise go un-
noticed in the Robertson Colony?
Lamar Unzversity ADRIAN N. ANDERSON
The Bixar Archzves, 1717-183 6: A Name Guzde. Compiled and edited by
Adan Benavides, Jr. (Austin: University of Texas Press for the Uni-
versity of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures at San Antonio, 1989..
Pp. xxiii+l171. Acknowledgments, introduction, maps, appen-
dices, glossary, illustrations, tables, index. $6o.)
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 94, July 1990 - April, 1991. Austin, Texas. The Portal to Texas History. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101214/. Accessed February 6, 2016.