Lihhy — Pseudo-Histories of the American Revolution. 425 



edition the events are carried to the close of 1776 while in the 

 three- volume edition they end in 1783. The first three chap- 

 ters of this work are identical with those of the Dublin edition 

 of 1779. The larger part of the work is a copy from Murray 

 until the close of Burgojne's campaign. From this time on the 

 Annual Register is used. 



The only rem'aining question is concerning Winsor's state- 

 ment that Murray's history is but a copy of the foregoing. In 

 the first place this Boston work was published in 1781, at least 

 three years after the former appeared. Then when we recall 

 Murray's pretentious style it becomes perfectly obvious that it 

 could not belong to an anonymous writer. Its very pose and 

 strut forbids the notion of concealment — such an author would 

 wish to proclaim his work from the housetops. Furtheiinore, 

 Murray's peculiar style continues throughout his work from 

 the preface to the conclusion. But the Boston edition of 1781 

 ceases to show Murray's style after the account of Burgoyne's 

 campaign. It is a polyglot affair at best, drawn from three 

 sources, while Murray's history never varies in its make up and 

 sho^^s traces of but one origin. 



From the Annual Begister have arisen, therefore, seven his- 

 tories of the American Bevolution, four of which are anony- 

 mous. Of these four the Dublin edition of 1779 is the only 

 one that can make any claim whatever to originality in any part, 

 since it furnished the opening chapters for two other histories, 

 the London edition of 1780 and the Boston edition of 1781. 

 As a means of comj)aring the different forms of plagiarism em- 

 ployed by the compilers of these works, the account of the in- 

 cident of the Hutchinson Letters affords a very fair example.^ 



But one other consideration remains for discussion. The 

 clearing away of the accumulated rubbish of a hundred years 

 brings the Annual Begister prominently forward as an original 

 authority of high value for the American Bevolution. It be- 

 comes important for us to know, therefore, more certainly than: 

 at present, who contributed the articles in the Annual Begist-er 

 and from what sources they were dra^vn. As the subject is an 

 intricate one, involving questions of internal as well as of ex- 

 ternal evidence, it may w^ell remain for a later treatment. 



^Vol. II.. 325. 



2 Gordon, I., 32S-330; Russell, II., 457-45S; Murray, I., 392-394; Dublin Edition, 

 I., Part II., 4; Annual Register, 1774, p. 46, ch. L 



