68 FISHER— MYTH-MAKIXG PROCESS IN [April i8, 



Mahon and one by George Bancroft. Lord !Mahon, afterwards Lord 

 Stanhope, was a man of distinction in English poHtics and literature, 

 founder of the National Portrait Gallery and closely associated with 

 the amendment of the English copyright law and the Historical 

 Manuscripts Commission. His "History of England" from 1713 

 to 1783 came out a volume at a time, between the years 1836 and 

 1853. In the last three of the seven volumes it touched upon the 

 Revolution. It was the first account of that great event written in 

 a style of any literary merit; and Lord Mahon's style possessed great 

 merit. Without the slightest attempt at the eloquence or rhetoric 

 supposed by some to be necessary for history, he relies on mere 

 clearness and aptness -of words to convey the ideas of a very culti- 

 vated and intelligent mind. Every page of it is interesting and is 

 likely to remain so for all time. As a history of England it is full 

 of information, especially of the prominent characters of the time; 

 but as an account of our Revolution, it touches only the surface. He 

 goes no deeper than to say that the loss of the colonies was a mere 

 accidental piece of foolishness on the part of the ministry ; and 

 having started with that position his pleasing narrative keeps within 

 the lines of safety. 



In 1852 Bancroft's "History of the United States" reached the 

 Revolutionary period. It had been coming out a volume at a time 

 since 1832. Bancroft was of Massachusetts origin and studied in 

 Germany where, perhaps, he over-educated and over-Germanized 

 himself. He traveled extensively, met distinguished men, became 

 Secretary of the Xavy and founded the Naval Academy at Annap- 

 olis. He was also minister from the United States to England and 

 to Germany. It was a splendid experience and one would naturally 

 expect from him something of broader gauge than his very cramped, 

 and bitter partisan account of the Revolution. 



It was the most violently partisan and timorously defensive his- 

 tory of the Revolution that had appeared. It was most cautiously 

 written, with the greatest dread of the slightest admission, and with 

 intense straining to make out a perfect case. Entirely devoid of 

 cando-r, his fierce assaults on the character of Governor Hutchin- 

 son, his assignment to him of every contemptible motive, his sweep- 



