GEORGE BANCROFT. 363 



placed in possession of the city of Worcester a fund for the main- 

 tenance of a scholarship which he called the "Aaron and Lucretia 

 Bancroft Scholarship." 



He died, January 17, 1891, at his home in Washington. His 

 friends were not unprepared for the event, as he had been percepti- 

 bly failing for a long time. The Emperor of Germany caused 

 flowers to be laid upon the casket which contained his remains. 

 The funeral services were held at Washington; but the body of the 

 historian was interred in the same cemetery in Worcester which 

 holds the remains of his father and mother. 



The position of Bancroft's History as the standard history of the 

 United States has left for the critics to discuss only the question 

 how long the work will be able to maintain this position. Alli- 

 bone has grouped in his columns the opinion of a number of com- 

 petent writers. A few extracts from these opinions expressed 

 during the progress of the work, a brief analysis of some of the 

 objections which have been made to the History itself, and a few 

 quotations from later writers, in which they state their estimate of 

 the work, will help to determine this question. Heeren, under 

 whom Bancroft studied and who was his personal friend, reviewing 

 the first three volumes, says, "We know few modern historic 

 works in which the author has reached so high an elevation at 

 once as an historical inquirer and an historical writer." Edward 

 Everett, reviewing the first volume, says, "As far as it goes, it 

 does such justice to its noble subject as to supersede the necessity 

 of any future work of the same kind." Prescott, reviewing the 

 third volume, says, "His Colonial History establishes his title to 

 a place among the great historical writers of the age." Dr. Gris- 

 wold in his " Prose Writers of America," treating of Volumes I., 

 II., and III., thinks that "he becomes insensibly the advocate of 

 the cause of freedom, which invalidates his testimony." The 

 Edinburgh Review, on the other hand, says, "The real liberal- 

 ity, the general fairness, the labor and conscientious research it 

 evinces, deserves, and we are assured will receive, his [the English 

 reader's] warmest approbation." The Westminster Review pre- 

 dicts, "with confidence, that his work will be reckoned among the 

 genuine masterpieces of historical genius." Lecky, in his "Eng- 

 land in the Eighteenth Century," accuses him of violent par- 

 tisanship, and charges that it greatly impairs his "very learned 

 History." The foregoing will illustrate the reception of the 

 History by literary men during its progress. It is difficult to 



