366 GEORGE BANCROFT. 



defence for pursuing the practice of his contemporaries. It is 

 logical perhaps to say that, when tried by Mr. Bancroft's literary 

 methods, the mass of correspondence quoted in the History of the 

 Constitution, "though valuable as suggestion, is worthless as au- 

 thority," but it is severe. The same test would compel the rejec- 

 tion of Sparks's Washington, if indeed it would not carry with it 

 the entire collection of Washington's manuscripts in the State 

 Department; for we know that some of the letter-book copies of the 

 correspondence, on file in that office were revamped b}^ Washing- 

 ton himself. There is no hesitation in quoting Sparks, and perfect 

 confidence is felt that he made no change, either by alteration or 

 omission, that could in his judgment affect the sense of the text, 

 nor is it to be believed that Washington ever changed a word in his 

 letter-books which he thought could modify their interpretation. 

 The point must be indeed narrow and technical, a question of close 

 construction or of the use of a word under circumstances demand- 

 ing for an estimate of its value all that immediately precedes or 

 follows it, that would call for the verification of any of Bancroft's 

 quotations by comparison with original documents. 



Marginal references in the first six volumes, although not copious, 

 are frequently met with. In the seventh volume they are entirely 

 omitted, and thenceforward through the History are rarely to be 

 seen. This change is much regretted by students. An explana- 

 tion of why the references were omitted in the seventh volume is 

 to be found in the Preface. The reason stated was "the variety 

 and multitude of the papers which have been used, and which could 

 not be intelligently cited, without burdening the pages with a 

 disproportionate commentary." It was apparently Bancroft's in- 

 tention at that time to cull out for publication such letters as 

 would confirm his narrative, " and possess an intrinsic and gen- 

 eral interest by illustrating the character and sentiments of the 

 people during the ten or twelve years preceding the 4th of July, 

 1776." This purpose he did not carry out. 



The extracts from the opinions of reviewers previously quoted 

 show that nearly all of the writers were of opinion that Bancroft 

 was destined to hold permanently his position as the historian of 

 the United States. How far the charges of partisanship made by 

 such writers as Griswold and Lecky, and later by pamphleteers in 

 this country, have affected this position, may be measured somewhat 

 by the expressed opinions of historical students. Robert C. Win- 

 throp, at the first meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society 



