GEORGE BANCROFT. 369 



London prior to the outbreak of actual war, like Bollan, Jasper Mauduit, 

 Richard Jackson, Arthur Lee, Franklin, W. S. Johnson, and others; the 

 papers more or less extensive of Hutchinson, Israel Mauduit, Pownall, 

 Hollis, JNIayhew, Andrew Eliot, Golden, Bernard; and, above all, the papers 

 of Samuel Adams, which passed into Bancroft's hands some years ago. 



" He speaks also of two volumes of papers of Greene, and the papers 

 of Anthony Wayne, which were submitted to his inspection." 



If ever the opportunity should occur for one man to command 

 such resources as these, he still must, in the contest for supremacy, 

 measure swords with Bancroft in the treatment of the subject. 



Mr. Winsor in the "final statement " in his History speaks of 

 the value of monograph, as rounding the treatment of any phase of 

 history in a way rarely accomplished in more comprehensive work. 

 One of the criticisms which has been made upon Bancroft's work is. 

 that he did not keep up with the times, and that in his last revision 

 he did not devote himself to a more detailed investigation of the 

 work of specialists in the several topics covered by his History, in 

 preference to confining his labor mainly to the elimination of re- 

 dundancies and the condensation of material. A glance at the 

 manner in which he carried the scheme of his History into execu- 

 tion wall furnish a partial answer to this criticism. He treated his 

 subject by topics exhaustively, and as he progressed he devoted his, 

 time to the investigation of the new field which w'as before him. 

 It was impossible that he should be constantly at work where he 

 had already concluded his labors, and equally impossible but that 

 from time to time his attention should be called to errors which 

 notwithstanding his vigilance had crept in. As edition after 

 edition of his works came out, he eliminated such errors as came 

 under his observation; but his main labor was devoted to the perfec- 

 tion of his scheme. When the History proper was concluded, and 

 afterward when the volumes on the Constitution were jiublished, 

 he was confronted with the question, whether, in a revision of the 

 published volumes, he should merely try to condense them, or 

 whether he should attack the subject anew and attempt to treat 

 it as a whole, taking up the stud^^ of each part where he had pre- 

 viously dropped it. At his time of life the latter course was prac- 

 tically impossible. He chose the former, and, while opinions may 

 differ as to the wisdom of the choice, it will commend itself to the 

 majority. 



Mr. Bancroft's career has been presented as statesman, as 

 historian, and as citizen. Whether his memory is longer to be 

 VOL. XXVI. Is. s. xviii.) 24 



