William Hickling Prescott

by Harry Thurston Peck

On the purely historical side, the two men are in wholly different classes. Irving resembled Livy in his use of the authorities. Such sources as were ready to his hand and easy to consult, he used with conscientious care; but those that were farther afield, and for the mastery of which both time and labour were demanded, he let alone. Thus, his history of Columbus was prepared in something less than two years, in which period both his preliminary studies and the actual composition were completed. Yet this book was the one over which he took the greatest pains, and for which he made his only serious attempt at something like original investigation. His Mahomet was confessedly written at second hand; while in his Washington he followed in the main such records and already published works as were convenient. In the Granada he only plays with history, and ascribes the main portion of the narrative to a mythical ecclesiastic, "the worthy Fray Antonio Agapida," in whose lineaments we may not infrequently detect a strong family resemblance to the no less worthy Diedrich Knickerbocker. In the letter which Irving wrote to Prescott, relinquishing to him the subject of Cortés, he lets us see quite plainly the very moderate amount of reading which he had been doing.[55] He had dipped into Solis, Bernal Diaz, and Herrera, using them, so he said, "as guide-books." Upon the basis of this reading he had sketched out the entire narrative, and had fallen to work upon the actual history with the intention of "working up" other material as he went along. When we compare these easy-going methods with the scientific thoroughness of Prescott, his ransacking, by agents, of every important library in Europe, his great collection of original documents, the many years which he gave to the study of them, and the conscientious judgment with which he weighed and balanced them, we cannot fail to see how much the world has gained by Irving's act of generous self-abnegation. It is only fair to add that he himself, at the time when Prescott wrote to him, was beginning to doubt whether he had not undertaken a task unsuited to his inclinations and beyond his powers. "Ever since I have been meddling with the theme," he said, "its grandeur and magnificence had been growing upon me, and I had felt more and more doubtful whether I should be able to treat it conscientiously,—that is to say, with the extensive research and thorough investigation which it merited."

Professor Jameson hazards the conjecture[56] that Irving's real importance in the development of American historiography is not at all to be discerned in the serious works which have just been mentioned, but rather in his quaintly humorous picture of New York under the Dutch, contained in the pretended narration of Diedrich Knickerbocker, and published as early as 1809. There can be no doubt that, as Professor Jameson says, this book did much to excite both interest and curiosity concerning the Dutch régime. "Very likely the great amount of work which the state government did for the historical illustration of the Dutch period, through the researches of Mr. Brodhead in foreign archives, had this unhistorical little book as one of its principal causes." Here, indeed, is only one more illustration of the fact that the work which one does in his natural vein and in his own way is certain not only to be his best, but to exercise a genuine influence in spheres which at the time were quite beyond the writer's consciousness.

Something has already been said concerning Prescott in his relationship to Motley as an historian. A brief but more explicit comparison may be added here. The diligence and zeal of the investigator both men shared on even terms. The only advantage which Motley possessed was the opportunity, denied to Prescott, of prosecuting his own researches, of discovering his own materials, and of visiting and living in the very places of which he had to write, instead of working largely through the eyes and brains of other men. This was a very real advantage; for the inspiration of the search and of the scenes themselves gave a keen stimulus to the ambition of the scholar and a glow to the imagination of the writer. One attaches less importance to Motley's academic training; for while it was broader than that of Prescott, and comprised the valuable teaching which was given him in the two great universities of Berlin and Göttingen, we cannot truthfully assert that Prescott's equipment was inferior to that of his contemporary. Indeed, Ferdinand and Isabella and Philip II. can better stand the test of searching criticism than Motley's Dutch Republic.

Motley is, indeed, the most "literary" of all the so-called "literary historians". In the glow and fervour of his narrative he is unsurpassed. He feels all the passion of the times whereof he writes, and he makes the reader feel it too. He has, moreover, a power of drawing character which Prescott seldom shows and which, when he shows it, he shows in less degree. Motley writes with the magnetism of a great pleader and with something also of the imagination of a poet. Unlike Prescott, he understands the philosophy of history and delves beneath the surface to search out and reveal the hidden causes of events. Yet first and last and all the time, he is a partisan. He is pleading for a cause far more than he is seeking for impartial truth. In this respect he resembles Mommsen, whose Römische Geschichte is likewise in its later books a splendid piece of partisanship. Motley is an American and a Protestant, and therefore he is eloquent for liberty and harsh toward what he views as superstition. William the Silent is his hero just as Cæsar is Mommsen's, and he hates tyranny as Mommsen hated the insolence of the Roman Junkerthum. This vivid feeling springing from intensity of conviction makes both books true masterpieces, nor to the critical scholar does it greatly lessen their value as historical compositions. Yet in each, one has continually to check the writer, to modify his statements, and to make allowance for his very individual point of view. In reading Prescott, on the other hand, nothing of the sort is necessary. He is free from the passion of politics, his judgment is impartial, and those who read him feel, as an eminent scholar has remarked, that they are listening to a wise and learned judge rather than to a skilful advocate. Even in the sphere of characterisation, Prescott is more sound than Motley, even though he be not half so forceful. Re-reading many of the portraits which the latter has drawn for us in glowing colours, the student of human nature will perceive that they are quite impossible. Take, for instance Motley's Philip and compare it with the Philip whom Prescott has described for us. The former is not a man at all. He is either a devil, or a lunatic, or it may be a blend of each. Indeed, Motley himself in conversation used to describe him as a devil, though he once remarked, "He is not my head devil." Everywhere Philip is depicted in the same sable hues, without a touch of light to relieve the blackness of his character. On the other hand, Prescott shows us one who, with all his cruelty, his hypocrisy, and his superstition, is still quite comprehensible because, after all, he remains a human being. Prescott discovers and records in him some qualities of which Motley in his sweeping condemnation takes no heed. We see a Philip scrupulously faithful to his duty as he understands it, bearing toil and loneliness, patient to his secretaries, gracious to his petitioners, whom he tries to set at ease, generous in his patronage of art, and putting aside all his coldness and reserve while watching the progress of his favourite architects and builders. These things and others like them count perhaps for very little in one sense; yet in another they bring out the fact that Prescott viewed his subject in the clear light of historic truth rather than in the glare of fiery prejudice.

There are some who would rate Parkman above Prescott. They speak of him as more truly an American historian because the topic which he chose—the development of New France—has a direct bearing upon the national history of the United States. This, however, is at once to limit the word "American" in a thoroughly unreasonable way, and also to allow the choice of theme to prejudice one's judgment of the manner in which that theme is treated. Parkman, to be sure, has merits of his own, some of which are less discernible in Prescott. For picturesqueness, as for accuracy, both men are on a level. There is a greater freshness of feeling in Parkman, a sort of open air effect, which is redolent of his actual experience of the great plains and the far Western mountains in the days which he passed among the Indian tribes. This cannot be expected of one whose physical infirmities confined him to the limits of his library. But, on the other hand, Prescott chose a broader field, and he made that field more thoroughly his own. These two—Prescott and Parkman—must take rank not far apart. Between them, they have divided, so to speak, the early history of the American Continent in the sphere which lies beyond the bounds of purely Anglo-Saxon conquest.

Disciples of the dismal school of history often yield a very grudging tribute to the enduring merit of what Prescott patiently achieved. Yet in their own field he met them upon equal terms and need not fear comparison. Though self-trained as an historical investigator, his mastery of his authorities has hardly been excelled by those whose merit is found solely in their gift for delving. The evidence of his thoroughness, his judgment, and his critical faculty is to be seen in the documentary treasures of his foot-notes. He did not, like Mommsen, write a brilliant narrative and leave the reader without the ready means of verifying what he wrote. He has, to use his own words, "suffered the scaffolding to remain after the building has been completed." Those who sneer at his array of testimony are none the less unable to impeach it. Though historical science has in many respects made great advances since his death, his work still stands essentially unshaken. He had the historical conscience in a rare degree; one feels his fairness and is willing to accept his judgment. If he seems to lack a special gift for philosophical analysis, the plan and scope of his histories did not contemplate a subjective treatment. What he meant to do, he did, and he did it with a combination of historical exactness and literary artistry such as no other American at least, has yet exhibited. Without the humour of Irving, or the fire of Motley, or the intimate touch of Parkman, he is superior to all three in poise and judgment and distinction; so that on the whole one may accept the dictum of a distinguished scholar[57] who, in summing up the merits which we recognise in Prescott, declares them to be so conspicuous and so abounding as to place him at the head of all American historians.

INDEX

[A], [B], [C], [D], [E], [F], [G], [H], [I], [J], [K], [L], [M], [N], [O], [P], [Q], [R], [S], [T], [V], [W], [X],

A
Academy, Royal Spanish, [76], [80].
Adair, James, [146].
Adams, Dr. C. K., quoted, [180].
Adams, John Quincy, library of, [20];
absence in Europe, [20], [23], [37];
professor at Harvard, [23];
Minister to England, [37].
Adams, Sir William, [37].
Albert, Prince, [105], [106].
Amory, Thomas C., [43].
Amory, William, letter to, [172].
Athenæum, Boston, [19], [20], [21].
Aztecs, [76], [82], [136], [143], [144], [146];
as viewed by Wilson, [147-151];
Morgan's view of, [152-155];
later opinions regarding, [155-156].
B
Bancroft, George, [10];
letters to, [48], [114], [117];
reviews Ferdinand and Isabella, [69];
honour conferred on, [86];
quoted, [87]; estimate of, [122].
Bancroft, H. H., quoted, [153], [159].
Bandelier, A. F., [155], [163], [165];
quoted, [136], [153], [154].
Bentley, Richard, [69], [80], [85], [112], [116], [117].
Bradford, Governor William, [8].
Brougham, Lord, Prescott's description of, [107], [108].
Brown, Charles Brockden, novels of, [5];
Life of, [65], [112].
Bunsen, Baron, [107], [108].
Byron, Lord, Prescott's estimate of, [113];
as exponent of romanticism, [122];
quoted, [166].
C
Calderon de La Barca, Señor, [76], [91].
Carlisle, Lord, Prescott's friendship with, [88], [91], [104], [105], [106].
Carlyle, Thomas, Prescott's comment on, [114].
Channing, W. E., [28], [107], [124], [126].
Charles V., History of, [117], [118].
Circourt, Comte Adolphe de, [71].
Club-Room, edited by Prescott, [42].
Cogswell, J. G., [74], [75].
Condé, History of the Arabs in Spain, [65], [130].
Cooper, Sir Astley, [37].
Cortés, Hernan, [134], [135], [155];
quoted, [136];
attack on Cholulans, [137], [138];
retreat from Mexico, [141], [142];
character
of, [143], [144], [147], [151];
compared with Pizarro, [160], [161].
Cashing, Caleb, [88].
D
Dante, Prescott's admiration for, [46].
Daudet, Alphonse, [86].
Dexter, Franklin, [42].
Diaz, Bernal, [146], [159];
quoted, [144].
Dickens, Charles, entertained by Prescott, [91];
preferred by him to Thackeray, [115].
Dumas, Alexandre, [115].
Dunham, Dr. S.P., [70], [126].
E
Edwards, Jonathan, [7], [9].
English, James, Prescott's secretary, [58], [59], [60], [61], [63], [64].
Everett, A. H., [77].
Everett, Edward, [25], [106].
F
Farre, Dr., [37].
Ferdinand and Isabella, beginnings of, [52], [61];
progress, [62-65];
completion and publication, [66-71];
success of, [69-71], [77], [79], [95];
style of, [121], [127];
historical accuracy, [129], [130], [131], [132].
Ford, Richard, criticises Ferdinand and Isabella, [70];
his ridicule of Prescott's style, [124-126];
Prescott's reply, [127], [128];
quoted, [129], [130].
Franklin, Benjamin, [5];
style of, [129].
G
Gardiner, Rev. Dr. John S., [18], [19].
Gardiner, William, [20], [21], [22], [40].
Gayangos, Don Pascual de, reviews Ferdinand and Isabella, [70], [132];
aids Prescott, [76], [77], [101].
Grenville, Thomas, quoted, [142].
Guatemozin, character of, [143], [144];
successor of Montezuma, [135], [154].
Guizot, M., reviews Philip II., [116].
H
Hale, Edward Everett, quoted, [77], [78].
Hallam, Henry, praises Ferdinand and Isabella, [71];
Prescott's acquaintance with, [108].
Harper Brothers, publish Conquest of Mexico, [79], [80];
publish Conquest of Peru, [84];
Prescott's generosity to, [116].
Harvard College, faculty of, in 1811, [22], [23], [25];
entrance examinations, [24];
curriculum, [24], [25];
methods, [25], [26], [33];
confers degree upon Prescott, [80].
Hickling, Thomas, [15], [35], [36].
Higginson, Mehitable, [16].
Higginson, T. W., [113].
Hughes, Thomas, quoted, [55].
Humboldt, Baron Alexander von, [81], [101].
I
Irving, Washington, characteristics of, [5];
quoted, [57];
correspondence regarding Conquest of Mexico, [74-77];
praised by Prescott, [113];
compared to Goldsmith, [122];
style of, [124], [129]; his Columbus criticised by Prescott, [134];
comment on Philip II., [169];
compared with Prescott, [173-175], [180].
J
Jackson, Dr. James, [31].
Jameson, Prof. J. F., quoted, 3 n., 54 n., [176].
Jeffrey, Lord, [108].
Johnson, Dr. Samuel, quoted, [54];
style of, [122], [129].
K
Kirk, John Foster, Prescott's secretary, [87], [119], [136].
Kirkland, Rev. Dr. John Thornton, [22], [23].
Knapp, Jacob Newman, [16].
L
La Bruyère, quoted, [111].
Lafitau, Père, [145].
Lawrence, Abbott, [103], [105];
memoir of, [118].
Lawrence, James, [97], [103].
Lembke, Dr. J. B., Prescott's agent in Spain, [77], [100], [101].
Linzee, Hannah, [43].
Longfellow, Henry W., Prescott's admiration for, [113].
Lowell, James Russell, [12], [23], [103].
Lyell, Lady, entertained by Prescott, [91];
letter to, [115], [166].
Lyell, Sir Charles, [91], [103].
Lynn, Prescott's house at, [97], [98].
M
Macaulay, Lord, anecdotes of, [108], [109]; style of, [117], [133].
Marina, [144].
Markham, Sir Clements, judgment of Prescott's Peru, [165].
Massachusetts Historical Society, [57], [86], [120], [142], [172].
Mather, Cotton, his Magnalia, [8].
Mexico, Conquest of, preparations for, [72-77];
four years of work on, [78-79];
publication and success of, [79-81], [95];
estimate of, [133-159].
Middle States, literature in the, [4-6].
Middleton, Arthur, [26];
aids Prescott in Spain, [77], [100].
Mommsen, Theodor, as a partisan compared with Motley, [177], [178];
compared with Prescott, [180].
Montezuma, described by Prescott, [139], [143];
Spaniards' view of, [153-156].
Morgan, Lewis Henry, Indian researches of, [152], [153], [155], [156];
quoted, [157].
Motley, J. L., quoted, [89], [165], [166], [167], [168], [171], [172];
compared with Prescott, [176-179], [180].
N
Nahant, Prescott's cottage at, [91], [96], [97].
Navarrete, M. F., [76], [80].
New England, literature in, [6-10];
historians of, [10-12].
Noctograph, description of, [57].
Northumberland, Duke of, entertains Prescott, [110], [111].
O
Ogden, Rollo, quoted, [93], [172].
Oxford University, [88];
confers degree on Prescott, [106], [107].
P
Parkman, Francis, style of, [133], [145];
compared with Prescott, [179], [180].
Parr, Dr. Samuel, [18].
Parsons, Theophilus, [42];
quoted, [89].
Peabody, Dr. A. P., Harvard Reminiscences, 22 n.
Peel, Sir Robert, [104].
Peirce, Benjamin, [25].
Pepperell, Prescott's home at, [96], [97].
Peru, Conquest of, memorising of parts of, [59];
composition and publication, [81], [82], [84], [85], [95];
estimate of, [160-165].
Peruvians, [163-165].
Phi Beta Kappa, [34].
Philip II., Prescott's memorising of parts, [59];
obstacles in way, [99-100];
preparations for, [101], [102];
two volumes completed, [115], [116], [117];
third volume, [119];
estimate of, [165-172];
compared with Dutch Republic, [177].
Pickering, John, memoir of, [86].
Pizarro, Francisco, [160];
character of, [161];
quoted, [162].
Poe, Edgar Allan, [4].
Prescott, Catherine Hickling, parentage and character, [15], [16];
rearing of son, [16].
Prescott, Colonel William, [13], [14], [43].
Prescott, John, [18].
Prescott, Oliver, [14].
Prescott, Susan Amory, [50], [93];
marriage to Prescott, [42], [43];
character, [43];
letters to, [104], [105], [111].
Prescott, William, birth and career, [14];
characteristics of, [15], [82], [83];
home, [14], [15];
illness of, [17];
removal to Boston, [17], [18];
quoted, [67];
death, [82].
Prescott, William Hickling, literary importance of, [12];
birth of, [15];
his first teachers, [16];
traits as a boy, [16], [17];
prepares for college, [18], [19];
his tastes in reading, [19], [20];
amusements, [20], [21], [22];
candidate for Harvard, [22];
letter to father about examination, [25], [26];
enters college, [27];
his studies and ideals, [27];
love of pleasure, [28];
laxity of conduct, [28], [29], [30];
accident, [31];
loss of eye, [31];
effect on character, [32];
magnanimity, [32];
returns to college, [32];
dislike for mathematics, [33];
commencement poem, [33], [34];
election to Phi Beta Kappa, [34];
studies law, [34];
second illness and temporary blindness, [34], [35];
sails for Azores, [35], [36];
third illness, [36];
first visit to London, [36], [37];
visits Paris and Italy, [37], [38];
returns to England, [38];
sails for home, [38];
anxiety regarding career, [39], [40];
vicarious reading, [40], [41];
first attempts at composition, [41], [42], [46];
marriage, [42], [43];
resolves to become a man of letters, [44];
studies languages, [45], [46], [47];
interest in Spanish, [47], [48];
drift toward historical composition, [49], [50];
perplexity in choosing subject, [50], [51], [52];
decides upon Ferdinand and Isabella, [52], [53];
difficulties of task, [54], [55];
time of preparation and composition, [55], [56], [62], [66];
his methods, of work, [56], [57], [58], [59], [61];
his memory, [33], [57], [58], [59];
his mode of life, [59], [60], [61], [62];
death of daughter, [62], [63], [73];
contributes to periodicals, [64], [65];
completes Ferdinand and Isabella, [66];
search for publisher, [66], [67];
terms of contract, [67];
success of book, [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [95];
criticisms, [69], [70], [71];
theological studies and beliefs, [73], [74];
begins Mexican researches, [74], [75], [76], [77];
correspondence with Irving, [75];
writes Conquest of Mexico, [78], [79];
contract with the Harpers, [79], [80];
honours conferred upon, [80], [81];
writes Conquest of Peru, [81], [82], [84];
reception of book, [85], [86];
death of father, [82];
opinion of American critics, [85];
period of inactivity, [83], [86];
political views, [89], [90];
entertainment of friends, [91], [92], [93];
his boyish ways, [93];
his tactlessness, [93];
his Yankeeisms, [94];
preparations for Philip
II., [99], [100], [101], [102];
his Boston residence, [83], [96];
the homestead at Pepperell, [96], [97];
his cottage at Nahant, [96], [97];
cottage at Lynn, [97], [98];
third visit to England, [94], [102-111];
presented at court, [105];
his sensibility, [110];
at zenith of his fame, [111], [112];
his opinions of contemporary writers, [112], [113], [114], [115];
completes two volumes of Philip II., [115], [116], [117];
rewrites conclusion of Robertson's Charles V., [117], [118];
health fails, [118];
completes third volume of Philip II., [119];
death, [119];
his burial, [119], [120];
style and accuracy of Ferdinand and Isabella, [121-131];
criticised by Ford, [124], [125], [126];
his place as an historian, [173-181].
Q
Quincy, Josiah, [7], [25].
R
Raumer, Friedrich von, [81].
Review, Edinburgh, notices of Prescott's books, [70], [76], [85], [116].
Review, English Quarterly, [46], [70], [85].
Review, North American, Prescott's contributions to, [41], [46], [64], [65];
its notices of Prescott's books, [62], [69].
Robertson, William, [117], [146].
Rogers, Samuel, [108], [109].
S
Scott, General Winfield, [90], [91].
Scott, Sir Walter, [6], [86], [108], [122];
a favourite of Prescott's, [41], [115];
quoted, [129].
Shepherd, Dr. W.R. 100 n.
Simancas, archives at, [99], [100].
Southern States, literature in the, [2-4].
Southey, Robert, [20], [67];
praises Ferdinand and Isabella, [71];
quoted, [107].
Sparks, Jared, [12], [42];
estimate of, [9], [10];
encourages Prescott, [46], [65], [68], [88].
Stith, Dr. W., quoted, [3].
Story, Judge Joseph, [25].
Sumner, Charles, Prescott's friendship with, [88], [89], [90].
T
Talleyrand, quoted, [11].
Thackeray, W. M., [43], [86];
entertained by Prescott, [91], [114];
tribute to Prescott, [114], [115].
Thierry, Augustin, [54], [86].
Thoreau, Henry D., quoted, [168], [169].
Ticknor, George, [25], [94], [111];
quoted, [19], [22], [26], [28], [43], [48], [71], [84], [103], [127];
letters to, [46], [69], [70], [107], [117], [118];
reads to Prescott, [47].
Tocqueville, Alexis de, [11], [71].
V
Victoria, Queen, [105], [106].
W
Ware, John, [42].
Wars, Napoleonic, [21].
Wellington, Duke of, [21], [104].
Wendell, Prof. Barrett, [5].
Wilson, J. Grant, quoted, 91 n.
Wilson, Robert A., criticises Prescott's Conquest of Mexico, [147], [148];
reply to, [149-151].
X
Xenophon, Prescott compared with, [142], [143].