Again, the personal equation must be accounted for in the value which he sets on the work of historians who wrote before him. He not infrequently disparages their writings in the strongest terms, his depreciation of Washington Irving being one of the most palpable cases. (Chittenden's History of American Fur Trade in the Far West, I, 244-46), has forcibly revealed the extent of the injustice done by Bancroft in this one case. That there are others like it will readily appear. For the effort to demonstrate the superiority of the Bancroft histories over others, we must accordingly make due allowance when attempting a critical estimate.
Furthermore, the editor-manager began the work with certain theories and notions of history that have found their way into the pages which he has published. From the beginning, he adopted the British side in dealing with the dispute over the Oregon boundary. In his treatment of Indian wars, the same tendency to adopt ready-made theories asserted itself. In the manuscript of Mrs. Victor's History of Oregon, treating of Indian Wars in Southern Oregon which "gave great credit to the veterans of that struggle and the settlers generally for their forbearance," the editor interlined some expressions, throwing the blame upon the settlers. When it was pointed out to him that this was not true, he replied that he had begun his History of Central America with this theory of Indian wars, and must be consistent throughout the entire series (Communication of Frances Fuller Victor to the [Salem] Oregon Statesman, February 24, 1895).
To such errors as those just enumerated the work of Mr. Bancroft's collaborators was not subject. The dislike inspired by some of the measures of their chief has sometimes resulted in their disparagement as historians by a public press, absolutely ignorant of the parts of the work for which they were responsible. (In the Salt Lake Tribune, February 16, 1893, is a very striking example. Occasional utterances of the San Francisco papers of about the same time follow along the same line.) It must be remembered that they were not only able and educated, but that the competitive wage system under which they worked offered every inducement to search for the truth and to make it known as they found it in the best collection of books, pamphlets, and newspapers on Pacific Coast history that was ever made. The only characteristics which were common to the library corps, as shown by a study of their biographies, were good education, ill health, and liberal religious views.
In general, these writers had special qualifications which adapted them for work in their respective fields. To Oak there was a fascination in the study of documents from which the usually uninteresting and sometimes tedious details of events in Spanish and Mexican provincial localities were derived. His contributions to history he could honestly claim were better than other writings on the same subject because of the exhaustiveness of his research through the great amount of material at his disposal. While he admired the finer qualities of style in the writings of others, they were not required in his work. He frankly declared that he had little natural ability in this line, and in the writing of provincial annals found no opportunity for the cultivation of what he had. Oak once asserted in a joking mood that he had found of great service a thorough knowledge of Spanish and French, together with a useful smattering of other languages, including English. None of his chapters were rewritten or even reread with a view to polish, for the reason that he believed his works had their chief value merely as records, and that an attempt to make them fascinating to general readers could but result in impairing their value for reference. The fact that the superintendent of literary activities in the Bancroft library was an enthusiast in original research who cared vastly more what was said than how it was said is a circumstance favoring the accuracy of the histories which must not be overlooked. Oak could say that from the first he had exercised an important influence in the direction of honest research and against superficial work, and that he opposed undue haste in bringing the work to a conclusion.
Nemos, unlike Oak, was a writer of smooth, flowing English. On account of his foreign birth he had no preference in the selection of a field, and wrote for more different volumes than any other member of the library force. His great ability, and his consequent position of all-round man, are to be accounted for by great natural endowment supplemented by a thorough training in youth in his own country, a schooling during his London residence in the philosophy of his own country as well as that of the German universities, and a wide acquaintance with European languages. With a remarkable faculty for systematizing work, he was useful, honorable, and trustworthy.
To Mrs. Victor was assigned the agreeable task of working up the field in which she had long taken special interest. She was the only member of the staff who had a literary reputation before entering the library. Noted as a poetess of unusual promise in her earlier days, she had also written excellent prose for different journals, among them a magazine history of the United States published in serial form by the Harpers, until the beginning of the Civil War compelled the discontinuance of the publication in which it appeared. As a contributor to the San Francisco papers in the early "sixties," she had met with pronounced success, while her work on her projected History of Oregon and her publication of two works on the Northwest fitted her for her special field. She had the enviable faculty of putting life into her writings, and it was partially on account of her graceful style that Mr. Bancroft sought her services, for his eye was always attracted by good literary work. But the volumes written by Mrs. Victor were of a far different stamp from the popular literary history. The late Mary Sheldon Barnes, professor of history in Stanford University, declared that she had done her work well. All who were acquainted with her personally recognized the fact that she placed the truth as she conceived it before all else. The leading opponents of the stand she took on disputed questions freely recognized the fact that she had striven to do conscientious, painstaking work. Given to speaking what she believed was the whole truth, even when it was contrary to her immediate interest to do so, she was the last of all persons whom a regard for literary effect would swerve from the path of historical accuracy.
A better man for chief Spanish authority than Thomas Savage could scarcely have been found. Thoroughly acquainted with the language by a life-long residence in Spanish America, he had a natural fondness for history, to which his long continuance in the consular service had added a habit of accuracy, and a capacity for hard work. The fifth volume of the History of Mexico, embracing the history of that country from 1824 to 1861, and the third volume of the Central American history which threads out the tangled skein of the history of the five little republics in the nineteenth century, serve as examples of the vast amount of detail which his writing covered, to say nothing of his labors in collecting and extracting an overwhelming mass of material on Spanish American history. All agree that he was a polished and sound man.
In the writers of smaller parts of the history, we find that the qualifications and fitness for the individual field of writing were no less than in those who prepared more manuscript. Peatfield's connection with the British consular service bespeaks his reliability and capability; Bates' occupancy of a responsible position under a prominent English educator, and the high regard in which his work was held by Hittell bear witness that he was competent to write history; and Petroff's standing as a scholar in his own country, together with his thorough acquaintance with Alaska, vouch for the character of his work.
While the Bancroft corps of writers were not infallible, they were a class of persons in whose integrity and accuracy we may have as great confidence as in the average historian. We can only regret that we can not point out all parts of the work done by each, and that we can not show in detail the extent of Mr. Bancroft's editorial alterations of their work. This latter feature, inherent in the Bancroft plan of writing history, is its greatest weakness, since it of necessity involves some uncertainty as to whether the words we are reading are those of the author who wrote the volume, or the interpretation of Mr. Bancroft. A comparative study of the style of what we know to be the work of the respective writers may suffice to settle a given case. We may state as a fact that the majority of alterations in the manuscripts of the chief assistants were due to the necessity of condensation; and that, aside from this, the revision of their work usually consisted merely in the suppression of radical utterances and the interlineation of a few lines occasionally for literary effect. The somewhat rough estimate given of the number of volumes written by the respective writers indicates that Mr. Bancroft's revisions constitute about one page in fifty of the work in fields assigned to his assistants, although the average may be lower. In view of these facts, the knowledge that those who wrote the Bancroft histories were capable, honest persons, must tend decidedly toward the increasing of our general confidence in the series.