| + + — | Am. Hist. R. 10: 869. Jl. ‘05. 3440w. (Review of v. 4 and 5.) |
[*] “Judging by the first series, the history will be, when complete, a monumental work fitted to stand comparison with similar productions of the English and German students.” Carl Kelsey.
| + + + | Ann. Am. Acad. 26: 753. N. ‘05. 600w. (Review of v. 1-5.) |
“A series of well-written monographs of undoubted value. Professor Cheney [in vol I] presents such a basis for the study of beginnings of American history that the general reader is under large debt for the information thus put in readable and compact form. Within the scope of his treatment [vol II], however, he has given us a satisfactory piece of work. [Vol. III.] Like the rest of the works, rather written down to what the author considers the standard of public intelligence. Nevertheless it views its subject with a breadth and force that make the treatment commendable. [Vol. V.] Accurate and interesting. The style of the monographs is in general rather dry, and yet it is readable and interesting to those who use the volumes for study.”
| + + + | Baltimore Sun. :8. Mr. 8, ‘05. 1120w. |
“The author of this volume [vol. I] has had a difficult task, and has done it admirably. The story is told delightfully and with care; but the necessity for compression causes occasionally a lack of clearness. The author [of vol. II] himself informs us that his task has been one of condensation, and the results are especially evident in the first third of the volume, which is somewhat below the general average of interest. The chief service of this portion of the book will be its suggestiveness and the references in Professor Farrand’s excellent bibliography. The many striking summaries of events and characterizations of individuals which one finds throughout the book [in vol III]. [In vol. IV] President Tyler has given us a scrupulously fair and a very interesting work. The author gives us no detailed study of institutional growth, but a general narrative. Here one inevitably compares President Tyler’s work with that of the late Mr. Fiske, with results not at all to the disadvantage of President Tyler. [Vol. V]. This is very certainly the best general account of this period that has yet appeared. One feels that the author not only has intimate acquaintance with the old sources, but also has been fortunate enough to reach considerable new material. Professor Andrews is especially to be congratulated upon the catholic view of colonial history that he presents to us. As successful as his descriptions of institutions is the author’s delineation of personality. We must not omit commendation of the bibliographical matter appended to each volume. Volumes like that of Professor Bourne will take their place as standard works. For the general reader, ... the work will prove a mine of information interestingly told, well arranged, and attractively published.” St. George L. Sioussat.
| + + — | Dial. 38: 190. Mr. 16, ‘05. 3050w. |
[*] “The editor of the coöperative history of which these volumes form a part deserves congratulation upon the success with which the process of ‘linking,’ which here is so very necessary, has been carried out.” St. George Sioussat.
| + + — | Dial. 39: 236. O. 16, ‘05. 2100w. (Review of v. 6 and 7.) |
[*] “However, from the standpoint of critical scholarship, the authors leave American history very much as they found it. The cooperative plan has precluded a consistent and systematic treatment of the development of British colonial policy and American commercial interests, and the economic analysis is not keen or original.”