It has long since been recognized that the name of Hubert Howe Bancroft can not be placed in the ranks of great American historical writers. In the first place, he wrote only parts of volumes. It will be observed, too, that as a rule he wrote simpler parts, consisting of synopses of early voyages, or annals easy to handle, such as the rovings of Spaniards in Utah, or the rise of a provincial government among the fur-traders of British Columbia. But Mr. Bancroft, as founder of the library and organizer of the history, has rendered a real and lasting service to historical literature.

The first great end subserved by his undertaking was the preservation of a great ma.s.s of invaluable historical material, which would otherwise have been lost. In 1880, he wrote:

"There are men yet living who helped to make our history, and who can tell us what it is better than their sons, or than any who shall come after them. A score of years hence few of them will remain. Twenty years ago, many parts of our territory were not old enough to have a history; twenty years hence, much will be lost that may now be secured": (Lit. Ind., 635).

It is thus for the timeliness of his labors in collecting his library that the Pacific Coast, and the whole world as well, is indebted to Mr. Bancroft. For this work his qualifications as a successful business man experienced in handling books were exactly those required.

A second great end which Mr. Bancroft attained was the founding of a history of Western North America on the original sources which he had collected in order that it might const.i.tute a foundation upon which future histories would be built.

"He who shall come after me," says he in the letter quoted above, "will scarcely be able to undermine my work by laying another and deeper foundation. He must build upon mine or not at all, for he can not go beyond my authorities for facts. He may add to or alter my work, for I shall not know or be able to tell everything, but he can never make a complete structure of his own."

That the volumes supervised by Mr. Bancroft should contain imperfections is in the nature of the case inevitable. Perfect historical estimates of contemporaries can not as a rule be made, and history based largely on personal reminiscence must contain errors of refraction which can be corrected only in the clearer light of later years. The handling of material by a writer who did not collect it, and who is likely to find the places and conditions dealt with strange to his experience, inevitable though it be in so large an undertaking, results in the writing of faulty history. The hastening of the work and the editorial revision of ma.n.u.scripts by a manager desirous of pleasing subscribers, and impelled by various other motives of his own, are not circ.u.mstances likely to increase the accuracy of the work. But after allowance has been made for all inaccuracies which have crept in through these various avenues, we still have the fact that the histories are based upon sources which may be supplemented but can never be displaced. No greater mistake could be made, therefore, than to say that because they contain errors they are worthless. All must agree with the practical argument made by a thoughtful old pioneer of the writer's acquaintance that, in spite of all criticisms which may be pa.s.sed upon the Bancroft histories, they contain a great fund of information which is nowhere else to be found in print.

A third result of the history plan, and one which is of importance to historical writers everywhere who have large fields to cover, was the devising of a cooperative method for organizing the vast collections in the library. Mr. Bancroft makes the claim of having been the first to resort to such a division of labor; and points out (Literary Industries, 767) that his method avoids the repet.i.tion of details and insures a more thorough working up of the field than does the cooperative method as the term is usually understood, under which the writers work independently of each other after the field is divided.

Such a claim might indeed be granted had Mr. Bancroft announced himself as editor and reviser instead of author, and had he designated the part of the work written by each of his collaborators in accordance with the usual custom in cooperative works. The printing of his name as author on the t.i.tle page, and his general recognition as such in accordance with press notices following those of the Native Races, have, of course, largely lost for him the credit of originating a cooperative method for the organizing of large quant.i.ties of material.

Concerning the understanding Mr. Bancroft had with his corps of writers generally as to the public acknowledgment of their work which he would make, information is not at hand. Only one had ever before written and published a book, and perhaps the majority gave no thought to the rights which would be theirs as authors. Certain it is that when the greater number of the more prominent writers entered the library, the work was planned on a much smaller scale than that upon which it was carried out, and, as they did not know that they were to become the authors of entire or consecutive volumes, the question was not then of the importance which it a.s.sumed with the later growth of the series. What the understanding was with those who first entered the library we can not say definitely, but his ideas on that subject seems to have been a survival of the encyclopaedia project. To Mrs.

Victor, just prior to her entering his service, he wrote on August 1, 1878:

"The work is wholly mine. I do what I can myself, and pay for what I have done over that; but I father the whole of it and it goes out only under my name. All who work in the library do so simply as my a.s.sistants. Their work is mine to print, scratch, or throw in the fire. I have no secrets; yet I do not tell everybody just what each does. I do not pretend to do all the work myself, that is, to prepare for the printer all that goes out under my name. I have three or four now who can write for the printer after a fashion; none of them can suit me as well as I can suit myself. One or two only will write with very little change from me. All the rest require sometimes almost rewriting."

He further adds that it gives him pleasure to acknowledge his obligations to his a.s.sistants, but that this acknowledgment is always voluntary on his part and not claimed as a right by them, and says that while he is not sure of mentioning certain persons in connection with certain parts as he had done in the introduction to the Native Races, he will certainly not do more than that. The only mention which he promises definitely to his writers is a biographical notice in the Literary Industries.

"The work in the library," says he, "good or bad, is mine; were it not so, I would simply do what I could with my own fingers, or do nothing."

It is easy enough to see why Mr. Bancroft should wish to have absolute control of ma.n.u.scripts to insure good work, and a complete covering of the field, but it is difficult to see how he could justly make the claim before the world that ma.n.u.scripts turned out by other persons were his writing.

Not only was the myth of Mr. Bancroft's authorship repeated on the t.i.tle page of each volume of the history, and in the reviews which built upon the prestige gained by him as supposed author of the Native Races, but not a word was printed to show that any one else wrote the least part of the work. When asked to indicate in the preface the part done by each person, according to the evidence of a number of his writers, he always declared that this was just the one thing he wished to avoid. The only approach to an acknowledgment is the statement in the preface in words which apparently refer only to indexers and note-takers, that he has been "able to utilize the labors of others,"

among whom as the most faithful and efficient he mentions Oak, Nemos, Savage, Petroff, and Mrs. Victor. (History of Central America, I, preface viii). The promise is made that he will speak of these and others at length elsewhere, and this promise is redeemed by the printing of their biographies in the Literary Industries without indicating who was engaged in writing and who in purely routine work connected with the library, much less designating what parts of the work each had done. From a popular edition of this volume subsequently issued for wider circulation, even these were stricken out.

While the real authors of the history never agreed to keep silence concerning their right to recognition, it was very well understood that they would remain in Mr. Bancroft's employ only so long as they acquiesced in his claiming the work as solely his own and made no individual claims for themselves. This bread and b.u.t.ter argument for silence proved effective in all cases. An example of the method in meeting claims made for any of the library writers occurs in connection with the publication of the History of Oregon. A notice of the work just before it was issued was sent to the Oregon press and the statement made that Mrs. Victor was the author. (Emma H. Adams in Portland _Oregonian_, October 5, 1886, under the t.i.tle, "Mrs. Victor and Her Latest Literary Work.") This was met by Mr. Bancroft with a letter for publication in the paper printing the notice, in which he a.s.serted that no entire volume of the series had been written by Mrs.

Victor. Of course the significance of this statement is in the word "entire," which simply meant that he had interpolated a line here and there as he went over the ma.n.u.script. A note to Mrs. Victor under date of October 16th explains this apparent denial of her authorship thus:

"I do not want for myself the credit due to my a.s.sistants. At the same time, I do not deem it necessary to explain to the public just what part of the work was done by each. Everybody knows that you have been at work on Oregon, and that is all right, although I have done considerable work on your ma.n.u.script for better or worse, or at all events to make it conform to the general plan."

In view of Mr. Bancroft's persistent refusal to give "a.s.sistants"

anything like credit for their work in accord with general custom and literary ethics as well, and in view of the fact that this refusal meant that the public would credit him solely as the author, it must have been a difficult matter for him to convince his corps of writers that he did not want the credit due them.

The process of making Mrs. Victor's ma.n.u.scripts conform to the general plan, which is here regarded as the princ.i.p.al source of alteration, according to Oak, meant nothing except the condensation of her work, mainly by the omission of considerable portions, in order to bring it within the s.p.a.ce a.s.signed. That such revision did not affect her claims to authorship, is of course apparent.

It is sufficiently clear, from what appears above, that Mr. Bancroft's public justification of himself for publishing under his own name all the work done in the library is the fact that he reserved the right to alter all ma.n.u.scripts and make what changes he saw fit. This made him managing editor, however, not author. The comparatively few additions he made to the ma.n.u.scripts can not justify such a claim. That the revision of Mrs. Victor's work consisted in the main of nothing more than leaving out parts appears from two cases already cited, one in connection with the History of Colorado, Nevada, and Wyoming, the other with the History of Oregon, as well as from the direct statements of those who supervised library work. As we have seen he demanded that his writers turn out a certain number of pages a day "all ready for the printer," so he could have had little occasion to revise their work. The writers who Mr. Bancroft said in 1878 wrote with very little change from him were of course Oak and Nemos. Now Oak wrote seven and a half volumes of the history, and Nemos and Mrs.

Victor five each, while Bancroft wrote four--a total of at least twenty-two volumes out of the twenty-eight to the authorship of which no serious claim could be made on the ground of altered ma.n.u.scripts.

Moreover, Savage says in his autobiography that, while Bancroft made additions and amendments to the three volumes which he wrote, in some of his pages only a word or two was changed and that others remained intact. What rewriting was occasionally done on the remaining volumes, was apparently done as often by other persons as by Mr. Bancroft. His relation toward the work was therefore exactly the same as that of a managing editor toward the matter printed in a newspaper. The latter could never claim the authorship of the articles written by his staff, although altered to a considerable extent by him or by his direction.

It should be stated here that Mr. Bancroft justified his course to those in the library by insisting that they furnished him merely with rough notes, and that it would be necessary for him to rewrite the work, or at any rate, considerable portions of it. This, had it been done, would have been strictly in accord with the account of his connection with the work as printed in the Literary Industries. But it was not done, and the account as printed is incorrect.

Since the completion of the history, but one of the writers has publicly claimed the authorship of the volumes written in the library.

Ill health, only too common with those who labored through the work, has in most cases been a sufficient barrier to such action. Savage and Bates remained in Mr. Bancroft's employ for a number of years engaged in other work, and of course under such circ.u.mstances could not make any claims. Nemos as a foreigner could not be expected to take much interest in such matters, and his early return to Europe and subsequent residence there have rendered it difficult for him to make such a statement did he so desire. Mrs. Victor alone has printed a general statement of the portions of the history written by her, a course in which she was influenced by years of absolute independence in directing her literary energies before entering Mr. Bancroft's employ, and a consequent appreciation of the rights and honors of authorship. Four volumes of the Bancroft histories were exhibited as her work at the Mechanics Pavilion in San Francisco during the fair in January, 1893, and also among a collection of the works of New York women authors made the same year (_Utica Morning Herald_, May 4, 1893). A special preface over her name inserted in the first volume of the Oregon history in the exhibit claimed the authorship of the volumes.

(These are the words of the preface: "It seems not only just, but necessary to affix my name to at least four volumes of the History of the Pacific States, although that does not cover all the work done on the history by myself. The four volumes referred to comprise the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada. My name is therefore placed on the backs of these volumes without displacing that of Mr. Bancroft.")

As to the shares of the various writers in the history proper, we have the sources of information which have already been mentioned in speaking of the Native Races, supplemented by very full data left by Mrs. Victor concerning her part in the work. It is thus possible to give in a general way the authorship of each volume, barring fragmentary writing.

From these sources it is found that during the progress of the work on the Native Races, Mr. Bancroft had after hard labor and much revision completed his introduction to the History of Central America, and had written a half of the first volume. Oak wrote half of the preface and the fine print summary of explorations, and Nemos was responsible for a third of the volume from page 460 on, although he prepared material in the rough, leaving it to be rewritten by a German aid whose name is not given, but who may have been a man by the name of Kuhn mentioned as having done work on the second volume.

Of this latter volume, Mr. Bancroft wrote one chapter, apparently the first, which deals with Pizarro and Peru. Nemos and a writer named Peatfield (J. J. Peatfield, described by Bancroft [Lit. Ind., 265-267,] as a "strong man and one of talent," was born in Nottinghamshire, England, August 26, 1833. His father, a clergyman, educated him for the church and he took his degree at Cambridge in 1857, being graduated in the cla.s.sical tripos. The church, however, was distasteful to him, and he obtained a tutorship, subsequently in 1862 going to Nicaragua to engage in cacao cultivating. This enterprise proved a failure. After attempting cotton, cacao again, and finally coffee all in vain, in 1865 he became a bookkeeper at San Jose, the capital of Costa Rica. In January, 1868, he was made a clerk and translator to the legation at Guatemala, and two years later, British Consul General for Central America. While holding the consulship of Guatemala a third time, he resigned on account of ill health and went to San Francisco, where he arrived in November, 1871.

Becoming bookkeeper and cashier for a Nevada mine at White Pine, and battling much with ill health, he returned to San Francisco, where he acted as teacher and bookkeeper until February, 1881, when he entered the library), labored together on the volume and prepared half of it, and Bates a fourth. Kuhn wrote a fifth which was partly rewritten by Nemos. The latter claimed about a fourth of a volume as the actual material written by him for the first and second volumes together.

The third volume, including the history of Central America in the nineteenth century, was written by Savage, who, nearly all his life had been engaged in the consular service of the United States in Cuba and Central America.

(Thomas Savage, according to a biography written by himself, was born at Havana, Cuba, August 27, 1823, a short time after his parents had removed thither from Philadelphia. His father, a descendant of the earliest settlers of Ma.s.sachusetts and a brother of Savage, the famous genealogist of New England, was from Boston, and his mother, a native of Charleston, South Carolina, was the daughter of a French planter who had escaped the great ma.s.sacre in San Domingo and a Maryland woman of Jewish extraction).

In childhood, Savage was several times taken to the United States and back as the necessities of his father's business demanded. At the age of fifteen, he had studied the Latin cla.s.sics, advanced mathematics and languages, nearly breaking forever his health, which had always been feeble. Abandoning his studies and taking a long rest in the country, he regained sufficient strength to enable him to support himself, for his parents had now lost their fortune. He entered a commercial house at Havana, and after working a few years as bookkeeper, in the summer of 1846 joined the United States consulate as clerk and translator. From that time until the end of the year 1867, he was attached to the consulate, rising successively to the positions of secretary to the consul general, deputy consul general, and vice consul general. From 1854 on, there was not a single year during which the consulate general was not in his charge for several months. During the War of the Rebellion he was several times in charge, once for twenty months, and during this trying period won the confidence of his government by laboring hard to do his whole duty.

He spent the greater part of the year 1868 in the United States, and then went to Panama, where he was engaged as a.s.sistant editor of the _Star and Herald_, having charge of the Spanish portion of the paper.

Savage had lost a wife in Cuba, and in January, 1870, married a second time. Shortly afterward, he embarked for Salvador, where he taught English in the University, became consul-general, and finally started a newspaper. Just as this last enterprise was beginning to pay, his wife's precarious health necessitated his removal to a better climate, and he settled in Guatemala. Here he established a fine printing office, and began the publication of a newspaper. Though aided by the government, the business nevertheless proved unprofitable, and after selling out at a heavy loss, he came to San Francisco in 1873.

Throughout life, Savage was a constant reader, with a special fondness for history. He once said that he believed he had read the histories of all the world.

From a perusal of what Nemos says concerning the History of Mexico, we are led to infer that Bancroft again wrote the introduction, as the former librarian credits his chief with two chapters of the first volume. Nemos wrote the remainder, but Bancroft rewrote some of his work, he said only a fifth, much of the revision consisting in a mere change of words. Oak differed with him on this point, holding that Bancroft did more rewriting, but Nemos persists that this is an exaggeration.

The second volume was done by Nemos, Savage, and Peatfield, Nemos writing the first half and some later chapters, two thirds of the volume in all, Savage one fourth, and Peatfield a little.

Of the third volume, Nemos wrote between a third and a half, including, as he tells us, the leading inst.i.tutional and political parts, Savage a third, a writer named Griffin (George Butler Griffin was a native of New York state, and a graduate of Yale. He was a linguist, and had been an engineer in South America. Apparently early in the eighties, his connection with the library had ceased. He died by his own hand.) two or three chapters, and Peatfield a part.

Of volume four, Bancroft did one chapter, Peatfield a fourth of the whole, and Savage a third. Nemos "a.s.sisted on parts," his work aggregating a fourth of the volume.

The fifth volume of the Mexican History, embracing the period from 1804 to 1861, was known as Savage's volume. Of the ma.n.u.script, he actually wrote about two thirds. Nemos did about a fourth, including the fall of Mexico and the leading war episodes. Some of the writing was done by Peatfield. (In conversation he claimed to have written a large part of the Mexican War chapters.)

The last volume of the Mexican History was prepared chiefly by Nemos and Savage, the latter writing the first and last chapters, the former about two thirds of the volume, including the history of Maximilian and the inst.i.tutional chapters. Peatfield did a little work on this volume. Oak's contribution to the History of Mexico, according to his own statement, consisted of a "few slight parts."

The history of the northern part of Mexico, and the Southwest of the United States was Oak's special field, designated by him as The Spanish Northwest. The entire first volume of the History of the North Mexican States is his work. The history of Lower California in this volume, as well as that in the next, was based on a ma.n.u.script on Lower California written several years before by Harcourt. But this work was so altered by both Oak and Nemos in their respective volumes through condensation, the changing of conclusions, and the adding of new material, as to amount to a rewriting.

The History of Texas in North Mexican States, second volume, is the work of Peatfield; the remainder of the volume, between a third and a half, that of Nemos. (The Texas part was subsequently extended by Peatfield for the edition now in circulation, that it might find a better sale in that state.)

The volume on Arizona and New Mexico is the work of Oak alone.

Spanish and Mexican California likewise belonged to Oak's field and the first five volumes of the History of California are from his pen.

(Nemos adds, "though he neglected to put in inst.i.tutions, leaving them for W. N. [himself] and Savage." In view of Oak's oft-repeated a.s.sertion that he was sole author of these five volumes, this must mean that they were supplied in other volumes. Moreover, there are no inst.i.tutional parts properly speaking in these five volumes, and if such parts as "Mission Progress," "Commercial Affairs," and the like are to be regarded, they make up half the work.)

The early American history of California was a topic in which Mr.

Bancroft was naturally interested because of his own mining experience during the early gold days. Nemos' schedule shows that he wrote sixty pages for the sixth volume of California, a circ.u.mstance which taken with our knowledge of fields of research into which he entered in the preparation of California Pastoral and Popular Tribunals makes us reasonably sure that he wrote the first, second, and twenty-fifth chapters. Mrs. Victor, who in her work on Oregon had been found especially strong as a writer on political subjects, was a.s.signed the task of working up the political history of California, and, according to her own statement, wrote two hundred and thirty-four pages for this volume. We can positively identify chapters twelve, thirteen, twenty-three, and twenty-four as her work. From the similarity of their subject-matter to some already treated by her in the Oregon history, and from the fact that their addition to the work just indicated brings the total almost exactly to the figures given, we may conclude that she also wrote the third, fourth, and fifth chapters.

The chapter ent.i.tled Mexican Land t.i.tles is Oak's work, and the remainder of the volume, almost two thirds, is that of Nemos.

Information given by Mrs. Victor shows that she wrote for the final volume of the History of California four hundred and eighty-nine pages on politics and railroads. We are thus enabled to designate as her work chapters nine to twenty-one inclusive, and chapter twenty-five.

This still leaves to her credit eighteen pages to be located in some other chapter. The rest of the volume, embracing the portions dealing with commerce, manufactures, agriculture, and mining, was written, Nemos says, by himself. Before publication, the sheets on California judiciary were submitted to Justice Stephen J. Field for his approval.

The estimate of certain pioneer characters in the California history, together with the adopting of the Mexican view of the conquest of that state by Americans, brought down upon Mr. Bancroft the condemnation of the California Society of Pioneers, who, in 1894, expelled him from honorary membership in their body. (See pamphlet proceedings of the Society of California Pioneers in reference to the History of Hubert Howe Bancroft.) It is a curious fact, however, that the pa.s.sages which were made the basis of the society's indictment are almost entirely in the first five volumes of the California history, which were written by Oak. He has declared that even the revisions were his own and not Bancroft's.

The History of Utah, another storm-center among the histories, was written by Bates and Bancroft, the former, according to Nemos, preparing twice as much ma.n.u.script as the latter. The earlier chapters are by Bancroft, but no more certain a.s.signment of their respective shares in the work can be made from the information at hand.