Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/230

 220 C. F. Adams given its whole great unity to history ; and, in the second place, he had not thought his plan fully out, subordinating severely to it both his imagination and his rhetoric. Accordingly, so far as literary form was concerned, his history, which in that respect above all should, with his classic training, have been an entire and perfect chrysolite, was in fact a monumental failure. It was not even a whole ; it was only a fragment. Coming now to our own American experience, and still speaking exclusively of the writings of the dead, it is not unsafe to say that there is as yet no American historical work which can call even for mention among those of the first class. The list can speedily be passed in review, — Marshall, Irving, Prescott, Hildreth, Bancroft, Motley, Palfrey and Parkman. Except those yet living, I do not recall any others who would challenge consideration. That Marshall was en- dowed with a calm, clear judgment, no reader of his judicial opin- ions would deny ; but he had no other attribute of an historian. He certainly was not historically learned, and there is no evidence that he was gifted with any sense of literary proportion. Irving was a born man of letters. With a charming style and a keen sense of humor, he was as an historical writer defective in judgment. Not a profound or accurate investigator, as became apparent in his Columbus and his Washington, his excellent natural literary sense was but partially developed. Perhaps he was born before his time ; perhaps his education did not lead him to the study of the best models ; but, however it came about, he failed, and failed indisput- ably, in form. Prescott was a species of historical pioneer, — an adventurer in a new field of research and of letters. Not only was he, like Macaulay and the rest, born before Darwin and the other great scientific lights of the century had assigned to human history its unity, limits and significance, but Prescott was not a profound scholar, nor yet a thorough investigator ; his judgment was by no means either incisive or robust, and his style was elegant, as the phrase goes, rather than tersely vigorous. He wrote, moreover, of that which he never saw, or made himself thoroughly part of even in imagination. Laboring under great disadvantages, his course was infinitely creditable ; but his portrait in the gallery of historians is not on the eye hne. Of Hildreth, it is hardly necessary to speak. Laborious and persevering, his investigation was not thorough ; in- deed he had not taken in the fundamental conditions of modern historical research. With a fatally defective judgment, he did not know what form was. George Bancroft was in certain ways unique, and, among writers and students, his name cannot be mentioned without respect. He