Page:Essays in Historical Criticism.djvu/69

 the com-

be given of the qualified acceptance of the story by Professor Sparks ^ and the unquestioning presentation of the legend in all its details by Dr. W. E. Griffis.2

Of the latest writers to be mentioned, one boldly takes her stand on the borderland between history and fiction. Eva Emery Dye's McLoughlin and Old Oregon^ A Chronicle^^ gives evidence of much conscientious study. It is a " chron- icle," in the same sense as Quentin Durward or one of Shake- speare's " histories." Where documents exist they are utilized, where they do not exist invention takes their place. This book is a literary picture of early Oregon, of exceptional interest and, in outline and coloring, rich in instruction. In regard to the Whitman story, it is not more unhistorical than Nixon's book, but at the critical points in the story it assumes, for the time being, the semblance of carefully authenticated history, when, in reality, it is a skilful com- bination of the true history, the Spalding legend and the author's own invention. The other, Dr. William A. Mo wry, essays the impossible task of combining into a consistent and trustworthy narrative the Spalding legend and the genuine materials. His Marcus Whitman and The Early Days of Oregon^ is perhaps the most plausible attempt to save the legend, stripped of its exaggerations, that has been made. He freely acknowledges that Spalding erred in "details," and surrenders the most obviously fabulous features of the story. His point of view in writing Oregon history is that of the missionary group, and his book will, no doubt, be hailed as a successful defence, but his apparent success is won at a sacrifice of his standing as an historical investigator.

plete legendary account is to be found, and Marcus Whitman receives more space than Webster and Clay combined, and only a little less than is accorded to the whole Civil War.

1 The Expansion of the American People, Chicago, 1900, 306-7.

2 The Romance of Conquest, Boston, 1899, 172-173.

3 Chicago, 1900.

of his book to enable me to include it in my review of Whitman literature. This was a courtesy all the more to be appreciated because he must have realized that I could not approve of his method of using and of ignoring evidence.
 * New York, 1901. Dr. Mowry very kindly offered to send me advance sheets