Hubert Howe Bancroft - Critique of Production Methods

Critique of Production Methods

Bancroft published a well-known group of local histories. Having formed a large collection of materials concerning the history of the Pacific coast, he then employed research and writing assistants to organize and produce statements of facts for large sections of a proposed general history. Originally he seems to have intended to use these statements of facts as the basis of a narrative which he himself would write; but as the work progressed he came to use the statements as they were, with only slight changes. He said his assistants were capable investigators, and there is independent evidence to show that some of them deserved his confidence. (Frances Fuller Victor, in particular, was a well regarded writer in her own right.) However, his failure to acknowledge each contribution created doubt concerning the value of any particular section. Overall, although Bancroft considered himself the author of the work, it is more accurate to consider him an editor and compiler.

Neither Bancroft, nor most of his assistants, had preparatory training sufficient to save them from the inadequacies common to historical works of this period. Their writing sometimes represented personal opinions and enthusiasms, and their often-good books consequently have some serious defects. However, they were generally very well received in their time. Historian Francis Parkman gave Bancroft's The Native Races much credit in the magazine The North American Review. Lewis H. Morgan, however, was more critical. Based on his newly published theory of Indian culture, in an article named Montezuma's Dinner, Morgan completely reversed Parkman's verdict and created doubt in the minds of the public about this and other volumes of the series. Bancroft's response to Morgan's criticism suggests that he did not understand Morgan's theory, which is now generally accepted by scholars.