ville, which later historians have shown to be prejudiced and in error. (See Chittenden's History of the American Fur Trade in the Far West, I, 432-33.)
A third influence affecting the treatment of facts of history which passed under Mr. Bancroft's editorship, as well as those which he presented in the scattered portions of volumes of which he could claim real authorship, is that of personal bias. The manager of the Bancroft enterprise was a man, who in the course of a thirty years' business career had many business rivalries and personal enmities. His strong dislikes frequently assert themselves in his writings, if we are to take his own statements. (Lit. Ind., 374.)
Again, the personal equation must be accounted for in the value which he sets on the work of historians who wrote before him. He not infrequently disparages their writings in the strongest terms, his depreciation of Washington Irving being one of the most palpable cases. (Chittenden's History of American Fur Trade in the Far West, I, 244-46), has forcibly revealed the extent of the injustice done by Bancroft in this one case. That there are others like it will readily appear. For the effort to demonstrate the superiority of the Bancroft histories over others, we must accordingly make due allowance when attempting a critical estimate.
Furthermore, the editor-manager began the work with certain theories and notions of history that have found their way into the pages which he has published. From the beginning, he adopted the British side in dealing with the dispute over the Oregon boundary. In his treatment of Indian wars, the same tendency to adopt ready-made theories asserted itself. In the manuscript of Mrs. Victor's History of Oregon, treating of Indian Wars in Southern Oregon which "gave great credit to the veterans of that struggle and the settlers generally for
