for a hundred years: (Frances Fuller Victor in Salt Lake Tribune, April 14, 1893.) Moreover, the use of quotations from foreign languages, of which Mr. Bancroft had no knowledge, proves that parts of the work are not from his pen, while the different literary styles (see for example, the review of Oregon I in the New York Tribune, Nov. 26, 1886; in the S. F. Argonaut, Oct. 23, 1886; in the Sacramento D. Record-Union, Oct. 27, 1886; and in the Portland Oregonian, Oct. 28, 1886), and varying degrees of historical workmanship (Compare reviews of Oregon II in N. Y. Tribune, January, 1887; and in S. F. Chronicle, Jan. 13, 1887, with reviews of other Bancroft works) clearly reveal the work of a number of writers.
A little knowledge on this point has proved a dangerous thing for the reputation of the histories. Some of the newspapers of the coast have learned that Mr. Bancroft did not do all the writing and have even published the names of other authors of the series with statements more or less conjectural as to the writing done by them. In some cases, wild speculations as to the authorship of the works have been published. Many are under the impression that those who went about taking statements of pioneers and in other ways collecting material were themselves writing the manuscript which was published, and that consequently much of the history is no more critically written than an ordinary newspaper article, and as little known about its authorship. Furthermore, it is believed in some quarters that those who prepared narrations for Mr. Bancroft were writing history for him to publish, and that persons not connected with the Bancroft library were authors of parts of the work. In accordance with this idea, it has been claimed that a certain tone favorable to the Mormons which runs through the History of Utah is to be accounted for by the theory that the volume was written by some one con-
