University of Washington: ResearchWorks Journal Hosting

52 News Depart111,ent
N ew Worker in the Field.
William A, Morris is an Oregonian who was educated at
Stanford University and then took graduate work at Harvard
for his Doctor of Philosophy degree. After that he made a trip
for study in England and in September reported at the Univer-
sity of Washington for work as an assistant professor. He is 3-
specialist in mediaeval history, but has great love for the his-
tory of the Pacific Northwest. For this reason the Quarterly will
be sure to have some of his talent at its disposal.
A Correction.
In the July Quarterly was published an article on Jesse Ap-
plegate. The material as it came into the editor's hands was ill
the form of a clipping from a local ~Ic1\1innville (Oregon) paper.
There was not time for the proof to be submitted to the author,
and so Professor Joseph Schafer asks that the following be pub-
lished:
Page 217, paragraph 3. line 5, create, read created; par. -1-.
1.2, for those read for of those; p. 218, par. 2. 1. 3, square read
spare; p. 219, par. 2, 1.8, no definite read little detailed; p. 220,
par. 2, 1.7, or read to; par. 3, 1.7, statesman read statemen; p.
221, par. 3, 1.2, Milborn read Milburn; p. 225, par. :;. 1.1, Warren
read Warre; p. 226, par. I, I A, a number read the number; ( )
read [ ]; 1.5, contract ( ) read compact [ ]; p. 227, par. 3,
1.2, orders read others; par. 4, 1.9, once as read once more as;
1.10, 1850 read 1849; p. 229, par. I, 1.6, for the year 1789 rea<l
from the year 1789; 1.9, insert and before Bancroft; p. 231, par.
2, 1.4, States read status; 1.8, of the nation read to the nation;
State's read states; p. 232, par. 2, 1.6, be to read best; 1.9, (
read [ ].
Three Recent Addresses.
Honorable John P. Hartman has rendered a good service to
readers and students of the ~orthwestby causing to be published
his address at the ground-breaking ceremonies of the Alaska-
Yukon-Pacific Exposition and also his address delivered in Spo-
kane in January, 1907. These two addresses contain a large
quantity of information pertaining to this region, which was
compiled with eyident care as well as much labor. The third
address was also one of the exposition numbers. It was by


English

A Correction

"In addition to the clear delineation of Lucas' character, the book contains a wealth of material setting forth the life of a pioneer State and its problems.

McMahon, Edward

170 Book Reviews
Hughes' narrative is extremely interesting. It is written
from the standpoint of the man in the ranks and has a wealth
of interest and detail pertaining to the actual diffi<.:ulties of the
march that is rarely obtainable for such a movement. Hughes
was a keen observer and interestingly describes the country, its
people, the army and its maneuvers. Few travelers have writ-
ten with a readier pen.
l'lr. Connelley has added fuller information in a multitude of
foot notes. as well as full and i.nteresting sketches of Doniphan,
Hughes, Sterling Price, a part of the hitherto 1111printed diary of
Hughes, the official rosters of the companies and eleven appen-
dices, all of which enhance the value of the original work.
The whole volume shows careful editing and it will take first
rank as a personal narrative dealing with the Mexican \\rar.
The whole story is so well told that it is hard to put it aside
until it has been read through.
EDWARD :\1c.~IAHON.
Robert Lucas. By John C. Parish [Iowa Biographical Series,
edited by Benjamin F. Shambough]. (Iowa City, the State His-
torical Society of Iowa, 1907, pp. XI. .356.)
This study of Robert Lucas is a valuable volume dealing with
a \Vestern pioneer's activities as a soldier in the VIar of 1812,
as a politician, legislator and Governor of Ohio, and as Terri-
torial Governor of Iowa. The study is valuable not because
Lucas was a great actor in any of these capacities, but rather
because he was such a good type of the men that have filled and
are still filling these positions in the newer Western States. Lu-
cas was essentially a Western pioneer, self-made, partially edu-
cated, independent, somewhat dogmatic, set in his opinions even
to the point of being stubborn, but, notwithstanding, possessed
of a good fund of common sense and practical ability. In addi-
tion to the clear delineation of Lucas' character, the book con-
tains a wealth of material settil:Ig forth the life of a pioneer
State and its problems. With bitt slight modifications, similar
characters can be found working out similar problems in State
government in many States of the far \Vest to-day.
Robert Lucas' paternal ancestors were Quakers who came
from England in the days of liVilliam Penn. \i\Then Buck County
ceased to be a pioneer county the family moved across the moun-
tains into \i\Testern Virginia, where Robert Lucas was born. By
1800 the Lucas family had settled in the Scioto river valley,
Samuel Freeman Miller 171
Ohio and still later Robert Lucas moved westward to Iowa.
Pros~ective troubles over the transfer of the Louisiana Pur-
chase led to a call for troops in Ohio, and Lucas 'raised a com-
pany. During the trouble with England over the Chesapeake
he was again active in raising militia and later took an active
and important part in the \i\Tar of 1812.
As a leo-islator and Governor of Ohio Lucas does not take
b
rank as a statesman, but he seems to have fulfilled the needs of
the situation in a creditable manner. There were no particularly
difficult problems of statecraft to solve, hence no statesman was
needed.. As Governor he warmly advocated a free public school
system, favored an efficient militia as a protection against for-
eign invasion and rndian outbreaks, urged the building of road",
bridges and canals, and later, when Governor of Iowa, added
railroads to his list of necessary improvements.
"The disputes over the interior division lines of the country
have sometimes developed into open conflicts. Here the local
feelings rise to the highest pitch. With angry squatters shaking
their fists at each other across the line that separates their
claims, and two equally angry Governors, forgetting their dig-
nity and challenging each other in responsive proclamations, the
scene often presents a ludicrous as well as serious aspect." (227.)
It was Governor Lucas' misfortune to become involved in two
of these disputes, the first with Michigan while he was Governor
of Ohio, the second with Missouri while he was Governor of
Iowa Territory.
To enter into the many political campaigns in which Lucas
took a part, or to attempt to sketch pioneer life in Ohio or Iowa
in Robert Lucas' time would carry us too far afield. It is suffi-
cient to say that it is well done in this volume.
Mr. Parish has made a diligent search for material bearing
on Lucas' career and presents his story clearly and convincingly.
Barring an occasional slip, the work is verv well written. Abun-
dant notes point to the authorities COlisult~d, and there is a good
index.
EDWARD McMAHON.
Samuel Freeman MiJIler. By Charles Noble Gregory, A. 1\L,
LL. D. [Iowa Biographical Series, edited by Benjamin F. Sham-
baugh.] (Iowa City, the State Historical Society of Iowa 190~, ;,
pp. IX. 217-)
The activities of a justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States removed from the stirring activities of practical politics


Robert Lucas

"The Quarterly presents two important articles in this issue which were read at the twenty-third annual meeting of the American Historical Association.

NEWS DEPARTMENT
American Historical Association.
The Quarterly presents two important articles in this issue
which were read at the twenty-third annual meeting of the Amer-
ican Historical Association, these two papers being read in one
of the five special conferences. For that reason they will not
appear in the regular publication of the proceedings. Historians
and other students on the Pacific Coast are deeply interested in
Oriental problems, and it is therefore a pleasure to lay before
them the papers by President Charles D. Tenney of Pei Yang
College and Professor K. Asakawa of Yale University.
The meeting was a brilliant success and Madison, "the city
of laws and education," certainly showed herself a cordial and
appreciative host of more than a thousand scholarly men and
women. The proceedings will be published in full in the annual
report published by the United States Government, and the pa-
pers will appear in the American Historical Review.
Professor George B. Adams of Yale was elected President
and Professor Frederick ]. Turner of Wisconsin, Vice-President,
for the ensuing year. These honors are among the greatest to
be achieved by historians in America. N ext year the First Vice-
President, Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard, will be
promoted to the presidency;
Tribute to the Pioneers.
Henry E. Reed, Director of Exploitation of the Alaska-
Yukon-Pacific Exposition, has written from \Vashington City
to Director General Nadeau that on February 3 Senator Samuel
H. Piles received such an ovation as has been seldom, if ever,
given to a young Senator. The galleries were packed to hear
the Senator's great speech on the Exposition and the \Vest. The
address was a masterly effort and deserved the showers of com-
pliments from his fellow senators and the prominent men assem-
bled in the audience. Every pioneer and everyone of the new-
comers who are interested in the history of the Old Oregon
country should secure from the Senator a COpy of the complete
address. Space is taken here for the concluding sentences, giv-
ing, in part, the Senator's glowing tribute to the pioneer:
6b (177)


American Historical Association

"From start to finish, Mr. Denny's narrative has been revised as a schoolboy's composition is worked over by a conscientious teacher. Evidently the editor has not the qualifications needed by one who would reproduce works of historic worth, but evidently she is imbued with the idea of am editor's importance.

Smith, Charles  W.

By Arthur A. Denny. Edited
(Seattle: Alice Ha:-riman Co.,
BOOK REVIEWS.
Pioneer Days on Puget Sound.
by Alice Harriman. Illustrated.
1908, 103 pp., $2.)
The appearance of a reprint of Arthur A. Denny's "Pioneer
Days on Puget Sound" is an event of more than ordinary inter-
est. The original volume was privately issued by the author in
1888 and distributed among his friends. It was printed by Mr.
Clarence B. Bagley, still living in Seattle, who states that the
edition was small, probably 300 copies, although he is not sure
of the exact number. Whatever the number may have been, it
was much depleted the following year in the great fire of 1889.
Mr. Denny, being one of the founders of the City of Seattle,
and always prominently identified with its development, was in
an excellent position to write of its history. This he did in the
straightforward narrative of eighty-three pages, which he pub-
lished under the title of "Pioneer Days on Puget Sound." Mr.
Denny was a discriminating and careful observer and he aimed
at scrupulous accuracy. His book is deservedly prized as an au-
thoritative source of information upon the early history of Se-
attle and Puget Sound. Its intrinsic worth, the small number of
copies, and the fact that it has never been on sale to the public,
have all combined to make it extremely rare and difficult to
obtain.
It was, accordingly, with great interest that local students of
history read the announcement in the Publishers' Weekly of
March 14, 1908, vol. 73, p. 1126, that "The Alice Harriman Co.,
of Seattle, \iVash., announce for early publication the first of a
series of reprints to be known as 'The Puget Sound Historical
Series.' The first book to be reprinted is Arthur A. Denny's
'Pioneer Days on Puget Sound.''' The book has promptly made
its appearance and it becomes a duty to compare the reprint with
the original for the benefit of students who do not possess the
original edition.
The first impression one gets from the new edition is very
favorable. It is printed on good paper from excellent type and
is well bound in neat green covers bearing an attractive design
in the center of which appears the well-known portrait of the
(265)
266 Boak Reviews
author. It is an exceptionally well made book and reflects credit
on all who had part in its production. In size, it is some three
times that of the ?riginal, suggesting the addition of much new
material.
The editor's preface, however, is singularly non-commital as
to what has been attempted in the reprinted edition. It is not
stated that any additions have been made and the reader is left
to infer that the original text has been followed without change.
Unfortunately, such is not the case.
Mr. Denny's simple narrative has been broken up into a
dozen chapters, each with a chapter-title and a motto after the
style of certain works of fiction, and all without the slightest
indication that the chapter formation, titles and mottoes are not
the work of the author. Further than this, paragraphs have been
subdivided and even sentences have been broken and recast into
new ones. 1\1arks of pnnctuation have been added to suit the
taste of the editor. As a sample of the extent to which this work
of revision has been carried, the first paragraph of the book will
serve. Mr. Denny's first paragraph has been broken into four
paragraphs. His first sentence has been cut into three sentences.
In spite of this cutting up process, it has required the insertion
of five additional commas to make this first paragraph satisfac-
tory to the editor.
Nor has she been content with such reVISIon. On page 16,
line 6 from the top, of the original, appears the words "very
small" in italics. The reprint, p. 33, line 3 from the bottom, ig-
nores this added emphasis, though why no reason is given. A
still more serious offence is the alteration of spelling without
warning or excuse. The author's N esqually has been uniformly
amended to Nisqually. Mukilshoot is changed to Muckilshoot.
Lake Kichelas, p. 75, becomes Lake Kitcheles, p. 92 of the re-
print. Gansevort, p. 69, is changed to Gansevoort, p. 87. In one
case only has the slightest hint -been given of change of spelling
and in this case no change had been made. On page 92 of the
reprint, an asterisk after Naches Pass, line 12 from the top, refers
to a foot-note, which says, "Official spelling U. S. Board on Geo-
graphical Names." Reference to the corresponding sentence of
the original, p. 75, line 3 from the top, shows that in this case
no change had been made, but that the two spellings are iden-
tical. The spelling of the original is that sanctioned by the U. S.
Board on Geographic Names in every case but one, namely, on p.
45, line 9 from the bottom, where it is printed 1\achess Pass.
Pioneer Days on Puget Sound 267
This has ,been corrected in the reprint and here on p. 64 e ri-
dently belongs the foot-note which is superfluous on p. 92.
As another example of lack of fidelity to the original should
be noted the disappearance of the addenda slip on final page 83,
which calls attention to five errors for correction. These correc-
tions have been made in the body of the reprint, but with the
editor's usual freedom from restraint. Take for example the first
item of the errata requesting the substitution of Wm. Hebner for
William Hefner, as printed on p. 33, line 5 from the bottom. A
reference to the corresponding sentence in the reprint shows
neither of these spellings, but a third one-William Heebner.
In fairness to the editor, it should be stated that there were
corrections that were needed, but they should have been given
in notes with authority and reason for the change. For example.
two dates were erroneously given in the author's text. The first
of these occurs on page 64, line I I from the bottom, where the
"21st of October, 1855," should be the 28th of October, 1855.
The other one is on p. 69, line 9 from the bottom, where "Jan-
uary 25th, 1855," should be January 26, 1856. These errors have,
in fact, been corrected in the reprint, but without one word of
explanation or comment.
From start to finish, Mr. Denny's narrative has been reviserl
as a schoolboy's composition is worked over by a conscientious
teacher. Evidently the editor has not the qualifications needed
by one who would reproduce works of historic worth, but evi-
dently she is imbued with the idea of an editor's importance.
The name Harriman appears on the cover and in the book no
less than eight times, exceeding in number even that of the au-
thor's name in similar positions of prominepce.
What the editor wished to accomplish is not clear. The pref-
ace gives no statement as to the purpose of the reprint, but to
furnish an accurate reproduction of the author's work was ap-
parently no part of the plan. For the person who possesses the
original, the new work will prove a serviceable supplementary
volume. Very praiseworthy diligence has been shown in the
collection of photographs, which have been copiously added to
the book. Some of these are exceedingly rare and all are timely
and helpful. An index, also, has been made which adds greatly
to the working value of the book. Some useful information is
supplied by way of foot-notes, but their value would have bee11
greatly enhanced if the editor had thought it worth while to give
authority for her statements. Opposite page 80 is a reproduction
of an interesting "Sketch made by Lieut. W. S. Phelps of the
268 Documents
By Wm. E. Dodd, Ph. D. [American
(Philadelphia: Geo. W. Jacobs, 1907, pp.
'Decatur' (afterwards Rear-Admiral of the U. S. N.), dpring the
Indian troubles of 1855-56."
At,the end of the author's text has been included without
comment a list of "Chronological Notes" relating principally to
the early settlement of Seattle and King County, and signed by
six pioneers, fac similes of whose signatures are given. What
is the meaning of these chronological notes and why are they
included? The document is dated January I, 1880, and is clearly
no part of the book which it antedates by eight years. Authori-
tative and valuable it certainly is, and although it has been else-
where printed (Seattle "Argus," December 21, 1901, volume 8,
page 6,) it is worthy of insertion as a commentary upon the care
and method exercised by Mr. Denny in safeguarding the main
facts relative to the early settlement of Seattle. Facts in regarJ
to this document, telling how and why it was prepared and
placed on file, would have made an extremely interesting edito-
rial note. Barring such facts, it loses the best part of its mean-
ing as an addendum to this work.
Mr. C. D. Boren, the only survivor of the signers, is not now
in Seattle, but from others familiar with the case it is learned
that ]'dr. Denny's purpose, as carried out in this document, was
to 'collect the absolutely fundamental facts pertaining to the
city's earliest history and to have them accurately and precisely
set down and signed by those still living who participated in the
events recorded. This was in fact done, and the statement was
filed away in a secure vault for no other purpose than to safe-
guard the history of the region covered, at least to the extent
of this brief chronology. One incentive, probably, for putting
the record upon paper at that time was the work of Hubert
Howe Bancroft, who had visited Seattle in June, 1878, (See
Bancroft, H. H., Literary Industries, 1890, page 541,) while
collecting material for his history of the Pacific States.
CHARLES W. SMITH.
Jefferson Davis.
Crisis Biographies.]
383.)
This life of J effer,?on Davis is another evidence of the his-
torian's growing interest in the events of our tragic Civil V!ar
after the passions of the period have largely passed away and
time has made possible a more correct perspective. The clue


Pioneer Days on Puget Sound

"One who expects to find in this volume a new life of Alex H. Stephens is destined to disappointment.

Alexander H. Stephens 363
[The Ameri-
Oberholtzer. ]
'l'he Bradford manuscript has had a curious history. Brad-
ford left it to his son and for some years it continued in the pos-
session of the Bradford descendants, but after having been used
by three or four early historical writers it disappeared. In 1855
it was discovered in the library of the Bishop of London, prob-
ably having been carried to England by Governor Hutchinson,
who was using it in the preparation of his history of Massachu-
setts Bay.
A copy was made for the Massachusetts Historical Society
and edited by Charles Deane, was printed in the collections of
that society in 1856. In this form it has long been known to his-
torical students having access to the larger libraries. The State
of Massachusetts made several unsuccessful attempts to recover
the manuscript, but was not finally successful until 1897, and in
the following year the manuscript and an account of the proceed-
ings incident to its delivery were published by the State.
The present volume is based on the Massachusetts reprint
and has the advantage of 1\11'. Davis' careful editing and an in-
teresting introductory chapter. It is hardly necessary to com-
ment on the importance of Governor Bradford's history for "with-
ont it the history of the Plymouth Colony, now so complete. would
have been, so far as its early years are concerned, involved in
mystery." The story is interestingly and qnaintly told by Brad-
for(l, and we are fortunate in having it now in usable and con-
venient form and at a price within the reach of all.
-EDWARD l\lcl\fAHON.
Alexander H. Stephens. By Louis Pendleton.
can Crisis Biographies, edited by Ellis Paxson
(Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs, 1908, pp. 406.)
One who expects to find in this volume a new life of Alex.
H. Stephens is destined to disappointment. The volume is a scis-
sors-and-pastepot condensation of two earlier biographies of Steph-
ens, together with a few selections or condensations from Steph-
ens' "War Between the States." Practically the only parts con-
tributed by the author are three chapters in which, as "a fellow
Georgian." he tells the reader some thing's he thinks the reader
ought to know, not that they have any direct bearing on Stephens'
character or actions, but apparently on the theory that they
should be known.
The first biography of Stephens came from the pen of ITenry
Cleveland in 1866, and is a meagre account, chiefly valuable for
6d
Book Reviews
the letters and speeches it contains. This was followed by a bet-
ter and longer sketch, written by Stephens' two friends Johnson
and Browne, and like the earlier volume, was written while Steph-
ens was living. In fact, the first edition of Johnson and Browne
vvas read in manuscript by Stephens. A later edition (1878),
after his death, is substantially the same work with supplement,
ary chapters dealing with his last years, his death; and the eu-
logies delivered in that connection. Manifestly these volumes
have little value in giving a perspective estimate of the man, and
are more eulogistic than discriminating.
In a work appearing a generation after Stephens' death we
have a right to expect that these faults be eliminated, but this
volume in no sense. meets the expectation. It is almost within
the bounds of truth to say that this work is simply a brief re-
hash of Johnson and Browne's volume. 'l'he author seems utterly
ignorant of the fact that the Missouri Compromise had no bear-
ing on territory acquired after the compromise was made, for
in his view the Wilmot proviso" openly violated the covenant of
the Missouri Compromise" (92). In answer to the complaints
made at the time that the Kansas-Nebraska bill "abrogated the
Missouri Compromise" we are informed that that compromise
"was abrogated, though the fact was not officially stated, when
the compromise measures of 1850 were adopted through the in-
fluence of Clay and Webster" (132).
To judge by this book alone Mr. Pendleton has no concep-
tion of the canons of historical writing. Time after time letters
of Stephens' are summarized, no reference is given, and the reader
is left to conclude that the letters themselves have been consulted.
One has only to turn to the older works on Stephens to find the
same letters summarized in almost exactly the same words. A
letter quoted (99) from Waddell's Life of Linton Stephens is
given in Johnson and Browne (251) in a distinctly different form
and one' is tempted to believe that Mr. Pendleton did not see any
of St"ephens' letters. but has copied them bodily from other sources
in many cases without due credit. In this connection it is worth
noting that not a single reference is made to the Congressional
GIobe for Stephens' speeches, all of them being ci ted from the
older biographies which are out of print.
The three chapters not compiled from the older biographies
of Stephens are chapters VII, XI and most of XII. The seventh
deals with "nullification at the North," in which the author sets
forth at length the practical nullification of the Fugitive Slave
Act by the various Northern States, and shows that the radical
Stephen A. Douglas 365
abolitionists were opposed to the constitution and the Union.
Chapter XI, entitled" Seventy Years of Dis-union," is a defense
of secession. in which the author, beginning with the colonial pe-
riod, traces the growth of centralization and cites ablmdant evi-
dence to show that the fathers held the view that the Union was
composed of sovereign States and that the constitution was a
compact under which each State reserved its sovereign rights.
The Virginia and the Kentucky resolutions, the New England
conspiracy of 1803-1, Burr's conspiracy, the Hartford convention.
Georgia's defiance of the Federal government, and other less im-
portant instances of like character are discussed to prove that
secession and nullification were contemplated by many persons
and sections before the Southerners made the final attempt fol-
lowing J.Jincoln's election. The thirteenth chapter deals with the
"South's handicaps in the war" and shows that one of these ,vas
Stephens himself. His opposition to Davis' policies grew as the
,,'ar ,,'ent on and "as the outgrowth of his constitutional opposi-
tion to the centralization of power in Davis' hands, and to what
Stephens believed to be unwise and illegal action of the govern-
ment in carrying out its war policy. Mr. Pendleton has made an
endeavor to throw new light on Stephens' character by a search
in the contemporary newspapers of Georgia, but no important in-
formation has been discovered.
On the whole the publishers have a certain justification in re-
printing the most important parts of the earlier lives of Stephens
which are now out of print, but it would have been better to have
called this volume a reprint or condensation with notes by Mr.
Pendleton. In any other guise the book is sailing under false col-
ors. The bibliography appended is worthless.
-EDWARD McMAHON.
Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics. By Allen
Johnson. (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1908, pp. 503.)
When Stephen A. Douglas died in Chicago forty-seven years
ago the Chicago Tribue said editorially, "That the place which
the departed statesman occupied in the National Councils can
not, in any true sense, be filled; all will agree." Four days later
in an estimate of him the same paper said, ':No man has died in
many a decade whose death will be so widely felt as that of him
whose body was yesterday borne through our streets. * "" *
He was the Democratic party of the North. * "" "" His under-


Alexander H. Stephens

"Ingenious theories have been propounded only to be overthrown in rapid succession by the emergence of some fresh piece of evidence.

Richardson, Oliver H.

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT HISTORICAL
INVESTIGATIONS'
Among the .contemporaiy Lennox Papers there exists an early form
of Buchanan's "Detectio," called "Probable and Infallyable Conjec-
tures. " The title is not inapplicable to the great bulk of Marian literature
which has since been produced. Ingenious theories have been propounded
only to be overthrown in rapid succession by the emergence of some fresh
piece of evidence. It is only with the comparatively recent publication of
new documents, since 1889, that opinions and conjectures have begun to
be replaced by facts. Bain's Scottish Papers and Hume's Spanish Cal-
endars contain essential information; the Bardon Papers, 1909, summarize
the official case of the English government against. Mary and throw light
upon the ultimate reasons of her unhappy fate; the Lennox Papers, not yet
published, have become known through Pollen, Lang and Henderson, and
furnish important information on the relations of Mary and Darnley, and
the vexed problem of the Casket Letters; while first in merit and impor-
tance, filling the greatest gap in the records of Mary's life, is Pollen's
"Papal Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots," 1901, based largely
upon the Secret Archives of the Vatican. Great Britain, the Netherlands,
F rance, Spain and Italy have now yielded up the bulk of their stores. The
most important documentary gap which still exists is Mary's correspondence
with. the Cardinal of Lorraine, which has defied all search. The principal
works of criticism and interpretation which have accompanied these publi-
cations and discoveries are the minutely critical biography by Hay Fleming;
Hume's "Love Affairs of Mary Queen of Scots"; the two epitions of
Lang's "Mystery of Mary Stuart"; and Henderson's "Mary Queen of
Scots, her Environment and Tragedy," 1905, with its examination of the
latest documents and theories, and its notable critique of Andrew Lang.
• It is in connection with Mary's relations with the Papacy, her relig-
ious policy, 2 and the Casket Letters, that research has made the greatest
progress.
F ather Pollen's documents contain, as a whole, convincing evidence
that Mary did not, as F roude asserts, enter Scotland with a purpose "fixed
as the stars to undo the Reformation." Randolph, the English ambassa-
lThis article, in slightly condensed form, was read before the Pacific
Coa~t Branch of the American Historical Association at Berkeley, Califor-
nia, on November 18, 1910.
2An admirable discussion of Mary's personal religious "iews and the
character of her religious policy will be found in the Quarterly Review,
Vol. 195, Jan., 1902, pp. 221-244.
(124)
M ar.J) Queen of Seals 125
dor, expressed her early attitude with perfect correctness when he wrote
at the close of 1562: "She knows the necessitie of my sovereigne's friend-
shipe to be greater than a preste bablinge at an autour; she is not so af-
fectioned to her masse that she wyll leave a kyngdome for yt." The res-
toration of Scotland to the Roman Obedience was not, in truth, the chief
end of her policy. Her primary aim was to secure formal acknowledg-
ment of her rightful claim to the English succession, and she ruled as a
Politique rather than as a religious extremist. Papal diplomatists seem
never to have been consulted about the assumption of the English arms,
and until 1571 Elizabeth was regarded by the Pope as the rightful Queen
of England. The Guises and the papal nuncio talk of "concord and
union" between Mary and Elizabeth as a "settled thing." Mary's letter
to the D~ke of Guise-one of the most important new documents-proves
clearly that Mary looked forward to an English alliance and. was not
oppressed by her duty as a Catholic sovereign. No general Catholic
League existed in 156?-at least none such is extant in the archives of
any European p::lwer-and Mary therefore did not sign it. She usually
evinces a much greater desire for Roman subsidies than for Roman rites,
and her conduct was not pleasing to the Pope. It was the tortuous policy
of Elizabeth which ultimately forced her into the arms of the Catholics
and brought about her ruin. The transition begins in January, 1563;
the first active measures are taken after Moray's downfall in 1565, and
the process culminates in Riccio's murder, 1566. But ~iccio was not a
papal emissary; his name occurs but once in Pollen's Roman documents,
when he is barely mentioned as the "Piedmontese secretary of the queen."
The dispensation for the Darnley marriage affords an important illus-
tration both of Mary's ecclesiastical attitude and personal character. Father
Pollen, in his "Papal Negotiations" and a subsequent article of April,
1907, in the Scottish Historical Review, dispels all the mysteries heretofore
attached to the transaction. Mary married Darnley July 29; the dis-
pensation was issued in September, but ante-dated to the 25th of May.
This date is genuine. Mary, therefore, married Darnley before the dis-
pensation had been granted, and allowed her advisers to believe that a
"complimentary exhortation to constancy," which happened to arrive
from the Pope, was the indispensable document itself. Mary was not
without excuses, yet, after every allowance, the fact remains that her action
involved a deliberate violation of the canon law and exhibited both disre-
gard for the church and indifference to personal purity. Her want of
principle regarding the sacredness of marriage in this instance augurs ill for
her constancy in the time of greater temptation soon to come.
126 Oliver H. Richardson
A broader knowledge of facts has produced two fundamental changes
in the character of Marian literature. First, the question of personal guilt
or innocence is relegated to the background as a comparatively negligible
factor; emphasis is laid instead upon those political and religious conditions
throughout Europe which so largely predetermined her career. Second,
her case has been shifted from a legal to a historical basis of treatment.
The late Major Hume regards Mary as representing "in her own
person the principle which, if she had succeeded, would have destroyed
the Reformation and established the supremacy of Spanish Catholicism
in Europe." Personal wickedness would not have altered the result,
if her marriage policies had been sucessful. These, therefore, are the
key to her career. The "main source of her fascination was ~er power
of sensuous allurement"; her ruin resulted primarily from the "irresistible
rush of purely sexual passion" combined with an unquenchable ambition
derived from the House of Guise. The crucial point of her career was her
first meeting with Darnley, when for the first time amorous passion overrode
her judgment and brought about a union, unnecessary and unwise.-It is
a pity that the author of the "Love Affairs of Mary Queen of Scots" did
not employ the new material produced by Father Pollen.
Henderson's fundamental theory as to Mary's failure is diametric-
ally opposed to Hume's and is essentially the same as Lang's, with per-
sonal reasons minimized and with greater rigidity. Discounting the love-
- element, he considers that policy (i. e., ambition) was not superseded
by passion as a motive-force until after Riccio's murder, when political exig-
encies, combined with an irresistible reaction from hopes irretrievably
ruined, threw her into Bothwell's arms. Mary was really the predes-
tined victim of a bitter religious quarrel. The difficulty of her, task-in
itself all but impossible-was so aggravated by accidental circumstances
that hardly a chance was left of escape from signal calamity. "The pro-
cesses which determined her life towards its tragic close seemed ever to
go on with the regularity of clock-work." "Her imperfections and mis-
takes become dwarfed into insignificance as the determining causes of her
failure by reason of the ascendant influence in her life of what may be
termed fate." Her early connection with Catholic France, founded and
dissolved by circumstances beyond her control; the religious revolution in
Scotland, consummated in her absence with English help, which established
first a religious, and later a political severance between Mary and her sub-
jects; Elizabeth's inflexible determination never to recognize an heir; the
u'ldying hostility of Knox and the extreme Protestants; the divergence of
the French and Guisard interests from Mary's, which in 1563 deprived
her both of French and Spanish aid, embittered her relations with England
and compelled her to turn to Darnley and a,Catholic restoration; the fac-
Mary Queen of Scots 127
tional intrigues of the Scotch nobility; the colossal folly of her husband-
such were some of the inexorable forces which ruined her ecclesiastical pol-
icies, disappointed her political ambitions, destroyed her domestic happi-
ness-and left her a prey to recklessness, personal passion and dis-
honor. It was the permanence given Bothwell's power, rather than any
complicity in Darnley's murder, which caused her political ruin.
The sharp distinction which writers are now drawing between the
legal and 'historical case against Mary is thoroughly scientific and tells
heavily against her. Her accusers at Westminster, some of whom were
themselves guilty, dared not present the entire truth; their case is, therefore,
full of inconsistencies and technical deficiencies. Their chronology is impos-
sible; they deliberately suppressed evidence. It was easy for Mary's de-
fenders to answer the legal case; the historical case stands upon a different
footing. At F otheringhay. also, the sweeping character of her denials
tends to prove her guilt. Morgan, the central agent of the Babington
conspiracy, was no pensioner of hers. she said; yet her private correspond-
ence with Mendoza reveals her activity in his behalf. She hinted that
au, her secretary, had confessed, through fear, untruths; yet, as we
know, though the commissioners did not, she wrote to Mendoza not that
he confessed falsely, but that he "had confessed everything."3
Mary's love affairs were mainly political. She was not a Messalina.
As to the poet Chastelard, she showed an imprudent fondness for his
society-nothing more. There is no serious reason to believe that her rela-
tions with Riccio were other than official and social-never guilty. Accusa-
tion sagainst him date from a time when Damley and Riccio's enemies
were seeking to destroy him. As to Darnley, Lang and Hume believe
she loved him; Father Pollen rejects the idea of love at first sight; Hen...
derson rejects it entirely. As to Bothwell, apart from the Casket Letters,
there seems no convincing proof that Mary was guilty with him during
Darnley's life: sheer hatred. of Darnley would account for his murder. As
to the Bothwell marriage, Mary is to be condemned with no recommenda-
tion to mercy. The best Catholic opinion rejects the validity of his di-
vorce, and the Pope breaks off all negotiations with Mary fbr two years.
Apart from the direct evidence of the long letter alleged to have been
written to Bothwell by Mary at Glasgow-a letter which, if authentic,
is final-there may be said to exist a general consensus of opinion that
Mary brought Darnley to Edinburgh to facilitate the plans of Bothwell
against him. The circumstantial evidence against her is overwhelmingly
strong. "It is from Mary's relations to the various parties," writes Hume
Brown, the royal historiographer of Scotland, "and from her conduct
sHenderson. II.. 609-610.
128 Oliver H. Richardson
before and after the deed that we are justified in concluding her guilty."
The main question seems to be the degree of culpability.
The Casket Letters,4 with their cry of illicit passion, their instigations
to Darnley's murder and Mary's own abduction, were the only direct evi-
dence which the queen's accusers could bring against her. If genuine, no
further proofs were needed. In the solution of the vexed question of their
authenticity a new era was reached when there appeared, in 1889, Mr.
Henderson's "Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots." This work
proved, beyond a peradventure, that the original French versions of the
Letters-authentic, forged, or garbled-were produced at. the English con-
ferences of 1568. The following canons of criticism, based mainly on
Mr. Henderson's demonstration, are accepted by recent investigators and
may be regarded as scientifically established. First, certain copies of Letters
III., IV., V., VI. and IX. (the Sonnets) may be called the original
French of those letters and treated as such for purposes of discussion. All
arguments for forgery, based upon the supposed non-existence of French
originals, are therefore obsolete. Second, orthographic tests are not admis-
sible. F ather Pollen has demonstrated that copyists of that era made no
attempt to preserve accurately the spelling of originals. Third, no argu-
ments against forgery can be based on imitations of peculiarities of phrase
which an hypothetical forger would be sure to know and reproduce.
Many of the phrases of the 'Letters and Sonnets are literary and conven-
tional. Fourth, with respect to Letters I. and II. (the all-important
Glasgow Letter) no valid arguments can be based upon discrepancies be-
tween the Scotch and English versions. All discussions based on such
discrepancies are obsolete. The English version, defective through ex-
treme haste, omits and mistranslates; the Scotch version can be proved
to omit, through sheer inadvertence, unimportant passages and, therefore, no
valid argument can be drawn from the absence of passages of greater
importance. This is Mr. Lang's contribution tp the subject in his "Mys-
tery of Mary Stuart." Cardauns and Philippson had already shown that
the English translator possessed both the French and Scotch versions.
The best texts are printed by Mr. Lang in his Appendix.
Of late years the appearance of fresh material has rendered wholly
untenable the old positions of forgery theorists and immensely strengthened
the 'case for the authenticity of the Letters-particularly of the fatal
Glasgow Letter. The chief discoveries are five in number. 5 First: the
proof, delivered by Mr. Henderson in 1889, that the original language of
'The name is derived from a silver casket which fell into the hands
of the Earl of Morton shortly after Mary's captUl'e at Carberry Hill and
whicl" contain·ed certain letters' and a sonnet-sequence alleged to have
been written by Mary to Bothwell.
"Compare Henderson, II" 634,
Mary Queen of Scots 129
the Letters was French, and that the originals were produced at Westmin-
ster and Hampton Court. Second, the publication, also by Mr. Henderson
in 1889, of the full text of Morton's sworn Declaration as to the discovery
and inspection of the Casket. Its evidential value is two-fold; it names the
witnesses, both Catholic and Protestant, Marian and anti-Marian, who were
present at the Casket's opening; it limits to the almost impossible period
of five days the operations of a potential forger. Most critics, I believe,
accept the Declaration as furnishing conclusive proof of the nature of the
documents within the Casket; Mr. Lang, declaring that the list of wit-
nesses adds nothing to the credibility of the account per se, dissents. Third,
the publication by Major Hume in 1892 in the Spanish Calendar of a
dispatch which proved that du Croc, the French ambassador, was given
copies of the Letters within a fortnight of the Casket's opening. This over-
threw all arguments against their authenticity founded upon the long delay
in their production. Fourth, the publication by Major Hume, in the
same Calendar, of de Silva's dispatch, showing that Moray, on his return
to Scotland, gave him an account of a long letter which was presumably
the Glasgow Letter. The cumulative effect of these four discoveries, wrote
Mr. Henderson in 1905, was "so to supplement the evidence previously
available that they seemed to prove beyond a doubt that the Glasgow
Letter was in existence before the Casket was opened on the 21 st of
June." Except upon the score of one possible interpolation-the notable
Crawford Declaration-its authenticity seemed unassailable. At this point
Mr. Lang received Father Pollen's transcripts of the Lennox Papers, dis-
covered in them-as he thought-reason for the repudiation of the Casket
Letters, and gave to the world in 1901 his "Mystery of Mary Stuart."
Into the intricacies of his argument as there produced I cannot enter, nor·
into the equally complex-but much more cogent-arguments of Mr. Hen~
derson;s rejoinder in the Appendix of his "Mary Stuart," 1905. The
conclusion of their warfare is to be found i~ Mr. Lang's articles in the
Scottish Historical Review of October, 1907, and Mr. Henderson's re-
ply of January, 1908. Mr. Lang maintained in his "Mary Stuart," and
still maintains, on the conjoined evidence of the de Silva-Moray report and
a certain document in the Lennox Papers, that there existed a .forged let-
ter. antecedent to the Glasgow Letter, but never produced. Reversing his
position, however. on the Glasgow Letter itself, he accepts its complete
authenticity. It would be rash to assert that this surrender of Mary's most
ingenious champion terminates the Casket controversy. Mr. Henderson
receives from Mr. Lang only indirect credit for his change of mind and
heart. Both accept the genuineness of the Letter, but on different grounds.
Mr. Lang, by his continued belief in the forgery which was never pro-
duced and by his acceptance of the authenticity of the Glasgow Letter
130 Oliver H. Richardson
merely on the score of old evidence maturely considered, may logically re-
open the question at a later date. Mr. Henderson, by his recognition of
the evidential value of a Lennox Paper which he is the first to print-the
draft of Crawford's Declaration-may have closed the controversy for-
ever. The existence of the draft in the Lennox Papers, together with the
character of erasures and certain alterations, prove, he with apparent jus-
tice maintains, that Crawford's Declaration could not have been in exist-
ence as early as the Glasgow Letter and that Crawford made use of the
Scotch version of this Letter in preparing his draft. There was therefore
no interpolation. The production of this fifth and final document in
the series of discoveries to date has therefore transformed an old objection
mto one of the strongest proofs of complete authenticity, and shifted the
controversy from the realm of opinion to that of fact.
Mr. Lang in his preface to the revised version of his "Mystery" does
not profess to establish the innocence of Queen Mary, but rather "to
show that the methods of her accusers were so clumsy and so manifestly
perfidious that they all but defeated the object of the prosecution." His
book was conceived in a spirit of ,boundless suspicion and the characters
of the principal Scotch noblemen, Lethington especially, were indiscrimi-
nately blackened. The forgery of the Casket Letters was vital to his
case. He has now been constrained to admit the authenticity of the fatal
Glasgow Letter. The ultimate effect of his work tends therefore to turn
the immediate investigations of historians away from Mary and towards
her entourage. Moray must receive his first biography. The life of Leth-
ington must be rewritten. The Lennox Papers should be published by
F ather Pollen in extenso. These three are the greatest needs of present
historical writing concerning Mary Queen of Scots.
OLIVER H. RICHARDSON.


Mary Queen of Scots in the Light of Recent Historical Investigations

"The story is beautifully and accurately told by Oregon's Grand Old Man of Science after half a century of painstaking studies.

•
Pathbreakers from River to Ocean 159
ment of the Dominion of Canada. An effort is made to show American
history as a part of world history. The spirit of fairness that pervades the
book is meeting with approval. The book is abundantly equipped with
illustrations, maps, chronological tables, documents and other aids for
the use of teachers, pupils, and readers.
CONQUEST OF THE COEUR D'ALENE, SPOKANE AND PALOUSE
INDIANS. By B. F. Manring. Colfax, Washington, Privately printed,
1912. Pp. 281.)
The author has lived in the Palouse country for more than thirty
years. He has rendered a real service in collecting incidents of persons,
places, and events relating to the campaigns of Colonels Steptoe and
Wright. The greatest value of the book is found in these collected local
incidents. As a complete record of the war, the book is at fault in that it
does not account for the events leading up to it. The author has not
used such works as the Official Correspondence published by the Territory
of Washington, Hazard Stevens' Life of Isaac I. Stevens, or Edmond S.
Meany's History of the State of Washington.
THE LAST AMERICAN FRONTIER. By Frederic Logan Paxson.
(New York, The Macmillan Company, 1910. Pp.402. $1.50 net.)
Since writing this book the author has been promoted from Junior
Professor of American History in the University of Michigan to Professor
of American History in the University of Wisconsin, the place left vacant
by the resignation of Professor Frederic J ackson Turner. The book takes
into account the development of the West along the various trails, the build-
ing of railroads, Indian policies, the last chapter being entitled: Letting
in the Population. Several of the chapters de~l with matters relating to
thte Pacific Northwest.
OREGON GEOLOGY. By Thomas Condon. (Portland, The J. K.
Gill Company, 1910. Pp. 190+xvii.)
This is a revision of the author's earlier The Two Islands. It is
edited by Ellen Condon McCormack. Every lover of the Pacific
Northwest should have this book in his library. The story is beautifully
and accurately told by Oregon's Grand Old Man of Science atter hair
a century of painstaking studies. The book is well made and sumptuously
illustrated. In addition to the revised text of the former work, this edition
contains a number of appreciations of the loved author.
THE PATHBREAKERS FROM RIVER TO OCEAN. By Grace Ray-
mond Hebard. (Chicago, The Lakeside Press, 1911. Pp. 263.)
Doctor Hebard is Professor of Political Economy in the State Uni-
versity of Wyoming. She has here told the story of the great, expanding
West for children of the sixth and seventh grades of the American schools.


Oregon Geology. By Thomas Condon

Officers and Board of Trustees

Cover

"This letter has interest from the facts of the personal acquaintance of its author, and his kinsman, Doctor Strong, with the martyred Whitman seventy years ago.

Not a member yet