Volume III Part 31 (1/2)
Thatcher concludes that Marshall's just and balanced treatment of his subject is not due to a care for his own reputation: ”We are all so full of agitation and effervescence on political topicks, that a man, who keeps his temper, can hardly gain a hearing.” Indeed, he complains of Marshall's fairness: he writes as a spectator, instead of as ”one, who has himself descended into the arena ... and is yet red with the wounds which he gave, and smarting with those which his enemies inflicted in return”; but the reviewer charges that these volumes are full of ”barbarisms” and ”grammatical impurities,” ”newspaper slang,” and ”unmeaning verbiage.”
The Reverend Timothy Flint thought that Marshall's work displayed more intellect and labor than ”eloquence and interest.”[740] George Bancroft, reviewing Sparks's ”Was.h.i.+ngton,” declared that ”all that is contained in Marshall is meagre and incomplete in comparison.”[741] Even the British critics were not so harsh as the _New York Evening Post_, which p.r.o.nounced the judgment that if the biography ”bears any traces of its author's uncommon powers of mind, it is in the depths of dulness which he explored.”[742]
The British critics were, of course, unsparing. The _Edinburgh Review_ called Marshall's work ”unpardonably deficient in all that const.i.tutes the soul and charm of biography.... We look in vain, through these stiff and countless pages, for any sketch or anecdote that might fix a distinguis.h.i.+ng feature of private character in the memory.... What seemed to pa.s.s with him for dignity, will, by his reader, be p.r.o.nounced dullness and frigidity.”[743] _Blackwood's Magazine_ a.s.serted that Marshall's ”Life of Was.h.i.+ngton” was ”a great, heavy book.... One gets tired and sick of the very name of Was.h.i.+ngton before he gets half through these ... prodigious ... octavos.”[744]
Marshall was somewhat compensated for the criticisms of his work by an event which soon followed the publication of his last volume. On August 29, 1809, he was elected a corresponding member of the Ma.s.sachusetts Historical Society. In a singularly graceful letter to John Eliot, corresponding secretary of the Society at that time, Marshall expresses his thanks and appreciation.[745]
As long as he lived, Marshall worried over his biography of Was.h.i.+ngton.
When anybody praised it, he was as appreciative as a child. In 1827, Archibald D. Murphey eulogized Marshall's volumes in an oration, a copy of which he sent to the Chief Justice, who thanks Murphey, and adds: ”That work was hurried into a world with too much precipitation, but I have lately given it a careful examination and correction. Should another edition appear, it will be less fatiguing, and more worthy of the character which the biographer of Was.h.i.+ngton ought to sustain.”[746]
Toilsomely he kept at his self-imposed task of revision. In 1816, Bushrod Was.h.i.+ngton wrote Wayne to send Marshall ”the last three volumes in sheets (the two first he has) that he may devote this winter to their correction.”[747]
When, five years later, the Chief Justice learned that Wayne was actually considering the risk of bringing out a new edition, Marshall's delight was unbounded. ”It is one of the most desirable objects I have in this life to publish a corrected edition of that work. I would not on any terms, could I prevent it, consent that one other set of the first edition should be published.”[748]
Finally, in 1832, the revised biography was published. Marshall clung to the first volume, which was issued separately under the t.i.tle ”History of the American Colonies.” The remaining four volumes were, seemingly, reduced to two; but they were so closely printed and in such comparatively small type that the real condensation was far less than it appeared to be. The work was greatly improved, however, and is to this day the fullest and most trustworthy treatment of that period, from the conservative point of view.[749]
Fortunately for Marshall, the work required of him on the Bench gave him ample leisure to devote to his literary venture. During the years he consumed in writing his ”Life of Was.h.i.+ngton” he wrote fifty-six opinions in cases decided in the Circuit Court at Richmond, and in twenty-seven cases determined by the Supreme Court. Only four of them[750] are of more than casual interest, and but three of them[751] are of any historical consequence. All the others deal with commercial law, practice, rules of evidence, and other familiar legal questions. In only one case, that of Marbury _vs._ Madison, was he called upon to deliver an opinion that affected the inst.i.tutions and development of the Nation.
FOOTNOTES:
[592] See vol. II, 210-12, of this work.
[593] See _infra_; also vol. II, 211, of this work.
[594] Marshall to James M. Marshall, April 1, 1804. MS.
[595] Marshall to Peters, Oct. 12, 1815, Peters MSS. Pa. Hist. Soc.
[596] Several persons were ambitious to write the life of Was.h.i.+ngton.
David Ramsay and Mason Locke Weems had already done so. Noah Webster was especially keen to undertake the task, and it was unfortunate that he was not chosen to do it.
[597] Was.h.i.+ngton to Wayne, April 11, 1800, Dreer MSS. Pa. Hist. Soc.
[598] _Ib._
[599] Bushrod Was.h.i.+ngton to Wayne, Dec. 11, 1801, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._
[600] Wayne to Bushrod Was.h.i.+ngton, Dec. 10, 1801, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._
[601] Bushrod Was.h.i.+ngton to Wayne, Dec. 11, 1801, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._
[602] The division was to be equal between Marshall and Was.h.i.+ngton.
[603] Bushrod Was.h.i.+ngton to Wayne, Dec. 11, 1801, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._
[604] ”Articles of Agreement” between C. P. Wayne and Bushrod Was.h.i.+ngton, Sept. 22, 1802. (Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._) Marshall's name does not appear in the contract, Was.h.i.+ngton having attended to all purely business details of the transaction.
[605] Wayne to Bushrod Was.h.i.+ngton, May 16, 1802, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._