34
“ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS. Parallel between HUME, ROBERTSON and GIBBON,” The Monthly Magazine, and American Review, vol. 1, no. 2 (May 1799), pp. 90–94.
“O.”
The Monthly Magazine, and American Review was a monthly miscellany and review magazine published in New York by T. and J. Swords. Charles Brockden Brown was the editor and a frequent contributor. The essay reprinted below is an early example of American interest in comparing the historical writings of three great historians: Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon. On The Monthly Magazine and American Review see API, p. 145; BAP, pp. 106–7; Frank Luther Mott, A History of American Magazines, 1741–1850 (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 218–22. For Campbell’s edition of Hume’s History, see Mark G. Spencer, David Hume and Eighteenth-Century America, esp. pp. 259–69, 424–63. On Campbell more generally, see also EAE, vol. 1, p. 189; and Richard B. Sher, The Enlightenment & the Book: Scottish Authors & Their Publishers in Eighteenth-Century Britain, Ireland & America (Chicago, 2006), esp. pp. 554–5, 582–9.
___________________________________
Parallel between Hume, Robertson and Gibbon.
AMONG English writers of history, common consent seems to have assigned the first place to Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon.— The merit of each of these, compared with that of their contemporaries and their predecessors, is undoubtedly illustrious. That each has numerous defects will as readily be granted; but it will not be easily or unanimously decided to which, when compared with each other, the pre-eminence is due.
The eloquence and skill of an historian may be considered distinctly from the truth or falsehood, the utility or hurtfulness, of that system of opinions which he has happened to adopt, and to the inculcation of which his performance is wholly or chiefly devoted. The last consideration is of chief moment; and the judgment that we form of these writers will, of course, be influenced by the texture of that creed which we have previously embraced.
The studious or lettered part of mankind may, at present, be divided into two sects, one of which is friendly, and the other hostile to religion. The first will regard any attempt to undermine the sacred edifice with horror and aversion. This abhorrence will be proportioned to the malice, dexterity and perseverance of the assailant. In these three qualities, Edward Gibbon will be thought to have excelled all former and contemporary writers. History is that kind of composition which, for obvious causes, will find most readers, and logical deductions and comprehensive argumentation are not suitable in this sphere. These, therefore, are not to be found in the works of Gibbon. His subject required him to explain the origin and progress of the Christian system; and, in performing this, he has attacked the truth of this system with the dangerous weapons of sarcasm and irony. The charms of his composition, the dignity and popularity of the theme, and the ingenuity and learning which he cannot be denied to have displayed, have made his book circulate far and wide, and given him uncommon power over the opinion of the thoughtless and precipitate. Hence, from those who esteem the Christian faith essential to the happiness of mankind, he must claim a large share of disapprobation.
Those who embrace anti-christian tenets will not, of course, applaud every attempt favourable to their cause. If they be candid and upright, they will discern the importance of this subject, and perceive that irony, and sarcasm, and partial inferences, and narrow views, have no tendency but to propagate error, to deprave the moral sentiments of mankind, and to vitiate their reason, by supplying them with a fallacious standard of belief. Nothing, to an ingenuous mind, is more hateful than the tricks and artifices of dispute, masked allusions, sarcastic hints, and ambiguous irony: these, if possible, must be hated more, when employed upon the side of what he deems truth, than when in opposition to it. They are indirect confessions of the weakness of the cause, and proofs of hypocrisy and malice in its advocates. Such, I am afraid, is the light in which the writings of Gibbon deserve to be viewed by impartial readers of both sects.
David Hume was led, by the nature of his subject, into somewhat different tracts. He had, indeed, ample room for noting the effects of superstition and priestcraft; but he is, at least, open and explicit in the avowal of his sentiments. He does not debase his theme by frigid and unseasonable mirth, and is exempt from the preposterous exaggerations of the satirist, and the ignoble artifices of the hypocrite. Hume was the enemy not of any particular form of religion, but of religion itself. His inferences are, therefore, much too large to be admitted by a Christian reader; but, under certain obvious limitations, they will not be rejected by one who, while he believes in the truth and excellence of religion in general condemns the abuses of enthusiasm and hypocrisy. Hume, therefore, is not without his claims to respect, even from religious readers; while readers of a different kind will hasten to assign him the first place among sages and historians.
Robertson, in his greatest work, had occasion to deduce the history of the reformation, and to mark, in a thousand instances, the effects of religion on the human mind. I believe there is little room for censure afforded by this historian to either class of readers. His distinctions will be allowed to be correct, between the substance and the semblance of religion; between the doctrines contained in the Christian records, and the forgeries and misinterpretations which were substituted in their place by the ignorance and ambition of the middle ages; between the deductions of reason and the dictates of self-interest, on one hand, and the illusions of fanaticism on the other. The dignity, moderation and candour of his sentiments will be admired by all. Unchristian readers will not condemn him as a dealer in artifices and jests: they will applaud him for having said so much truth, and regret that he has not said (what they must deem) the whole truth.
There are other modes by which the systems of historians may be supposed to influence the merit of their compositions. Their skill in deducing one event from another, and marking the influence of political transactions on the condition of those who are subject to that influence, are things disconnected with religion, and may be judged without biasses derived from that source. In this respect the sagacity and comprehensives of Hume is great beyond example. Compared with him, Gibbon and Robertson sink into inferiority. It is easier to determine their comparative than their absolute merit. That one is less skilful than the other in his selection and arrangement of events; in assigning the causes of events either in precedent occurrences or in the motives of the actor: in tracing the influence of laws and government on manners and arts, and exhibiting the genuine tendencies of wars and revolutions, may be safely asserted. The absolute quantity of the skill of each, and the exact degree of their inequality, are points of difficult solution.
There is one circumstance which constitutes a palpable difference between Gibbon and his rivals. Decency is not the most worthless quality in an historical narration. It should seem, that the want of decency is a want not easily compensated. Wit, learning, and ingenuity, divorced from decency, seem to lose the greater part of their value.
By indecency I do not mean the mention of objects and actions which custom has excluded from popular and mixed intercourse, but the mention of these in a way that indicates a polluted taste and debauched imagination in the writer, and that tends only to infuse depravity and vileness into the mind of the reader. No reader can fail to mark the enormous prevalence of this fault in the Roman history of Gibbon. The reader is continually shocked by these gross perversions. No opportunity in which they can possibly be admitted is supposed to escape. If they cannot be foisted into the text they are stuffed into a note. It is seldom, however, that he finds himself reduced to this expedient. He is deaf to the most obvious incoherences and discords, and will introduce lascivious allusions on occasion the most unsuitable and incongruous imaginable. He seldom forgets to subjoin a note, in which the nauseous image is further amplified and dwelt upon; in which, perhaps, the original manufacturer of the jest is pointed out, and the learned letcher is gratified with seeing the same image expressed in the bolder idiom of Latin or Greek.
The substance of these allusions is not more disgustful than the manner. Voltaire, his great rival in obscenity, has joined wit, elegance and gaiety to his lasciviousness; but Gibbon’s style testifies nothing but the influence of depraved habits. His jests are unseasonable, out of place, dull, witless, and loathsome. We are astonished by what links images so dissimilar are connected, and allusions so remote brought into view; and our astonishment ceases only when we recollect the inveteracy of sensual habits, and their aptness to envenom and gangrene the whole soul of him over whom they tyrannize.
When I have been able to forget my disgust, I have drawn amusement from marking the processes of this writer’s fancy, and the influence of habit to modify and tincture his ideas. In lately perusing his work, I could not but smile to see him step out of the way in order to amuse his readers with a long quotation from “La Pucelle d’Orleans;” a work which his extraordinary modesty will not allow him so much as to name, though he finds no difficulty in inserting ten or fifteen lines of it in the pages of what ought to be a serious history.
It is scarcely necessary to observe, that Robertson and Hume are totally exempt from this odious blemish. That decorum and solemnity, are rigorously maintained, which are worthy of the narrator of great events, and a moral painter of the errors and calamities of mankind.
The different spirit of these writers is forcibly illustrated in a passage of Gibbon. The topic of discussion is the turbulence of the Romans under the Papal government. These suggest a remark with what different degrees of reverence the Pope was regarded by his immediate and his distant subjects, and occasion is needlessly taken to introduce a quotation from Hume, in which the same remark is more diffusely expressed. The name of Hume instantly suggested to this quoter an incident in the life of Geoffrey, the father of Henry II. related by the former, over which he, no doubt, had often secretly chuckled. This is quoted in a note, and a remark is subjoined to the quotation, which would never have been made by Hume, and which shows the contrast, in this respect, between their characters.*
As to style, these writers essentially differ from each other. Gibbon seems not to have constructed his style upon any known model. There is no example, among English writers, of the same species of composition; and his admiration of Tacitus is only to be found in his own assertions, and not in any resemblance which subsists between the styles of the two historians. It is distinguished by a certain loftiness and uniformity, from which he never stoops or relaxes. His loftiness is artificial and obscure. It is not the result of classical terms and polished phrases, but of circumlocution, and a kind of poetical exhibition of his meaning. He is difficult to understand, not from the inaptitude and ill selection of his words, but from epigrammatic brevity and unnatural arrangement of his thoughts.
Uniformity can scarcely ever please; but a uniformity in defect, in artificial pomp and elaborate obscurity, must be eminently obnoxious. No writer is more tiresome than Gibbon. To read his book is not only a task from its sameness but a toil from its obscurity. You must pause at every step, and analize every sentence before it can be understood. Nothing is expressed in simple terms. Whatever would suggest itself to one ambitious merely of imparting his thoughts in a direct and perspicuous manner, is carefully avoided. Does he mean to tell you that Azo lived nearly the whole of the eleventh century, he will say, that the term of his mortal existence was almost commensurate with the lapse of the eleventh century. Does he desire to inform us, that Fontenelle, at his death, only wanted a fortnight of being an hundred years old, and that Aurengzebe and Cardinal Fleury died before their ninetieth year, he expresses it thus: Had a fortnight more been given to the philosopher, he might have celebrated his secular festival; but the lives and labours of the Mogul king and the French minister were terminated before they had accomplished their ninetieth year.
It would not be easy to conceive a more powerful contrast to the obscurity and pomp of Gibbon, than the clear, flexible, and simple language of Hume. Extremes are difficult to shun; and, therefore, Hume is sometimes found to sink into careless and disjointed phrases — into mere talk. His simplicity is sometimes incorrect, and his perspicuity destitute of vigour.
At first sight, it should seem that Robertson adhered to the happy mean where lies true excellence; but an attentive examination will discover numerous defects. He prolongs his sentences, and multiplies his epithets without use. He is verbose and wanting in precision: still there is a dignity, simplicity, and clearness in his composition. He is looser and less accurate than Gibbon, more flowing and luxuriant than Hume. You read without efforts or pauses; and all is equable, lucid, and smooth. Hume and Robertson accomplish the true end of writing, which is, to impart our meaning swiftly and clearly. This end is thwarted and missed by Gibbon; and in him, therefore, whatever be his claim to respect for sagacity, fidelity and perseverance, one of the most essential attributes of a just style is wanting.
The eloquence of any narrative relates to that property in it by which it fastens the attention, awakens the passions, and illuminates the imagination of the reader. That writer is eloquent who creates distinct images of characters and objects, who snatches us away from external things, and makes us spectators of the scenes which he describes. This is effected by selecting and arranging the parts of objects and the circumstances of events which are requisite to constitute the picture, and by cloathing them in language always perspicuous, and sometimes ornamental.
Gibbon is, in this respect, excelled by many writers, who, in other particulars, are greatly inferior. The nature of his tale, indeed, obliges him to be concise; but his figures are trite and injudicious: his objects are obscured, instead of being illuminated by his style; and his characters are vaguely delineated and faintly coloured.
Hume excels all men in pourtraying the heroes of the scene. His narrative is coherent and luminous. It affords pleasure to the old and the young, and fiction itself is outdone in its power to command and delight attention by the seductions of his tale.
Robertson is scarcely inferior, in this respect, to Hume, and immeasurably surpasses Gibbon. His narrative, whether compendious or circumstantial, lays hold of the mind, and, when it is at an end, we awake, as from a pleasing dream, with reluctance. The whole series of American and Scottish history is a specimen of this. The military operations between Francis and the Emperor Charles; the expedition of the latter to Algiers; the conspiracy of Fiesco; the rebellion of Padilla; and the insurrection of the Anabaptists, are all related with a vividness and perspicuity that cannot be excelled.
How far these writers are faithful to the truth it is not the purpose of this essay to investigate. Different opinions have been formed on this head. In Hume some have supposed that they discovered an inclination to depreciate the freedom of the English constitution, under Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and to degrade the heroes and patriots who contended for civil and religious liberty against Charles I. — Robertson is said to have maligned the character of Mary of Scotland; to have misstated the spirit and progress of the feudal system; and to have palliated the cruelties of the Spaniards in America. Gibbon has been charged with misrepresentation, as well as sophistry; with suppressing and disguising those facts which are favourable to the Christian cause. These are points which I shall not, at present, discuss. The end that I proposed was no more than to compare their claims to the praise of eloquence and genius. If any defects are to be found in this comparison, I hope some of your readers will gratify me by detecting them. O.
*Gibbon’s History, vol. vi. p. 486. Dublin edition.