36
“VARIETY,” The Port Folio, vol. 1 [series 2] (January 1806), pp. 44–5.
Anonymous
The Port Folio was a monthly published in Philadelphia from 1801 to 1827. It was one of the longest running, best produced, and most widely circulated magazines in early America. Joseph Dennie (1768–1812), as “Oliver Oldschool, Esq.,” was its first editor, serving from the magazine’s inception through until January 1812. The selection reprinted below, and the next item, are illustrative of the anecdotal nature of many early American comments on Hume. On The Port Folio see Neal L. Edgar, A History and Bibliography of American Magazines, 1810–1820 (Metuchen, 1975), pp. 217–20; Harold Milton Ellis, Joseph Dennie and His Circle: A Study in American Literature from 1792–1812 (Austin, 1915); Frank Luther Mott, A History of American Magazines, 1741–1850 (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 223–46; Albert H. Smyth, The Philadelphia Magazines and their Contributors, 1741–1850 (1892; reprinted Freeport, 1970), pp. 92–151.
___________________________________
VARIETY.
Variety is charming,
Constancy is not for me,
So, ladies, you have warning.
OLD BALLAD.
That profound philosopher and elegant scholar, Dugald Stewart, in his masterly account of the Life and Writings of Dr. Robertson, introduces the following comparison between the style of the historian of Mary, and the historian of England. No preference is given; and, though the caution of Mr. Stewart is visible, yet there is not the least glimpse of partiality. The quotation from Quintilian well illustrates the difference between the genius of Hume and Robertson.
It is not my intention to attempt a parallel of these two eminent writers: nor, indeed, would the sincerity of their mutual attachment and the lively recollection of it, which still remains with many of their common friends, justify me in stating their respective merits in the way of opposition. Their peculiar excellencies, besides, were of a kind so different, that they might be justly said (in the language which a Roman critic employs in speaking of Livy and Sallust) to be pares magis quam similes. They divide between them the honor of having supplied an important blank in English literature, by enabling their countrymen to dispute the palm of historical writing with the other nations of Europe. Many have since followed their example in attempting to bestow interest and ornament on different portions of British story [sic]; but the public voice sufficiently acquits me of any partiality when I say, that hitherto they have only been followed at a distance. In this respect, I may with confidence apply to them the panegyric which Quintilian pronounces on the two great historians of ancient Greece; and, perhaps, if I were inclined to characterize the beauties most prominent in each, I might without much impropriety avail myself of the contrast with which that panegyric concludes: “Historiam multi scripsêre, sed nemo dubitat duos longe cæteris præferendos, quorum diversa virtus laudem pene est parem consecuta. Densus et brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides. Dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus. Ille concitatis, hic remissis affectibus melior. Illi vi, hic voluptate.”
Gibbon in his ‘Memoirs’ has very generously praised his rival and contemporary historians, and, as might be expected from the peculiarities of his own style, gives a decided preference to Hume. The opinion is so well expressed, that it is worth quoting.
‘The old reproach that no British altars had been raised to the muse of History, was recently disproved by the first performances of Robertson and Hume, the histories of Scotland and of the Stuarts. I will assume the presumption of saying that I was not unworthy to read them: nor will I disguise my different feelings in the repeated perusals. The perfect composition, the nervous language, the well-turned periods of Dr. Robertson inflamed me to the ambitious hope that I might one day tread in his footsteps: the calm philosophy, the careless inimitable beauties, of his friend and rival, often forced me to close the volume with a mixed sensation of delight and despair.’
We cannot, however, imitate the discreet silence of Mr. Stewart, or Mr. Gibbon’s partiality to Hume. The style of this latter author, owing perhaps to his long residence in France, is extremely infected with Gallicisms, and a complete list would astonish the English critic and scholar. Hume, moreover, is often loose and careless in construction; and though he is unquestionably a graceful and an elegant writer, and, perhaps, unrivalled in the clearness and fluency of his narrative; yet in dignity, in strength, in harmony and in purity, he is surpassed by Robertson, who in his History of Scotland, his first and, in our opinion, his happiest production, has exhibited a model of English composition superior to the style of any of his countrymen.