41
“For the Port Folio. Hume and Robertson Compared,” The Port Folio, vol. 4 [series 3] (October 1810), pp. 330–33.
Anonymous
___________________________________
HUME AND ROBERTSON COMPARED.
MR. OLDSCHOOL,
In your Port Folio for June last, I observed a comparison drawn between the accounts given by Hume and Robertson, of the sack of Rome by Bourbon, much to the disadvantage of the former historian. — If critics would be content to express their opinions with moderation, and avoid extravagance both of censure and praise, the nature of taste affords such a range for peculiar modes of thinking, that an ample indulgence of opinion might be taken without danger. The question on the general comparative merits of these celebrated historians is gone to rest, although for a time it excited much agitation and interest in the world of letters. The general superiority of Hume over his rival is settled into a tranquil undisturbed sentiment, without any detraction from the genius and talents of Robertson.
The two passages selected for comparison in the Port Folio, are both so unexceptionable and fine, that a man might have preferred either or neither, without the hazard of heresy or absurdity — But when we are told that Hume’s description neither requires nor awakens any energy of expression or vivacity of tone in reciting it; that the narration is “tame and uninteresting,” one is led to a more particular inquiry into the justice of the criticism — I have scanned the two passages with attention, and cannot hesitate to say, that if Robertson has more vivacity in his narration, Hume has more energy — Robertson’s description has less originality of thought, figure and expression; dealing more in the common terms and images for similar events. — Speaking of the effect of the fall of Bourbon upon his soldiers, Hume says, they were “rather enraged than discouraged by his death,” — Robertson gives the same idea with more words, but less discrimination and force. — “Instead of being disheartened by the loss, it animated them with new valour.” — Now the feeling excited by the loss of a favourite commander, is rather of rage and revenge, than of valour. — The conduct of the conquerors, is described by Hume in a sentence full of fine reflection and strong expression. — “This renowned city, exposed by her renown alone to so many calamities, never endured in any age, even from the barbarians, by whom she was often subdued, such indignities as she was now constrained to suffer.” — In a preceding sentence he tells us, the soldiers, “entering the city, sword in hand, exercised all those brutalities which may be expected from ferocity excited by resistance, and from insolence which takes place when that resistance is no more.” — Look then to his description of virgins violated in the arms of their parents, and on the altars to which they had fled for protection; of the tortures inflicted upon aged prelates, for the discovery of their sacred treasures, and if it be found tame and uninteresting, it must be to nerves differently organized from mine.
Is not the very first sentence of Robertson, deficient of elegance both of construction and expression? “Bourbon’s troops, notwithstanding all their valour;” Here is a long, painful and unnecessary parenthesis, for we know, without this parenthetical information, that whatever happened to Bourbon’s troops, did happen notwithstanding their valour — But what did happen? they “gained no ground, and even began to give way.” — Here are two as common and vulgar phrases as are to be found in any gazette account of a battle, and, lest they should not be mean enough, they are linked together by that paltry “even.” — Bourbon’s throwing himself from his horse, leading and encouraging his men, and mounting the wall, is indeed full of animation, but not very new — I do not see the necessity of marking with so much exactness the place of the wound — To have said it was mortal was enough for the historian; the surgeon might require more particulars of its nature, its length, depth and position; which precision would have been also necessary in an indictment against the man who shot the gun, as appears by a Virginia case lately published in our newspapers — Robertson then proceeds with his favourite even. “It is impossible to describe or even imagine the misery,” &c. It would have given the whole force of his idea to have said, it is impossible to imagine, &c. I have, however, no desire to depreciate this excellent historian, or to treat him disrespectfully, although I think his style is frequently too florid and diffuse for a recorder of facts, and sometimes wanting in energy and precision. — The rest of the extract introduced in the Port Folio, is worthy of all commendation.
Without making invidious and unnecessary comparisons, permit me to direct the attention of your readers, to Gibbon’s account of the siege of Rome, by the Goths in 537, and its defence by Belisarius. — I would make a full extract of it, but it would be too long — you will indulge me in transcribing a part — Belisarius was, by the misconduct of some of his troops, suddenly surrounded with a small party of horse, by the innumerable squadrons of the barbarians — After a most animated account of the assault made upon his little band, and of the particular efforts used to destroy him by pointing out the horse on which he rode, the historian proceeds. — “The Roman general was strong, active, and dexterous: on every side he discharged his weighty and mortal strokes; his faithful guards imitated his valour, and defended his person; and the Goths, after the loss of a thousand men, fled before the arms of a hero. — They were rashly pursued to their camp; and the Romans, oppressed by multitudes, made a gradual, and at length a precipitate retreat to the gates of the city: the gates were shut against the fugitives; and the public terror was increased, by the report, that Belisarius was slain — his countenance was indeed disfigured by sweat, dust, and blood; his voice was hoarse, his strength was almost exhausted; but his unconquerable spirit still remained; he imparted that spirit to his desponding companions; and their last desperate charge was felt by the flying barbarians, as if a new army, vigorous and entire, had been poured from the city — The Flaminian gate was thrown open to a real triumph.” — The description of the first general assault made upon the city, begins in a fine style, uniting historical truth with the exploits and passions of chivalry — “On the morning of the nineteenth day a general attack was made from the Prænestine gate to the Vatican: seven Gothic columns, with their military engines, advanced to the assault, and the Romans who lined the ramparts, listened with doubt and anxiety to the cheerful assurances of their commander. As soon as the enemy approached the ditch, Belisarius himself drew the first arrow, and such was his strength and dexterity, that he transfixed the foremost of the barbarian leaders — a shout of applause and victory was reechoed along the wall — He drew a second arrow, and the stroke was followed with the same success and the same acclamation.” — The whole account of this memorable siege is glowing, yet not fanciful; and brings us into the scene of action with all the anxieties and passions of those engaged in it, without the tediousness of minute detail.