50
“A PARALLEL BETWEEN HUME AND ROBERTSON, AS HISTORIANS,” The Irish Shield and Monthly Milesian, vol. 1, no. 9 (November 1829), pp. 403–407.
“JUVERNA.”
Edited by George Pepper, The Irish Shield and Monthly Milesian was published in Philadelphia for an Irish audience. There were four volumes published from January 1829 to August 1831. On the Irish Shield see API, p. 107.
___________________________________
To The EDITOR of the IRISH SHIELD:
Sir — The tenth number of your excellent work, reflects, I can conscientiously aver, credit on your talents and research. — Proceed undeviatingly, with your HISTORY OF IRELAND, and fame and emolument, will, and must, ultimately reward your labours. I cordially, as an Irishman, commend your inflexible boldness and fearless courage, in denouncing all those unthinking and lukewarm Irishmen, who would wish to diminish the merit of the successful, and unexampled efforts of a genuine PATRIOT, with whom the zealous, but imprudent personages, who, unfortunately for our country, figured in the bloody events of 1798 and 1803, are no more to be compared, than the honest and disinterested patriotism of the virtuous CATO, with the vicious, iniquitous, and profligate career of CATALINE. The idea is too absurd to be entertained. The future historian will applaud O’CONNELL, as the fortunate liberator of his country, while he shall reprobate the reckless and intemperate enthusiasm of men, who cannot, like Marius, appeal to the victories they had gained for their country. No. If they boast of their triumphs, you can remind them of the conflagrations and tortures that attended them; — if they allege that they paved the way for O’Connell to emancipation, you may tell them, that it was with the slaughtered carcasses of the best and bravest of the Irish youth; — if they demand monuments, bid them cast a retrospective glance at the bloody scaffolds of the SHEARS, the ORRS, the PORTERS, RUSSELLS, EMMETS, and the countless victims, whom they consigned to immolation.
I was greatly pleased with your biography of Dr. Thomas Leland; but I will be so candid as to tell you, that on Plowden’s authority, you ascribe prejudices to him, which I think, never influenced his mind, as a historian: he was a man too enlightened, to follow in the wake of bigotry. That his history has faults, I am willing to concede; and where he censures the Roman Catholics, I have no doubt but he was led to do so, by the representations of men whose candour he unthinkingly trusted. That he was a “libellous, venal historian, who vilified his country for a mitre,” is a sweeping charge, which rests only on the solitary ipse dixit of PLOWDEN and PEPPER. Plowden’s anecdote is, I think, unfounded in fact. — “Non vultus non color.”
If you consider the following attempt to strike a line of comparison between HUME and ROBERTSON, is worthy of a place in your periodical, it is at your service. I am, sir, your friend,
JUVERNA.
A PARALLEL BETWEEN HUME AND ROBERTSON, AS HISTORIANS
The task I have assigned myself, is one of difficulty, one that would, to arrive at accuracy, require the gigantic intellect of Doctor Johnson, and the acute discrimination of that genius, that so long shed its critical splendour, on the pages of the Edinburgh Review — it is almost unnecessary to say, I mean FRANCIS JEFFREY, ESQ.
An attempt to ascertain the comparative merits of Hume and Robertson — those models, next to perfection, of historical composition — will, it is hoped, be acceptable to the readers of the IRISH SHIELD, and received with that indulgence, which is due to a man, hitherto not much occupied in writing philological dissertations. This collation, if exhibited by a master hand, is the more necessary, as the celebrated Dr. Blair, one of the ablest critics of the last age, when delineating, in his lectures, the characters of other historians, both ancient and modern, only gives us a brief outline of the excellencies of Hume and Robertson. He, indeed, bestows on their compositions, summary applause; but abstained from analyzing their respective merits. This arose probably from motives of delicacy towards them, as his countrymen and then living cotemporaries. The name of BLAIR, indeed, suggests every thing that is profound and precious in criticism, as well as in pulpit eloquence. His critical estimates are admitted on all hands to be orthodox; and if we except his dissertation on Ossian, which he wrote to prop his opinion. If NATIONAL VANITY had not led him into the Ossianic heresy, no oracle would have merited more deservedly general commendation, for impartiality and fairness, in delivering the ordinances of the high judicature of Apollo, than Dr. Blair.
What I intend to say of the great historians, shall be the dictation of my private sentiments. Now, after a careful perusal of their works, which have been often to me a substitute for corn, wine, and oil, and many other necessary luxuries, the following are the conclusions, that have progressively been concatenated in my own mind, concerning them. The philosophic author of the history of England, is superior in judgment, industry, and acuteness; but the author of the history of Scotland, carries away the palm in the graces of diction, in genius and eloquence. Both of these writers are eminent for political information, general erudition, knowledge of human nature, skill of narration, and facility of language — and such language, though not so polished as Gibbon’s, or so pompous as Johnson’s, as is drawn from the richest sources of the classic spring. Besides the fundamental and gramatical excellencies, common to the style of each — the style of Hnme [sic], rich, copious, and magnificent — of Robertson, intense, glowing, and pathetic. Here is the classic stream, that labours to flow; there is the floating mirror, that shines to the very bottom. The one is fine by apparent study; the other is fine without any visible effort. Robertson, likewise, frequently indulges himself in original and animated turns of expression, that rouse attention, or enforce conviction; Hume proceeds more uniformly and methodically in his narration, with a kind of majestic march, over a beaten track. Yet, if he want the flame and vehemence, the thunder and lightening of his rival, he has the art of excelling him infinitely, in insinuation, and irony, and all the modes of ridicule, when ridicule becomes a necessary historical weapon. This ridicule he used, it must be granted, too severely against the conduct of the Roman Catholics; but when we cannot effect our purpose, by the means supplied by reason and argument, we generally resort to the arsenals of sophistry and satire, for light missiles, to hurl at our adversaries. But when Hume wrote, there was nothing so pleasing to the voracious appetite of the popular prejudice of the time, than the defamation of the Catholic creed. Ridicule, however, is a rhetorical machine that ought not to be employed, by the historian, against the living world, since it only inflames the animosities already, alas! too prevalent.
In history, it is more admissible — where, by indirect strokes, it may prevent us from reviving the follies of our forefathers. It should be the aim of the historian, to inspire the mind with the love of goodness, and with an abhorrence of vice — to confirm the decisions of truth, and expose the deformities of hypocrisy and prejudice. Fiction, also, is another great field, where the legitimate satirist may run, as with drawn sword or Lucilius, striking terror into the hearts of the wicked, and making them blush for their secret sins.
Hume and Robertson, are indeed, eminently distinguished for political sagacity — that is, for penetration into the reasons of the transactions which they record. The just exercise of such discernment, together with a faithful display of characters and manners, is what forms the soul of true history, of which the facts and the language are but the body.
Robertson has given us many fine specimens of intuition into the principles of human events, and the phenomena of the human will, as in his developements of the Gowry conspiracy — of the hostile machinations of the French government, and of the motives, which swayed in the vicissitudes of the beautiful, imprudent, but still wronged and injured Mary, the unfortunate Queen of Scots. Perhaps no historian, either ancient or modern, has painted the charms and misfortunes of a Queen, in such tender and touching colours, as he has done, in his graphic and affecting picture of the lovely and hapless Mary.
In his Charles V. also, his greatest work, he frequently goes to the very head of the Nile, by disclosing the latent sources of the measures of Princes and Governors; as his preliminary dissertations to that work, are a continued stream of historical and political wisdom.
But, of the two historians, the expositor of English affairs, was by far the most conspicuous for talent of this kind. He, therefore, suffers nothing to escape his unvaried perspicuity; he inserts every thing in its proper place and connexion; he traces causes in their effects, and effects to their causes; he follows a hero, or a tyrant, through all the motives of their conduct; he unravels the web of policy with a masterly hand; and, with the matters of fact, which he relates frequently, mingles the most solid and useful reflections. In questions of genealogy — in the solution of difficult points — in topographical descriptions of the scenes of battles — and in the discussion of royal claims, he is also remarkably luminous and happy. In these great essentials of history, I am glad to perceive that you follow his plan of illustration, by throwing light on the abstruseness of our KEATING and explaining the obscurities of the still learned and profound O’HALLORAN, whom you justly and appropriately styled, the “LIVY OF IRELAND.” Hume’s details are so clear and intelligent, that we might imagine he had lived at the times, when such topics were agitated, so that his readers have no difficulty in understanding him. When, therefore, to this analytical and didactic method, we add the freedom, evidence, harmony, dignity, and rotundity of his periods, his acknowledged and eminent historical character is advanced almost to a perfection which no other historian has yet reached. It would, in my opinion, be advanced altogether to the highest point of superiority, but for some following circumstances, which have precluded him from mounting above all competitors, as the eagle above all birds.
He is blamed for doing injustice to our country: he is blamed, by grave and profound critics, for being too partial to the Stuarts, (just as you will hereafter, for being too partial to the O’Neils) and that one of his objects in writing the previous history of England, was to show that the encroachments of the royal power were not without precedent in the reigns of the Tudors. Though the question might be referred to principles of general policy and justice, yet if the mind should receive an undue bias from such representations, it may easily recover its bent, by application to the narrative of Macauley; or if that be thought too favourable to the republican party, every prejudice, (except a religious one) may be removed, by reading the truly learned and powerful DR. LINGARD, who, if divested by his strong religious bias, might fairly enter the lists, as an accomplished historian, with any writer of modern times. It has been sarcastically observed by Voltaire, that the best history of England was written by a foreigner, Rapin; but whether Lingard’s history may not wrest the laurel from Rapin and Hume, future ages will probably determine.
With respect to fidelity and impartiality — the most essential requisites in those who undertake to inform posterity of past transactions — there seems to be in the English historian, abundant ground for believing his reports. The philosophic historian, though a philosopher, is sometimes less solicitous about the truth of his narrative, and less credible in his statements; for not to mention his unhappy prejudices against the bible and the doctrines of christianity, he has too frequently exalted and vindicated the royal prerogatives, at the expense of popular rights, and the fundamental laws of the English realm; and in particular, his blind and excessive partiality to the Scottish dynasty, though the least deserving dynasty of any in the English monarchy; — all is certainly a great drawback from his history. He poised and supported the constitution, as Atlas is said to have sustained the celestial sphere, with a relaxed effort. Yet, with all these defects, which cannot be palliated, much less justified, his history of England, taken altogether, is equal to any that has been published, of that great and powerful nation. In making this assertion, let it not be supposed, that I wish to overlook or depreciate Dr. Lingard. His history, if not so highly fermented with the leaven of religious zeal, might be pronounced a master-piece. There is one particular more, concerning Hume and Robertson, which must not be omitted in a disquisition of this kind. When the latter describes astonishing events, he, like a christian, recognizes the supreme hand of providence, because he felt as a believer and a theologian: whereas Hume, on the contrary, writes as a politician only, ascribing every revolution to the sole exertion of visible agency.
Concerning the great and predominant merit of either in history and composition, there is no dispute, but which of them was the greater master is more uncertain. When you read Hume, you willingly assign to him the historic palm; and again, when you lay down his volumes, and take up Robertson’s, you are in as great a dilemma, as if you were called upon to determine, whether there is more poetic merit in the poems of BRYANT, than in those of HALLECK, and you reluctantly revoke your first decision, and transfer the laurel of superiority to Robertson. Yet, if one of them must be esteemed as the superior historian, the author of the history of England, wins the suffrage of impartial criticism, by the majority of ONE vote.
I cannot dismiss this article, without imagining how much students and others might improve themselves in the elegancies of knowledge, by a careful perusal of these two eminent British classics.
Except GIBBON and LINGARD, no such writers as these are, in their province, have modern times produced; they are superior even to the ancient historians, in the science of civil government, in national inquiry, and correct taste; and inferior to them only, in original genius, strength of description, and graceful simplicity. Robertson is a safe guide, that always carries a bright torch; Hume leads you through metaphysical mazes, where you will require all your judgment and discrimination, to guard you from falling into the sophistical sloughs of MISS FANNY WRIGHT. But the acute reader can feel the palpable and tangible substances of authenticity. Let, then, every one desirous of possessing a historical knowledge of English affairs, repair to these rich and balmy fountains of eloquence. The fame of Titus Livius drew to Rome, from the extremity of the empire, a generous Spaniard, merely for the sake of seeing a person so renowned and extraordinary; and yet, we may say, in a qualified sense, that if Hume and Robertson were his contemporaries, they would have eclipsed the lustre of his celebrity, and attracted an equal degree of admiration.
JUVERNA.
EDITORIAL NOTE.
If our respected correspondent will have the goodness of referring to O’DRISCOL’s History of Ireland, or to BARLOW’s, he shall find that the “sweeping charge,” of Leland being a “venal and libellous historian,” is fully sustained by the creditable and unimpeachable authorities of these recent and respectable writers, who were, he must know, sturdy protestants, and zealous supporters of church and state. Therefore, there cannot exist a doubt, in any dispassionate mind, of Leland’s having, for sordid motives, and the hope of encircling his brows with a mitre, perverted and defiled, with deliberate calumnies and flagitious misrepresentations, the stream of his stagnant and putrescent HISTORY. JUVERNA must be also aware that Hume, as a historian, has been arraigned for falsehood, injustice, and calumny, by some of the ablest English writers; particularly Dr. Johnson, the bulwark of morality and literature, who broadly charges Hume with “writing his history, to serve the interests of a party, and mislead the people of England.” That he was the wilful and hired traducer of Ireland, is an established fact, which even our correspondent would hardly have the boldness to contravene. But it is not to Ireland alone, that he has dealt out injustice, if the following anecdote, recorded by Plowden, in his postliminous preface, is true: — “While Mr. Hume was writing his history of England, a certain lord of Session supplied him with several original documents concerning Elizabeth’s cruel conduct towards Mary, Queen of Scots: they tended to render the character of Elizabeth less amiable, in the eyes of the English, than it is generally represented. Mr. Hume worked them faithfully into his manuscript, which having been perused by Mr. Andrew Millar, his publisher, he was informed that this new and less favourable portrait of the virgin Queen, would be, by £500, less saleable, than a highly finished copy of that, to which the British eye had been so long accustomed. Mr. Hume took back his manuscript, and complied with the prudential suggestions of his bookseller, observing, with philosophic pleasantry, ‘that £500 was a valuable consideration, for settling differences between two old friends, about two royal w———s, that had been dead nearly two hundred years.’”
If this anecdote is founded in verity and authenticity, it must reflect eternal disgrace on Hume’s memory. The moment a historian becomes venal, then impartiality, truth, and candour, are given to the winds; and the sacred deposit of historic evidence, torn, mangled, and divided, is carried, like Leland’s assertions, down the rapid currents of partiality, power, and prejudice. Leland’s History of Ireland, is now regarded by every liberal and enlightened man, with contempt, as the innoxious offspring of a mind, warped and perverted, by base venality; it is like the eyeless Polyphemus groping in his cave, malignant, but harmless.
“Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum.”