Born, at Borthwick, Midlothian, 19 Sept. 1721. Early education at Borthwick parish school and at Dalkeith Grammar School. To Edinburgh Univ., 1733. Licensed by Presbytery as preacher, June, 1741. Minister of Gladsmuir, 1743. Served in volunteers against Pretender’s army, 1745. Mem. of General Assembly, 1746. Married Mary Nisbet, 1751. Part ed. of “Edinburgh Rev.,” 1755. Visit to London, 1758. Minister of Lady Yester’s Chapel, Edinburgh, June 1758 to April 1761. Created D.D., Edinburgh, 1758. Chaplain of Stiring Castle, 1759. Minister of Old Greyfriars, Edinburgh, April, 1761. Chaplain to the King, Aug. 1761. Principal of Edinburgh Univ., 1762–92. Moderator of General Assembly, 1763–80. Mem. of Royal Acad. of History, Madrid, Aug. 1777. Mem. of Acad. of Science, Padua, 1781. Mem. of Imperial Acad., St. Petersburg, 1783. Historiographer for Scotland, 6 Aug. 1783. Died at Grange House, near Edinburgh, 11 June, 1793. Works: “The Situation of the World at the time of Christ’s Appearance,” 1755; “History of Scotland” (2 vols.), 1759; “History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V.” (3 vols.), 1769; “History of America” (2 vols.), 1777; “Historical Disquisition concerning the Knowledge which the Ancients had of India,” 1791. Collected Works: in 12 vols., ed. by Dugald Stewart, with memoir, 1817; in 11 vols., ed. by R. A. Davenport, with memoir, 1824.
Personal
His speeches in church courts were admired by those whom they did not convince, and acquired and preserved him an influence over a majority in them, which none before him enjoyed: though his measures were sometimes new, and warmly, and with great strength of argument opposed, both from the press, and in the general assembly. To this influence many causes contributed: his firm adherence to the general principles of church policy, which he early adopted; his sagacity in forming plans; his steadiness in executing them; his quick discernment of whatever might hinder or promote his designs; his boldness in encountering difficulties; his presence of mind in improving every occasional advantage; the address with which, when he saw it necessary, he could make an honorable retreat; and his skill in stating a vote, and seizing the favorable moment for ending a debate, and urging a decision. He guided and governed others, without seeming to assume any superiority over them…. Deliberate in forming his judgment, but, when formed, not easily moved to renounce it, he sometimes viewed the altered plans of others with too suspicious an eye. Hence, there were able and worthy men, of whom he expressed himself less favorably, and whose latter appearances in church judicatories, he censured as inconsistent with principles which they had formerly professed; while they maintained, that the system of managing church affairs was changed, not their opinions or conduct. Still, however, keen and determined opposition to his schemes of ecclesiastical policy, neither extinguished his esteem, nor forfeited his friendly offices, when he saw opposition carried on without rancor, and when he believed that it originated from conscience and principle, not from personal animosity, or envy, or ambition.
He delighted in good-natured, characteristical anecdotes of his acquaintance, and added powerfully to their effect by his own enjoyment in relating them. He was, in a remarkable degree, susceptible of the ludicrous; but, on no occasion did he forget the dignity of his character, or the decorum of his profession; nor did he even lose sight of that classical taste which adorned his compositions. His turn of expression was correct and pure; sometimes, perhaps, inclining more than is expected in the carelessness of a social hour, to formal and artificial periods; but it was stamped with his own manner no less than his premediated style: it was always the language of a superior and a cultivated mind, and it embellished every subject on which he spoke. In the company of strangers, he increased his exertions to amuse and to inform; and the splendid variety of his conversation was commonly the chief circumstance on which they dwelt in enumerating his talents; and yet, I must acknowledge, for my own part, that, much as I always admired his powers when they were thus called forth, I enjoyed his society less, than when I saw him in the circle of his intimates, or in the bosom of his family…. In point of stature Dr. Robertson was rather above the middle size; and his form though it did not convey the idea of much activity, announced vigor of body and a healthful constitution. His features were regular and manly; and his eye spoke at once good sense and good humor. He appeared to greatest advantage in his complete clerical dress; and was more remarkable for gravity and dignity in discharging the functions of his public stations, than for ease or grace in private society.
The history of the author is the history of the individual, excepting as regards his private life and his personal habits: these were in the most perfect degree dignified and pure. Without anything of harshness or fanaticism, he was rationally pious and blamelessly moral. His conduct, both as a christian minister, as a member of society, as a relation, and as a friend, was wholly without a stain. His affections were warm; they were ever under control, and therefore equal and steady…. His conversation was cheerful, and it was varied. Vast information, copious anecdote, perfect appositeness of illustration,—narration or description wholly free from pedantry or stiffness, but as felicitous and as striking as might be expected from such a master,—great liveliness, and often wit, and often humour, with a full disposition to enjoy the merriment of the hour, but the most scrupulous absence of every thing like coarseness of any description,—these formed the staples of his talk…. His very decided opinions on all subjects of public interest, civil and religious, never interrupted his friendly and familiar intercourse with those who held different principles…. His manner was not graceful in little matters, though his demeanour was dignified on the whole.
Dr. Robertson was a Christian in character, and therefore a gentleman in his manners; he did not think himself bound to treat an unbeliever, who never insulted his faith, as a profane and graceless enemy of man. Though he was firm, or perhaps we should say because he was firm, in his own conviction, he could look upon one whose opinions were different without the least feeling of hatred and revenge; in which respects he had the advantage of some over-zealous Christians, both in the peace and happiness of his own temper, and in the influence he exerted to bring unbelieving wanderers home.
Principal Robertson and his family were very intimate with the family of my father…. He was a pleasant-looking old man; with an eye of great vivacity and intelligence, a large, projecting chin, a small hearing-trumpet fastened by a black ribbon to a buttonhole of his coat, and a rather large wig, powdered and curled. He struck us boys, even from the side-table, as being evidently fond of a good dinner, at which he sat with his chin near his plate, intent upon the real business of the occasion. This appearance, however, must have been produced partly by his deafness; because, when his eye told him that there was something interesting, it was delightful to observe the animation with which he instantly applied his trumpet, when, having caught the scent, he followed it up, and was the leader of the pack.
On 26 May 1763 he was elected moderator of the general assembly, the administration of which he continued to direct with a firm hand for upwards of sixteen years. As a manager of the business of the general assembly, he acquired an influence greater than any moderator since Andrew Melville. By him were laid the foundations of that system of polity—the independence of the church as opposed to a fluctuating dependence upon the supposed views of the government of the day, the exaction of obedience by the inferior judicatories, and the enforcement of the law of patronage, except in flagrant cases of erroneous doctrine or immoral conduct—by means of which peace and unity were preserved in the Scottish church until a new principle was established by the assembly of 1834. Despite a zealous and able opposition, Robertson’s statesmanship, skill as a debater, and high character gave him paramount influence over “the moderates,” and rendered his power over all parties irresistible…. In Robertson’s as in Gibbon’s domestic life, pomposity was but skin-deep…. He was very fond of claret.
Dr. Robertson lived till he became Principal in a house at the head of the Cowgate, now the most squalid of Edinburgh squalid districts. There he kept boarders, like most city ministers and professors in those impecunious days, for English noblemen were in the habit of sending their sons to Edinburgh for the efficient and sedate college training they could not get at Oxford or Cambridge. In society he was prominent, as befitted his position of importance. Courteous and pleasing, with his bland and intelligent face and keen eyes, his presence gave an air of propriety to any company, as he sat in his well-fitting garments, his prim clerical bands, his legs crossed, displaying the neatest of silver-buckled shoes. His talk, agreeable but rather too instructive, came forth in strong Scots tongue, with a fluency which at times was too flowing for those who wished to speak as well as he. Friends rather resented his propensity, which increased with years, to lead the talk, and they murmured that whenever the cloth was removed after dinner and the wine appeared on the shining mahogany, the doctor would settle himself with deliberation in his chair, introduce some topic, and discourse thereon till general talk ceased. He would take the opinions and thoughts that his friends uttered yesterday and present them in elegant paraphrase—“the greatest plagiary in conversation that I ever knew,” says “Jupiter” Carlyle. His admiring biographer, Dugald Stewart, hints delicately at such colloquial defects, speaking of “his formal and artificial periods, the language of a strong and superior mind, which embellished every subject.”
The Situation of the World at the Time of Christ’s Appearance, 1755
This sermon, the only one he ever published, has been long ranked, in both parts of the Island, among the best models of pulpit eloquence in our language. It has undergone five editions, and is well known, in some parts of the continent, in the German translation of Mr. Ebeling.
This view of the question may derive confirmation, or at least illustration, from comparing Gibbon’s two chapters with Dr. Robertson’s “Sermon on the state of the world at the time of the appearance of Christ.” The sound and rational observations of the reverend historian on certain facilities afforded to the diffusion of the gospel by the previous state of the public mind, and of public affairs, in the hands of Gibbon, or of any other author more disposed to sneer than to argue candidly on such subjects, would admit of a perversion nearly similar to that given to the accidental causes which he has enumerated; while several of Gibbon’s natural causes, changing the offensive language in which they are conveyed, might fairly have been expounded, as perfectly true and efficient, from any pulpit.
The subject of the sermon is one peculiarly suited to his habits of inquiry…. The merits of this piece, as a sermon, are very great; and it is admirable as an historical composition, in that department which Voltaire first extended to all the records of past times. It was written and published before the appearance of the “Essai sur les Mœurs,” though as has been already said, detached portions of that work had appeared in a Paris periodical work.
History of Scotland, 1759
David Hume so far indulged my patience as to allow me to carry to the country during the holidays the loose sheets which he happened to have by him. In that condition I read it quite through with the greatest satisfaction, and in much less time than I ever employed on any portion of history of the same length…. Your work will certainly be ranked in the highest historical class; and, for my own part, I think it, besides, a composition of uncommon genius and eloquence.
I have not heard of one who does not praise it warmly…. Must fatigue your ears, as much as ours are in this place [London] by endless and repeated and noisy praises of the “History of Scotland.”… Mallet told me that Lord Mansfield is at a loss whether he shall most esteem the matter or the style. Elliot told me, that being in company with George Grenville, that gentleman was speaking loud in the same key…. Lord Lyttelton seems to think that since the time of St. Paul there scarce has been a better writer than Dr. Robertson. Mr. Walpole triumphs in the success of his favourites the Scotch.
Having finished the first volume, and made a little progress in the second, I cannot stay till I have finished the latter to tell you how exceedingly I admire the work…. In short, Sir, I don’t know where or what history is written with more excellences; and when I say this, you may be sure I do not forget your impartiality.
Upon my word, I was never more entertained in all my life; and, though I read it aloud to a friend and Mrs. Garrick, I finished the three first books at two sittings. I could not help writing to Millar and congratulating him upon this great acquisition to his literary treasures.
I have received and read with great pleasure the new “History of Scotland,” and will not wait for the judgment of the public to pronounce it a very excellent work. From the author’s apparent love of civil and religious liberty, I suppose, that were it not for fear of offence (which every wise man in his situation would fear to give) he would have spoken with much more freedom of the hierarchical principles of the infant church of Scotland.
I am very proud of being instrumental in contributing to the translation [by J. B. Suard], of the valuable work you are going to publish. The excellent work you have published already is a sure sign of the reception your “History of Charles V.” will meet with in the continent.
The fourteenth edition of your “Scotland” will be published in the course of the winter, during which it is our intention to advertise all your works strongly in all the papers. And we have the satisfaction of informing you that, if we may judge by the sale of your writings, your literary reputation is daily increasing.
I think the merit of Robertson consists in a certain even and well-supported tenour of good sense and elegance. There is a formality and demureness in his manner, his elegance has a primness, and his dignity a stiffness, which remind one of the politeness of an old maid of quality standing on all her punctilios of propriety and prudery. These peculiarities are most conspicuous in his introductory book. As we advance, his singular power of interesting narrative prevails over every defect. His reflections are not uncommon; his views of character and society imply only sound sense…. During the trial of Dustergool, my mind was full of Mary, Queen of Scots, in whose history I had just read, for the thousandth time, efforts more successful than those of the Armenian Mary, by a vicious and beautiful wife, to murder a bad husband. As soon as Mary gets into England, Robertson is tempted, by the interest of his story, into constant partiality to her. Her abilities are exaggerated to make her story more romantic: she was a weak girl of elegant accomplishments.
His “History of Scotland” is doubtless, by far, the most popular history extant.
The “History of Scotland,” the only one of his works which approaches the perfect plan of a history, is the best of his productions, the most interesting, and the most naturally written. Although he asserts that he was ten years engaged on it, the size of the work would hardly seem to require so much labor. It hardly exceeds nine hundred pages octavo, and in order to swell it to two volumes he was obliged to add, afterwards, by a few months’ labor, a large body of notes. He was always fond of referring to many authorities, and was careful in his researches; yet he seldom discovered any new facts and does little more than relate gracefully the more interesting portions of a well-known narrative.
In the following year, the reading public—especially the literary men of London—were electrified by the appearance of “A History of Scotland” from this unknown minister’s pen. Dealing with the reigns of Mary Stuart and her son, down to the accession of the latter to the English throne, he described, in pure, pathetic, and dignified language, the sorrows of that wretched Scotchwoman with a French soul, who saw so little of Holyrood and so much of English jails. He stands midway between those who believe her to have been a beautiful martyr, and those who brand her as a beautiful criminal. Agreeing with all writers as to the great loveliness of this beheaded Scottish queen, he considers that the intensity and long continuance of the sorrows, darkening over her whole life until the bloody catastrophe of Fotheringay, have blinded us to her faults, and that we therefore “approve of our tears, as if they were shed for a person who had attained much nearer to pure virtue.”
Notwithstanding the immense materials which have been brought to light since the time of Robertson, his “History of Scotland” is still valuable; because he possessed a grasp of mind which enabled him to embrace general views, that escape ordinary compilers, however industrious they may be.
Hume criticised some peculiarities of Robertson’s vocabulary. But, after all deductions, the purity of Robertson’s English cannot be seriously impugned. He modelled his style upon Swift, after exhaustively studying that of Livy and Tacitus. By way of practice in the writing of English he had, long before the appearance of his “History,” prepared a translation of Marcus Aurelius, the manuscript of which belonged to Lord Brougham. Later and more exhaustive methods of research have deprived Robertson’s “History” of most of its historical value. But its sobriety, fairness, and literary character give it a permanent interest to a student of the evolution of historical composition.
Charles V., 1769
I got yesterday from Strahan about thirty sheets of your history to be sent over to Suard…. To say only that they are very well written is by far too faint an expression, and much inferior to the sentiments I feel: they are composed with nobleness, with dignity, with elegance, and with judgment to which there are few equals. They even excel, and, I think, in a sensible degree, your “History of Scotland.” I propose to myself great pleasure in being the only man in England during some months who will be in the situation of doing you justice, after which you may certainly expect that my voice will be drowned in that of the public.
I think that the historian of Mary, Queen of Scots, cannot fail to do justice to any great subject…. Go on, dear sir, to enrich the English language with more traits of modern history.
Robertson is your Livy; his “Charles V.” is written with truth.
Finished the 1st vol. of Robertson’s “Charles the Fifth,” obeying the references to proofs and illustrations. I am confounded at the immense researches which furnished material for this preliminary volume.
Robertson, if he had applied to Monsieur Gerard of Brussels, keeper of the archives, and many other persons in the Austrian Netherlands, might have procured documents and information which would have rendered the “History of Italy” something more than a bare splendid relation of facts already known to every common historical reader.
In no part of Dr. Robertson’s works has he displayed more remarkably than in this introductory volume, his patience in research; his penetration and good sense in selecting his information; or that comprehension of mind, which, without being misled by system, can combine with distinctness and taste the dry and scattered details of ancient monuments. In truth, this dissertation, under the unassuming title of an Introduction to the “History of Charles V.” may be regarded as an introduction to the History of Modern Europe. It is invaluable, in this respect, to the historical student; and it suggests, in every page, matter of speculation to the politician and the philosopher.
The subject of private warfare is treated so exactly and perspicuously by Robertson, that I should only waste the reader’s time by dwelling so long upon it as its extent and importance would otherwise demand. Few leading passages in the monuments of the middle ages, relative to this subject, have escaped the penetrating eye of that historian; and they are arranged so well as to form a comprehensive treatise in small compass.
Robertson’s State of Europe in his “Charles the Fifth” is another of my great favourites; it contains an epitome of information. Such works … are the railroads to learning.
Robertson received four thousand and five hundred pounds for the “History of Charles V.;” and it is no disrespect to the memory of Robertson to say that the “History of Charles V.” is both a less valuable and a less amusing book than the “Lives of the Poets.”
The first volume of his “Charles V.” may justly be regarded as the greatest step which the human mind had yet made in the philosophy of history. Extending his views beyond the admirable survey which Montesquieu had given of the rise and decline of the Roman Empire, he aimed at giving a view of the progress of society in modern times.
For the “History of Charles V.” Robertson received £4500, then supposed to be the largest sum ever paid for the copyright of a single work.
“A View of the Progress of Society in Europe, from the Subversion of the Roman Empire to the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century.” 8vo., Edinburgh, 1818. This volume is properly an introduction to the author’s “History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V.,” and is usually to be found in the various editions of that work. This was perhaps the first really philosophical view of the Middle Ages ever written. In calmness of judgment, in breadth of scholarship, and in comprehensiveness of treatment it still has no superior among the shorter treatises on the Middle Ages…. The “proofs and illustrations” form nearly half of the whole volume, and are not the least important and interesting portion of the work. They abound in facts of the utmost interest and importance. It is difficult to discriminate against any portion of this excellent piece of historical writing; but the first and the third section will be found by most students more interesting, if not more valuable than the third.
In 1769 he issued the three volumes of his “History of the Reign of Charles V.,” one of the best paid pieces of literary labour ever undertaken by a human pen, and this was followed by several historical works of minor importance. Robertson was not more impressed than Hume with the necessity of close, independent, and impartial research, but he was no less graceful in style, and he diffused over his best work an even milder radiance of philosophic reflection. Hume and Robertson are strangely alike as historians. Neither descends the hill to survey the country at his feet, but each has exceedingly long sight, and the power of taking wide and harmonious Pisgah-views from his self-adopted eminence. Robertson, however, is certainly superior to Hume in his skill in making general estimates of history. It is not the least of Robertson’s claims to our consideration that the opening chapters of his “Charles V.” had the effect of awakening a historic sense in the childhood of Carlyle, supplying him with “new worlds of knowledge, vistas in all directions.”
His “History of the Emperor Charles V.” is written with a general sagacity of truth which is hardly affected by several faulty details.
History of America, 1777
I could not go through your work at one breath at that time, though I have done it since. I am now enabled to thank you, not only for the honour you have done me, but for the great satisfaction, and the infinite variety and compass of instruction I have received from your incomparable work. Everything has been done which was so naturally to be expected from the author of the “History of Scotland,” and of the age of Charles V. I believe few books have done more than this, towards clearing up dark points, correcting errors, and removing prejudices. You have too the rare secret of rekindling an interest on subjects that had so often been treated, and in which every thing which could feed a vital flame appeared to have been consumed. I am sure I read many parts of your history with that fresh concern and anxiety which attend those who are not previously apprised of the event. You have besides, thrown quite a new light on the present state of the Spanish provinces, and furnished both materials and hints for a rational theory of what may be expected from them in future. The part which I read with the greatest pleasure is, the discussion on the manners and character of the inhabitants of that New World. I have always thought with you that we possess at this time very great advantages towards the knowledge of human nature. We need no longer go to history to trace it in all stages and periods.
I have seen enough to convince me that the present publication will support, and, if possible, extend the fame of the author; that the materials are collected with care, and arranged with skill; that the progress of discovery is displayed with learning and perspicuity; that the dangers, the achievements, and the views [?] of the Spanish adventurers, are related with a temperate spirit; and that the most original, perhaps the most curious portion of human manners is at length rescued from the hands of sophists and declaimers.
After all, however, the principal charm of this, as well as of his other histories, arises from the graphical effect of his narrative, wherever his subject affords him materials for an interesting picture. What force and beauty of painting in his circumstantial details of the new voyage of Columbus; of the first aspect of the new Continent; and of the interviews of the natives with the Spanish adventurers! With what animation and fire does he follow the steps of Cortes through the varying fortunes of his vast and hazardous career; yielding, it must be owned, somewhat too much to the influence of the passions which his hero felt; but bestowing, at the same time, the warm tribute of admiration and sympathy on the virtues and fate of those whom he subdued! The arts, the institutions, and the manners of Europe and of America; but above all, the splendid characters of Cortes and of Guatimozin, enable him, in this part of his work, to add to its other attractions that of the finest contrasts which occur in history.
Robertson…. in what he calls his “History of America,” is guilty of such omissions and consequent misrepresentations as to make it certain that he had not read some of the most important documents to which he refers, or that he did not chuse to notice the facts which are to be found there, because they were not in conformity to his own preconceived opinions…. The reputation of this author must rest upon his “History of Scotland,”… if that can support it. His other works are grievously deficient.
Robertson’s “History of America,” admirable for the sagacity with which it has been compiled; but too much abridged in the part relating to the Toltecks and Aztecks.
Robertson’s “History of America,” published in 1777, is entirely unequal to the claims it makes. Simancas was closed to him, and the admirable collection at the Lonja of Seville was not yet imagined, so that he had not the materials needful for his task; besides which, his plan was not only too vast, but, in its separate parts, was ill proportioned and ill adjusted.
After receiving the warm approbation of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid, was about to be translated into Spanish, when the Government, not wishing their American administration to be brought under discussion, interfered with a prohibition.
The “History of America” is accurate but dull. He has none of the qualifications of an excellent historian. He keeps up the dignity of history, and never descends from his stilts. His style is sonorous, dignified, and sometimes very eloquent.
His “History of America” must always remain a classic.
Its vivid descriptions and philosophical disquisitions on aboriginal society captivated the literary world, while the outbreak of the American war lent the book pertinent public interest and rendered it more popular than either of its predecessors. Keats, who read it with enthusiasm many years after, owed to it the suggestion of his famous simile of “Cortez and his men.”
History of India, 1791
Dr. Robertson’s book amused me pretty well, madam, though very defective from the hiatuses in his materials. It is a genealogy with more than half the middle descents wanting; and thence his ingenious hypothesis of Western invaders importing civilization from the East is not ascertained. Can one be sure a peer is descended from a very ancient peer of the same name, though he cannot prove who a dozen of his grandfathers were?
Nothing can be more unjust than the notion that this work is so incorrect, or grounded on information so imperfect, as to have been superseded by more full and accurate books since published. It is, from its accuracy, its knowledge of the ancient writings, its judicious reasoning and remarks, as well as its admirable composition, quite worthy of a place by the author’s former and more celebrated writings; and it proves his great faculties to have continued in their entire vigour to the latest period of his life.
General
BOSWELL. “Will you not admit the superiority of Robertson, in whose ‘History’ we find such penetration—such painting?” JOHNSON. “Sir, you must consider how that penetration and that painting are employed. It is not history, it is imagination. He who describes what he never saw, draws from fancy. Robertson paints minds as Sir Joshua paints faces in a history-piece: he imagines an heroic countenance. You must look upon Robertson’s work as romance, and try it by that standard. History it is not. Besides, Sir, it is the great excellence of a writer to put into his book as much as his book will hold. Goldsmith has done this in his “History.” Now Robertson might have put twice as much into his book. Robertson is like a man who has packed gold in wool: the wool takes up more room than the gold. No, Sir; I always thought Robertson would be crushed by his own weight,—would be buried under his own ornaments. Goldsmith tells you shortly all you want to know: Robertson detains you a great deal too long. No man will read Robertson’s cumbrous detail a second time; but Goldsmith’s plain narrative will please again and again. I would say to Robertson what an old tutor of a college said to one of his pupils: ‘Read over your compositions, and whenever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.’“
A disciple of the old school of slander—a liar—and one for whom bedlam is no bedlam.
Dr. Robertson shone when he wrote the History of his own country, with which he was acquainted. All his other works are collections tacked together for the purpose; but as he has not the genius, penetration, sagacity, and art of Mr. Gibbon, he cannot melt his materials together, and make them elucidate and even improve and produce new discoveries; in short, he cannot, like Mr. Gibbon, make an original picture with some bits of Mosaic.
The perfect composition, the nervous language, the well-tuned 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.
None of Dr. Robertson’s periods with three members.
The histories of Robertson abound in the finest descriptions, the most pleasing delineations of character, the most dignified and judicious mixture of reflections; and more especially they are distinguished by a style of narration at once manly, copious, and easy. But all these descriptions, delineations, reflections, and even this narrative itself, are too general for practical use and application. The politician and political œconomist will search these writings in vain for the accurate details of fact which they have a right to expect from one who investigates the subjects of particular men and nations…. In plain terms, Dr. Robertson appears to have studied grace and dignity more than usefulness. He has chosen those features of every figure which he could best paint, rather than those which were most worthy of the pencil…. The charms of Robertson’s style, and the full flow of his narration, which is always sufficiently minute for ordinary readers, will render his works immortal in the hands of the bulk of mankind. But the scientific reader requires something more than periods which fill his ear, and general statements which gratify by amusing; he even requires more than a general text-book,—a happy arrangement of intricate subjects, which may enable him to pursue them in their details…. When we repair to the works of Robertson for the purpose of finding facts, we are instantly carried away by the stream of his narrative, and forget the purpose of our errand to the fountain. As soon as we can stop ourselves, we discover that our search has been vain, and that we must apply to those sources from which he drew and culled his supplies.
Robertson’s style is most attractive: his language select, and, though ornate, yet lucid and unaffected. His weak side is that which has regard to research and import, certainly the most important of all historic qualities. It is now universally admitted, even in England, that he is unreliable, superficial, and often full of errors as to facts: yet his style is wont to be held up as a pattern, owing, probably, to the degeneracy of taste. But even his style is, in my opinion, too verbose and antithetical.
Do you like Robertson? I used to find in him a shrewd, a systematic, but not a great understanding; and no more heart than in my boot. He was a kind of deist in the guise of a Calvinistic priest; a portentous combination.
Robertson, who first threw over the maze of human events the light of philosophic genius, and the spirit of enlightened reflection.
Yet there was a power of arrangement in Robertson: no one knew better where to begin a story and where to stop. This was the greatest quality in him, that and a soft sleek style. On the whole, he was merely a politician, open to the common objection to all the three, that total want of belief; and worse in Robertson, a minister of the Gospel, preaching, or pretending to preach.
In Adam Smith’s day all poetical criticism not contained in Dr. Blair’s Lectures or Lord Kames’s Elements would have been hooted out of reasonable society; now those books themselves, and the school which they represent, have sunk into the lowest estimation. Robertson and Hume would of course have been Smith’s standards of historical writing; now the world can listen with great complacency to Charles Lamb’s assertion that their books have the same title to the character of histories as the chess-boards which we see inscribed in gilt letters with the same honourable name.
The pages of Dr. Robertson have not the unwearied splendour of Gibbon, nor the sudden flashes of sagacity which so charm us in the historical writings of Hume; but Robertson is always an historian, with all the important merits which belong to the character.
The public has been hitherto indebted for its knowledge of the reign of Charles the Fifth to Robertson,—a writer who, combining a truly philosophical spirit with an acute perception of character, is recommended, moreover, by a classic elegance of style which has justly given him a pre-eminence among the historians of the Great Emperor.
Robertson, admirable for gravity and shrewd sense.
He was the Macaulay of his times. His successive works were as eagerly anticipated, and kindled the same enthusiasm. The fame he reaped in the field of letters added weight to his position as a leader in the Church. He reflected the honours he won on the Church he served. As an author of high merit he was brought into contact with, and honoured by the intimacy of men of light and leading; statesmen, ministers, men of letters, and dignitaries of the Church, were counted amongst his friends. The highest personage of the realm interested himself in his pursuits, and proposals from that quarter were made to him of the most flattering kind. Since the days of the Reformation he was the first minister of the Church who in the field of letters won for himself a European fame. He elevated the Church from a position of comparative obscurity, lifted her into the presence of foremost men of the world, and won for her history their consideration and esteem.
Robertson’s style is essentially a made one…. Taken at his best, in narrative, Robertson is admirable. His prose flows easily, carrying the reader along by the studied but concealed art by which one sentence is made to seem the necessary sequel to its predecessor. The general style is, indeed, too smooth for modern taste. As Robertson never allowed himself to pass a certain limit of fervency in his sermons, through fear of being dubbed “Highflyer,” so he always wrote, so to speak, with the drag on. His facts are skilfully marshalled in their proper sequence; his tone is kept exceptionally low…. The best quality of Robertson’s style is its easy motion. He constantly strives after grace and dignity. The balanced phrase, the period, the tautological adjective are perpetually employed.
His style is, in the merely correct, but not merely jejune, kind, singularly good; his conception of history, though not answering to that of more modern times, and tinged with the idiosyncrasies of his age, is philosophical and shrewd; and above all, he had, what modern historians, with all their pretensions and all their equipment, have too often lacked, a thorough sense of rhetorical fitness in the good, not the empty, sense, and could make his histories definite works of art and definite logical presentments of a view. Nor was he by any means careless of research according to his own standard, which was already a severer one than that of Hume.
Posterity, we fear, has confirmed Johnson’s verdict, and the history which pleased the polite readers of last century, and appeared to them as even more correct and dignified than that of Gibbon, is not likely to come again into vogue. But none the less he performed a work and achieved a fame which added immensely to the influence of his Church, and enhanced the position of her clergy.
