It is singular enough, that, as Dr. Robertson was soon after appointed historiographer for Scotland, he did not conscientiously adhere to the tenor of his patent, and complete the history of his native country. But, having now acquired fame and money, he was naturally desirous of augmenting both. The History of Scotland was not very promising and a subject which might display greater talents, and command the attention of foreigners, was of course preferred. A history of England was also contemplated by this celebrated author, but soon relinquished, from the impossibility of his residing statedly at London. At length appeared the History of Charles the Fifth. The paragraphs which immediately follow are part of a letter from Mr. Hume, without any date; but written, as appears from the contents, while the History of Charles V. was still in the press. The levity of the style forms such a striking contrast to the character which this grave and philosophical historian sustains in his publications, that I have sometimes hesitated about the propriety of subjecting to the criticisms of the world so careless an effusion of gaiety and affection. I trust, however, that to some it will not be wholly uninteresting to enjoy a glimpse of the writer and his correspondent in the habits of private intercourse; and that to them the playful and good-natured irony of Mr. Hume will suggest not unpleasing pictures of the hours which they borrowed from business and study. Dr. Robertson used frequently to say, that in Mr. Hume's gaiety there was something which approached to infantine; and that he had found the same thing so often exemplified in the circle of his other friends, that he was almost disposed to consider it as characteristical of genius. It has certainly lent an amiable grace to some of the most favourite names in ancient story. Primores populi arripuit, populumque tributim ;- "I got yesterday from Strahan about thirty sheets of your *His tory to be sent over to Suard, and last night and this morning have run them over with great avidity. I could not deny myself the satisfaction-which I hope also will not displease you-of expressing presently my extreme approbation of them. To say only 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 judgement, 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. CRIT. REV. Vol. 35. June, 1802. L "You know that you and I have always been on the footing of finding in each other's productions something to blame, and something to commend; and therefore you may perhaps expect also some seasoning of the former kind; but really neither my leisure nor inclination allowed me to make such remarks, and I sincerely believe you have afforded me very small materials for them. However, such particulars as occur to my memory I shall mention. Maltreat is a Scotticism which occurs once. What the devil had you to do with that old-fashioned dangling word wherewith? I should as soon take back whereupon, whereunto, and wherewithal. I think the only tolerable decent gentleman of the family is wherein; and I should not chuse to be often seen in his company. But I know your affection for wherewith proceeds from your partiality to Dean Swift, whom I can often laugh with, whose style I can even approve, but surely can never admire. It has no harmony, no eloquence, no ornament; and not much correctness, whatever the English may imagine. Were not their literature still in a somewhat barbarous state, that author's place would not be so high among their classics. But what a fancy is this you have taken of saying always an hand, an heart, an head? Have you an ear? Do you not know that this (n) is added before vowels to prevent the cacophony, and ought never to take place before (b) when that letter is sounded? It is never pronounced in these words: why should it be wrote? Thus, I should say, a history, and an historian; and so would you too, if had any you sense. But you tell me, that Swift does otherwise. To be sure there is no reply to that; and we must swallow your hath too upon the same authority. I will see you d-d sooner.- -But I will endeavour to keep my temper. "I do not like this sentence in page 149. This step was taken in consequence of the treaty Wolsey had concluded with the emperor at Brussels, and which had hitherto been kept secret.'-Si sic omnia dixisses, I should never have been plagued with hearing your praises so often sounded, and that fools preferred your style to mine. Certainly it had been better to have said, which Wolsey,' &c. That relative ought very seldom to be omitted, and is here particularly requisite to preserve a symmetry between the two members of the sentence. You omit the relative too often, which is a colloquial barbarism, as Mr. Johnson calls it. "Your periods are sometimes, though not often, too long. Suard will be embarrassed with them, as the modish French style runs into the other extreme." P. 76. It appears from this account that the French translations of Dr. Robertson's works were promoted by himself, and that he displayed a paternal solicitude for his fame on the continent. In page 92, &c. Dr. Stewart praises the general arrangement of Dr. Robertson's writings. On this subject we have already expressed our opinion in our review of the Disquisition on India; and we do not hesitate to repeat, that we look upon his short text and long notes as alike unclassical, unphilosophical, unintelligible, and unpleasant. It is, in truth, a most pedantic imitation of Bayle's Dictionary, and of the Biographia Britannica. After an interval of eight years from the publication of Charles the Fifth, Dr. Robertson produced the History of America; a work which, by the variety of research and of speculation that it exhibits, enables us to form a sufficient idea of the manner in which he had employed the intervening period. In undertaking this task, the author's original intention was only to complete his account of the great events connected with the reign of Charles V.; but perceiving, as he advanced, that a History of America, confined solely to the operations and concerns of the Spaniards, would not be likely to excite a very general interest, he resolved to include in his plan the transactions of all the European nations in the New World. The origin and progress of the British empire there he destined for the subject of one entire volume; but afterwards abandoned, or rather suspended the execution of this part of his design, for reasons mentioned in his preface.' P.97. The History of America is certainly a great and interesting work, much superior, in our estimation, to that of Charles the Fifth. But it ought to have been entitled the History of Spanish America, as the Portuguese half is totally omitted; and the author seems even to have forgotten that the Portuguese ever had any settlements in America. The history of Portuguese America would prove an important and interesting theme to a writer well versed in the language, who could obtain access to the Portuguese records-an advantage indispensable to any author who would write with historical precision, either on this subject, on navigation, or modern discoveries in general. There are some topics on which the outcry of party-spirit and preconceived opinion is so violent, that modern philosophy cannot stand the shock. Such is that of the cruelty of the Spaniards in their conquest of America, and of the slave-trade. Ancient philosophers argued on the real and general modifications. of human nature; while the moderns argue upon an idea of perfection which is no-where to be found, except in their closets. We do not see that Dr. Robertson has incurred any blame, as our biographer allows, for representing the supposed cruelties of the Spaniards in a just historical light without prejudice or passion. It is extremely natural for our mariners to delineate the Spaniards as very cruel, as an apology for our cruelty in frequent attacks upon their defenceless possessions, for the sake of ingots of gold or silver; but the voice of posterity will be very different. Cruelty unavoidably attends war in barbarous ages: and we have only to reflect on the history of the wars of York and Lancaster in the century in which America was discovered, to observe with what a particular good grace we bring the charge. The settlements of the French and English, more than a century after, only bore the improved character of European society. If Richard the Third, or even if Henry the Seventh, had made conquests in America, we should probably have had little cause to boast of the contrast. But this charge of cruelty is convenient, as we have already mentioned; and we perfectly remember, that in an old English account of one of our expeditions against the Spanish colonies, a Spanish governor is branded as cruel because he had put the place into a posture of defence, which occasioned some loss to the assailants! Such is the torrent of national opinions, always despised by a writer of real talents, who listens to the voice of all nations, and that of distant futurity. We do not know any foreign writer of real skill and eminence who has branded the Spanish cruelties; and rather believe the outcry to be peculiar to this country. 1 The Disquisition concerning India was written by the author in his sixty-eighth year. We have already considered this work at great length*, and at this distance of time do not think it has met with much public approbation. Since our review of it, many parts have been discovered to rest on loose foundations, particularly the supported ancient astronomy of the Hindûs. Such a work certainly demanded a more profound acquaintance with antiquities than the author possessed. We perfectly agree with the learned bishop of Salisbury in his censure of the short text and long notes; and regard Dr. Robertson's predilection in its favour, even to his last moments, as an instance coinciding with Milton's admiration of his Paradise Regained. An author may sometimes, from mere artifice, express lasting approbation of the weakest part of his writings; as he knows the strong will shift for themselves. Dr. Stewart afterwards gives what he calls a general view of Dr. Robertson's merits as an historian; but this unexpectedly presents only a few remarks on his language. The last section contains a prolix view of Dr. Robertson's conduct as a presbyterian clergyman-a subject which may perhaps be interesting at Edinburgh, but to the English reader is alike unentertaining and uninstructive. A few pages on this topic were doubtless necessary; but they ought to have been written with compressive force and elegance. The general view which has been already given of Dr. Robertson's occupations and habits, supersedes the necessity of attempting a formal delineation of his character. To the particulars, however, which have been incidentally mentioned in the course of this biographical sketch, it may not be unimportant to add, that the same sagacity and good sense which so eminently distinguished him as a writer, guided his conduct in life, and rendered his counsels of inestimable value to his friends. He was not forward in offering advice; but when consulted, as he was very frequently, by his younger acquaintance, he entered into their concerns with the most lively interest, and seemed to have a pleasure and a pride in imparting to them all the lights of his experience and wisdom. Good sense was indeed the most prominent feature in his intellectual character; and See Crit, Rey, New Arr. vol. III. p. 121 and p. 556. it is unquestionably of all the qualities of the understanding, that which essentially constitutes superiority of mind: for, although we are sometimes apt to appropriate the appellation of genius to certain peculiarities in the intellectual habits, it is he only who distinguishes himself from the rest of mankind, by thinking better than they on the same subjects, who fairly brings his powers into comparison with others. This was in a remarkable degree the case with Dr. Robert, son. He was not eminent for metaphysical acuteness; nor did he easily enter into speculations involving mathematical or mechanical ideas; but, in those endowments which lay the foundation of successful conduct, and which fit a man to acquire an influence over others, he had no superior. Among those who have, like him, devoted the greater part of life to study, perhaps it would be difficult to find his equal. His practical acquaintance with human nature was great, and he possessed the soundest and most accurate notions of the characters of those with whom he was accustomed to associate. In that quick penetration, indeed, which reads the soul, and estimates the talents of others by a sort of intuition, he was surpassed by many; and I have often known him misled by first impressions: but where he had an opportunity of continuing his observations for a length of time, he seldom failed in forming conclusions equally just, refined, and profound. In a general knowledge of the world, and of the ways of men, his superiority was striking and indisputable; still more so, in my opinion, than in the judgements he formed of individuals. Nor is this surprising, when we consider the joint influence of his habits as an historian, and as a political leader, Too much cannot be said of his moral qualities. Exemplary and amiable in the offices of private life, he exhibited in his public conduct a rare union of political firmness, with candour and moderation." He enjoyed," says Dr. Erskine, "the bounties of Providence without running into riot; was temperate without austerity; condescending and affable without meanness; and in expense neither sordid nor prodigal. He could feel an injury, and yet bridle his passion; was grave, not sullen; steady, not obstinate; friendly, not officious; prudent and cautious, not timid."-The praise is liberal; and it is expressed with the cordial warmth of friendship; but it comes from one who had the best opportunity of knowing the truth, as he had enjoyed Dr. Robertson's intimacy from his childhood, and was afterwards, for more than twenty years, his collegue in the same church; while his zealous attachment to a different system of ecclesiastical government, though it never impaired his affection for the companion of his youth, exempts him from any suspicion of undue partiality. 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 vigour of body and a healthful constitution. His features were regular and manly; and his eye spoke at once good-sense and good-humour. 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. His portrait by Reynolds, painted about |