HENRY,
(DR) ROBERT, an eminent historian, was born in the parish of St
Ninians in Stirlingshire, on the 18th of February, 1718; - his father
was James Henry, a respectable farmer in Muirtown of the same parish,
who had married the daughter of Mr Galloway of Burrowmeadow in
Stirlingshire. As a respectable farmer’s son, young Henry enjoyed
opportunities of instruction beyond the average of those who study for
the church in Scotland, and he found little difficulty in indulging his
inclination to become a member of a learned profession. He commenced his
education under Mr Nicholson of the parish school of St Ninians, and
having attended the grammar school of Stirling, perfected himself in his
literary and philosophical studies at the university of Edinburgh. After
leaving that institution, he occupied himself in teaching, the usual
resource of the expectants of the Scottish church, and became master of
the grammar school of Annan. The district in which he was so employed
was soon afterwards erected into a separate presbytery, and Henry was
admitted as its first licentiate, on the 27th of March, 1746. In 1748,
he was ordained as clergyman of a congregation of presbyterians at
Carlisle. Here he remained for twelve years, when he was transferred to
a similar dissenting congregation at Berwick upon Tweed. In 1763, he
married Ann Balderston, daughter of Thomas Balderston, surgeon in
Berwick. Little is said of this lady by Henry’s biographers, except in
reference to the domestic happiness she conferred on her husband. During
his residence at Berwick, Dr Henry applied his active mind to the
preparation of a scheme for establishing a fund to assist the widows and
orphans of the dissenting clergymen in the north of England. The
admirable fund which had some time previously been so firmly and
successfully established for bestowing similar benefits on the families
of the clergy of Scotland, formed the model of his imitation; but in
assimilating the situation of a dissenting to that of an established
church, he laboured under the usual difficulties of those who raise a
social fabric which the laws will not recognize and protect. The funds
which, in Scotland, were supplied by the annual contribution of the
clergy, enforced by act of parliament, depended, in the English
institution, on the social and provident spirit of its members. The
perseverance of Henry overcame many of the practical difficulties thus
thrown in his way: the fund was placed on a permanent footing in the
year 1762, and Henry, having for some years undertaken its management,
had afterwards the satisfaction to see it flourish, and increase in
stability and usefulness as he advanced in years. The design of his
elaborate history, which must have gradually developed itself in the
course of his early studies, is said to have been finally formed during
his residence in Berwick, and he commenced a course of inquiry and
reading, which he found that the resources of a provincial town, and the
assistance of his literary friends in more favoured situations, were
quite incapable of supplying for a subject so vast and intricate, as
that of a complete history of Britain from the invasion of Julius
Caesar. In this situation Dr Henry found a useful friend in Mr Laurie,
provost of Edinburgh, who had married his sister. The interest of
this gentleman procured for his brother-in-law, in the year 1768, an
appointment to the ministry of the new Grey Friar’s church in Edinburgh,
whence, in 1776, he was removed to the collegiate charge of the Old
Church.
In the extensive public
libraries of Edinburgh, Dr Henry found means of prosecuting his
researches with effect. The first volume of his history was published in
quarto in the year 1771, the second appeared in 1774, the third
in 1777, the fourth in 1781, and the fifth in 1785. The method of
treating the subject was original and bold, and one the
assumption of which left the author no excuse for ignorance on any
subject which had the slightest connexion with the customs, intellects,
and history of our forefathers, or the constitution of the kingdom. The
subject was in the first place divided into periods, which were
considered separately, each period occupying a volume. The volume was
divided into seven chapters, each containing a distinct subject, linked
to the corresponding subject in the next volume by continuance of
narrative, and to the other chapters of the same volume by identity of
the period discussed. The subjects thus separated were—lst, The simple
narrative of the civil and military transactions of the country—2d, The
ecclesiastical history—3d, The information which is generally called
constitutional, narrating and accounting for the rise of the
peculiarities in the form of government, the laws, and the courts of
justice---4th, The state of learning, or rather the state of literature
which may be called purely scholastic, excluding the fine arts, and
constitutional and political information---5th, The history and state of
arts and manufactures—6th, A history of commerce, including the state of
shipping, coin, and the prices of commodities; and lastly, The history
of the manners, customs, amusements, and costumes of the people.—The
writer of a book on any subject on which he is well informed, will
generally choose that manner of explaining his ideas best suited to his
information and comprehension. It may be questioned whether the plan
pursued by Henry was adapted for the highest class of historical
composition, and if the other great historians who flourished along with
him, would have improved their works by following his complicated and
elaborate system. It is true that mere narrative, uninterwoven with
reflection, and such information as allows us to look into the hearts of
the actors, is a gift entirely divested of the qualities which make it
useful; but there are various means of qualifying the narrative—some
have given their constitutional information in notes, or detached
passages; others have woven it beautifully into the narrative, and
presenting us with the full picture of the times broadly and truly
coloured, have prevented the mind from distracting itself by searching
for the motives of actions through bare narrative in one part of the
work, and a variety of influencing motives to be found scattered through
another. The plan, which we may say was invented by Dr Henry, has only
been once imitated, (unless it can be said that the acute and laborious
Hallam has partly followed his arrangement.) The imitator was a
Scotsman, the subject he encountered still more extensive than that of
Henry, and the ignorance the author displayed in some of its minute
branches excited ridicule. This is an instance of the chief danger of
the system. The acquisition of a sufficient amount of information, and
regularity in the arrangement, are the matters most to be attended to;
Henry’s good sense taught him the latter, his perseverance accomplished
the former, and the author made a complete and useful work, inferior,
certainly, as a great literary production, to the works of those more
gifted historians who mingled reflection with the current of their
narrative, but better suited to an intellect which did not soar above
the trammels of such a division of subject, and which might have fallen
into confusion without them.
The circumstances of the
first appearance of the earlier volumes of this useful book are
interesting to the world, from their having raised against the author a
storm of hostility and deadly animosity almost unmatched in the annals
of literary warfare. The chief persecutor, and grand master of this
inquisition on reputation, was the irascible Dr Gilbert Stuart. The
cause of his animosity against a worthy and inoffensive man, can only be
accounted for by those whose penetration may find its way to the depths
of literary jealousy.
The letters of Stuart on
the subject, have been carefully collected by D’Israeli, and
published in his "Calamities of Authors," and when coupled with such
traces of the influence of the persecutor as are to be found scattered
here and there among the various periodicals of the age, furnish us with
the painful picture of a man of intelligence and liberality, made a
fiend by literary hate. Stuart commenced his dark work in the "Edinburgh
Magazine and Review," established under his auspices in 1773. Dr Henry
had preached before the Society (in Scotland) for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, a sermon entitled "Revelation the most effectual means of
civilizing and reforming mankind," and in pursuance of the custom on
such occasions, the sermon was published. The sermon was as similar to
all others of its class, as any given piece of mechanism can be to all
others intended for similar purposes; but Stuart discovered audacity in
the attempt, and unexpected failure in the execution; it required "the
union of philosophy and political skill, of erudition and eloquence,
qualities which he was sorry to observe appeared here in no
eminent degree." [Edinburgh Review and Magazine, i. 199.] Dr
Macqueen published a letter in an anonymous form, defending the sermon,
and the hidden literary assassin boldly maintained it to be the work of
Dr Henry, an accusation not withdrawn till the respectable author
announced himself to the world. Dr Henry was soon after appointed by the
magistrates to the situation of morning lecturer to the Tron church.
Under the disguise of the communication of a correspondent, who mildly
hints that the consequence of the proceeding will be a suit against the
magistrates, we find the rounded periods of Stuart denouncing the act in
those terms in which indignant virtue traces the mazes of vice and
deceit, as "affording a precedent from which the mortifications of the
pious, may be impiously prostituted to uses to which they were never
intended." In token of high respect, the General Assembly had chosen Dr
Henry as their moderator, on his first return as a member of that
venerable body; and being thus marked out as a leader in the affairs of
the church, he took a considerable share in the proceedings of the
ensuing session. Here his enemy keeps an unsleeping eye on his motions.
Whilst the speeches of others are unnoticed or reported in their native
simplicity, the narrator prepares himself for the handling of a choice
morsel when he approaches the historian. "The opinion of one member," he
observes, "we shall lay before the reader, on account of its
singularity. It is that of Dr Henry, the moderator of last assembly;"
[Edinburgh Review and Magazine, i. 357.] and then he proceeds to attract
the finger of scorn towards opinions as ordinary as any opinions could
well be conceived. The Doctor cannot even absent himself from a meeting
without the circumstance being remarked, and a cause assigned which will
admit the application of a preconcerted sneer. Dr Robertson was the
opponent of Dr Henry in this assembly. The periodical writer was the
enemy of both, and his ingenuity has been taxed to bestow ridicule on
both parties. Stuart at length slowly approaches the head and front of
his victim’s offending, and fixes on it with deadly eagerness. After
having attacked the other vulnerable points of the author, he rushes
ravenously on his history, and attempts its demolition. He finds that
the unfortunate author "neither furnishes entertainment nor instruction.
Diffuse, vulgar, and ungrammatical, he strips history of all her
ornaments. His concessions are evidently contradictory to his
conclusions. It is thus perpetually with authors who examine subjects
which they cannot comprehend. He has amassed all the refuse and lumber
of the times he would record." "The mind of his readers is affected with
no agreeable emotions, it is awakened only to disgust and fatigue."
[Edinburgh Review and Magazine, i. p. 266-270.] But Stuart was not
content with persecution at home, he wished to add the weapons of others
to his own. For this purpose he procured a worthy associate, Whitaker,
the historian of Manchester, and author of the "Genuine History of the
Britons." Stuart, a vague theorist in elegant and sonorous diction, who
was weak enough to believe that his servile imitations of Montesquieu
raised him to a parallel with that great man, associated himself in this
work of charity with a minute and pugnacious antiquary, useful to
literature from the sheer labour he had encountered, but eminently
subject to the prejudices to which those who confine their laborious
investigations to one narrow branch of knowledge, are exposed;—a person
who would expend many quarto pages in discussing a flint arrow-head or a
tumulus of stones, occasionally attempting with a broken wing to follow
the flights of Gibbon, but generally as flat and sterile as the plains
in which he strove to trace Roman encampments; two more uncongenial
spirits hardly ever attempted to work in concert. It may easily be
supposed that the minute antiquary looked with jealousy on the extended
theories of his generalizing colleague; and the generalizer, though he
took occasion to praise the petty investigations of the antiquary,
probably regarded them in secret with a similar contempt. But Stuart
found the natural malignity of Whitaker a useful commodity; and the calm
good sense of Henry afforded them a common object of hatred. A few
extracts will give the best display of the spirit of Stuart’s
communications to his friends during his machinations. " David Hume
wants to review Henry: but that task is so precious, that I will
undertake it myself. Moses, were he to ask it as a favour, should not
have it; yea, not even the man after God’s own heart. I wish I could
transport myself to London to review him for the Monthly—a fire there,
and in the Critical, would perfectly annihilate him. Could you do
nothing in the latter? To the former I suppose David Hume has
transcribed the criticism he intended for us. It is precious, and would
divert you. I keep a proof of it in my cabinet, for the amusement of
friends. This great philosopher begins to dote. [D’Israeli’s Calamities
of Authors, ii. 67. The author appends in a note "The critique on Henry,
in the Monthly Review, was written by Hume, and because the philosopher
was candid, he is here said to have doted." We suspect this is
erroneous, and founded on mere presumption. We have carefully read the
two critiques on Henry in the Monthly Review, which appeared previous to
Hume’s death. The elegance and profundity of Hume are wanting, and in
giving the opinion of the work, which is moderate and tolerably just,
the Reviewer compares it somewhat disparagingly with the works of Hume
and Robertson, a piece of conceit and affectation which the great
philosopher would not have condescended to perpetrate. That Hume
prepared and published a Review of Henry’s book we have no doubt. In the
Edinburgh Magazine for 1791, and in the Gentleman’s Magazine for the
same year, a critique is quoted, the work "of one of the most eminent
historians of the present age, whose history of the same periods justly
possesses the highest reputation." Without the aid of such a statement,
the style stamps the author, and we may have occasion to quote it in the
text as the work of Hume. Where is made its first appearance, a search
through the principal periodicals of the day has not enabled us to
discover. It is in the first person singular, and may have been in the
form of a letter to the editor of a newspaper.] To-morrow morning Henry
sets off for London, with immense hopes of selling his history. I wish
sincerely that I could enter Holborn the same hour with him. He should
have a repeated fire to combat with. I entreat that you may be so kind
as to let him feel some of your thunder. I shall never forget the
favour. If Whitaker is in London, he could give a blow. Paterson will
give him a knock. Strike by all means. The wretch will tremble, grow
pale, and return with a consciousness of his debility. I have a thousand
thanks to give you for your insertion of the paper in the London
Chronicle, and for the part you propose to act in regard to Henry. I
could wish that you knew for certain his being in London before you
strike the first blow. An inquiry at Cadell’s will give this. When you
have an enemy to attack, I shall in return give my best assistance, and
aim at him a mortal blow; and rush forward to his overthrow, though the
flames of hell should start up to oppose me."
Henry was not in
possession of the poisoned weapons which would have enabled him to
retaliate, and his good sense and equanimity of mind were no permanent
protection against assaults so unceasing and virulent. He felt himself
the personal subject of ridicule and perversion, his expected gains
denied, and the fame which he expected from years of labour and
retirement snatched from his grasp by the hand of a ruffian. [Behold the
triumph of the calumniator in the success of his labours: "I see every
day that what is written to a man’s disparagement is never forgot nor
forgiven. Poor Henry is on the point of death, and his friends declare
that I have killed him; I received the information as a compliment, and
begged they would not do me so much honour." D’Israeli’s Calamities, ii.
72.] In the midst of these adversities Henry went to London for actual
shelter, but the watchful enemy observed his motions—attacks were
inserted in one print and copied into another—the influence of his
persecutor is widely perceptible in the periodical literature of the
age. The Critical Review had praised the first volume of his history.
The second meets with a very different reception: "it is with pain the
reviewer observes, that in proportion as his narrative and inquiries are
applied to cultivated times, his diligence and labour seem to relax,"
and a long list of alleged inaccuracies, chiefly on minute and disputed
points, follows: the style is evidently not the natural language of the
pompous Stuart, but it is got up in obedience to his directions on the
vulnerable points of the historian, and the minuteness hints at the hand
of Whitaker. Henry answered by a moderate letter defending his opinions,
and acknowledging one mistake. The reviewer returns to his work with
renovated vigour, and among other things accuses the historian of
wilfully perverting authority. The charge of dishonesty rouses the calm
divine, and with some severity he produces the words of the authority,
and the use he has made of them. The editor claims the merit of candour
for printing the communication, and as there is no gainsaying the fact
it contains, appends an obscure hint which seems to intimate he knows
more than he chooses to tell; a mode of backing out of a mistake not
uncommon in periodical works, as if the editorial dignity were of so
delicate a nature as not to bear a candid and honourable confession of
error. Years afterwards, it is singular to discover the Critical Review
returning to its original tone, and lauding the presence of qualities of
which it had found occasion to censure the want. Stuart associated
himself with his friend Whitaker in conducting the English Review in
1783, and it is singular, that amidst the devastation of that irascible
periodical, no blow is aimed at Henry. But Stuart did not neglect his
duty in the Political Herald, published in 1785, an able disturber of
the tranquillity of literature, of which he was the sole conductor. Here
he gave his last and deepest stab; accusing the venerable historian in
terms the most bitter and vituperative, of a hankering after language
and ideas, unworthy of his profession; concluding with the observation
that "an extreme attention to smut in a presbyterian clergyman, who has
reached the last scene of his life, is a deformity so shocking, that no
language of reprobation is strong enough to chastise it." [Political
Herald, v. i. p. 209.] The heartless insinuation was probably dictated
by the consciousness that, whether true or false, no charge would be
more acutely felt by the simple-minded divine. Stuart had, however, a
very acute eye towards the real failings of Henry, and in his Protean
attacks, he has scarcely left one of them without a brand. It was not
without reason that he said to his London correspondent, "If you would
only transcribe his jests, it would make him perfectly ridiculous."
Henry was fond of garnishing with a few sallies of wit, his pictures of
human folly; but he was unhappy in the bold attempt. They had too much
pleasing simplicity and good-humoured grotesqueness for the purpose to
which they were applied. More like the good-natured humour of Goldsmith,
than the piercing sarcasm of Voltaire, they might have served to strike
the lighter foibles exhibited in our daily path; but to attack the
grander follies of mankind displayed in history, it may be said they did
not possess sufficient venom to make formidable so light a weapon as
wit.
We have been so much
engrossed with the dreary details of malignity, that we will scarcely
find room for many other details of Henry’s life; but the history of the
book is the history of the author—in its fate is included all that the
world need care to know, of the unassuming individual who composed it.
It is with pleasure, then, that we turn to the brighter side; Henry
calmly weathered out the storm which assailed him, and in his green old
age, the world smiled upon his labours. Hume, who had so successfully
trod the same field, was the first to meet Henry’s book with a welcome
hearty and sincere; he knew the difficulties of the task, and if he was
sufficiently acute to observe that Henry was far behind himself, neither
jealousy nor conceit provoked him to give utterance to such feelings.
"His historical narratives," says this able judge, "are as full as those
remote times seem to demand, and at the same time, his inquiries of the
antiquarian kind omit nothing which can be an object of doubt or
curiosity. The one as well as the other is delivered with great
perspicuity, and no less propriety, which are the true ornaments of this
kind of writing; all superfluous embellishments are avoided; and the
reader will hardly find in our language any performance that unites
together so perfectly the two great points of entertainment and
instruction." Dr Henry had printed the first edition of the first five
volumes of his bock at his own risk, but on a demand for a new edition,
he entered into a transaction with a bookseller, which returned him
£3300. In the middle of its career the work secured royal attention;
lord Mansfield recommended the author to George the Third, and his
majesty "considering his distinguished talents, and great literary
merit, and the importance of the very useful and laborious work in which
he was so successfully engaged, as titles to his royal countenance and
favour," bestowed on him a pension of a £100 a-year. For the honour of
royal munificence, it is to be hoped that the gift was the reward of
labour and literary merit, and not (as the author’s enemies have
proclaimed) the wages of the political principles he inculcated. The
insinuation is, indeed, not without apparent foundation. Henry, if not a
perverter of history in favour of arbitrary power, is at least one of
those prudent speculators who are apt to look on government as something
established on fixed and permanent principles, to which all opposing
interests must give way—on the government as something highly
respectable,---on the mass of the people as something not quite so
respectable,---on the community as existing for the government, and not
on the government as adapted to the conveniences of the community.
Five volumes of Dr
Henry’s history appeared before his death, and the ample materials he
had left for the completion of the sixth were afterwards edited by Mr
Laing, and a continuation was written by Mr Petit Andrews. The laborious
author prepared the whole for the press with his own hand,
notwithstanding a tremulous disorder, which compelled him to write on a
book placed on his knee. In the latter years of his life, he retired to
Milnfield, about twenty miles from Edinburgh, where he enjoyed the
company of his friend and relative, Mr Laurie. In 1786, his constitution
began visibly to decline; but he continued his labours till 1790. About
that period his wife was affected with blindness from a cataract, and he
accompanied her to Edinburgh, where she submitted to the usual
operation, which, however, had not the desired effect during her
husband’s lifetime. Dr Henry died on the 24th of November,
1799, in the 73d year of his age.-–The fifth edition of the History of
Britain was published in 1823, in twelve volumes 8vo. A French
translation was published in 1789-96, by MM. Rowland and Cantwell.
|