OPINIONS RESPECTING BURNET
A small catena patrum has been given respecting Burnet, as a historian, in No. 3. pp. 40, 41., to which two more scriptorum judicia have been appended in No. 8. p. 120., by "I.H.M.". As a sadly disparaging opinion had been quoted, at p. 40., from Lord Dartmouth, I hope you will allow the following remarks on the testimony of that nobleman to appear in your columns:—
"No person has contradicted Burnet more frequently, or with more asperity, than Dartmouth. Yet Dartmouth wrote, 'I do not think he designedly published anything he believed to be false.' At a later period, Dartmouth, provoked by some remarks on himself in the second volume of the Bishop's history, retracted this praise; but to such a retraction little importance can be attached. Even Swift has the justice to say, 'After all he was a man of generosity and good nature.'"—Short Remarks on Bishop Burnet's History.
"It is usual to censure Burnet as a singularly inaccurate historian; but I believe the charge to be altogether unjust. He appears to be singularly inaccurate only because his narrative has been subjected to a scrutiny singularly severe and unfriendly. If any Whig thought it worth while to subject Reresby's Memoirs, North's Examen, Mulgrave's Account of the Revolution, or the Life of James the Second, edited by Clarke, to a similar scrutiny, it would soon appear that Burnet was far indeed from being the most inexact writer of his time."—Macaulay, Hist. England, vol. ii. p.177, 3rd. Ed.
T.
Bath.