Hume to Gibbon.
"London, 24th October, 1767.
"Sir,—It is but a few days since Mr. Deyverdun put your manuscript into my hands; and I have perused it with great pleasure and satisfaction. I have only one objection, derived from the language in which it is written. Why do you compose in French, and carry fagots into the wood, as Horace says, with regard to the Romans who wrote in Greek? I grant, that you have a like motive to those Romans, and adopt a language much more generally diffused than your native tongue: but have you not remarked the fate of those two ancient languages in following ages? The Latin, though then less celebrated, and confined to more narrow limits, has, in some measure, outlived the Greek, and is now more generally understood by men of letters. Let the French, therefore, triumph in the present diffusion of their tongue. Our solid and increasing establishments in America, where we need less dread the inundation of barbarians, promise a superior stability and duration to the English language.
"Your use of the French tongue has also led you into a style more poetical and figurative, and more highly coloured, than our language seems to admit of in historical productions: for such is the practice of
French writers, particularly the more recent ones, who illuminate their pictures more than custom will permit us. On the whole, your History, in my opinion, is written with spirit and judgment; and I exhort you very earnestly to continue it. The objections that occurred to me on reading it were so frivolous, that I shall not trouble you with them, and should, I believe, have a difficulty to collect them. I am, with great esteem," &c.[412:1]
Some remarks communicated to Dr. Robertson, on his "History of Charles V." while that work was passing through the press, have deservedly attracted notice by their unconstrained and natural playfulness.
Hume to Dr. Robertson.
I got yesterday from Strahan about thirty sheets of your History 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 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.
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 Scoticism 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 choose 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 (h) 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 you had any 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.