Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 48.djvu/433

 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. Its judicial temper is illustrated by the fact that while Walpole, Hume, Birch, and Lord Chesterfield detected in it a partiality to Mary Stuart, Tytler, in his learned ‘Historical and Critical Enquiry’ (1759) and Whittaker in his ‘Mary Queen of Scots Vindicated’ (1788, 3 vols. 8vo), attacked Robertson with much venom in the Jacobite interest. Cadell and Millar cleared upwards of six thousand pounds by the publication. Robertson received 600l.

Preferment and sinecures were not long withheld from the fortunate author, whose success surprised no one more than himself and his more intimate friends, such as Carlyle. In April 1759 he was appointed chaplain of Stirling Castle. In April 1761 he was translated from Lady Yester's chapel to the Old Greyfriars, Edinburgh, and in the following August he was appointed one of his majesty's chaplains in Scotland. In 1762, upon the death of Dr. John Gowdie, he was appointed to the dignified post of principal of Edinburgh University. 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. An additional honour was conferred upon Robertson on 6 Aug. 1763, when the post of historiographer for Scotland (with a salary of 200l. a year), which had been in abeyance since the time of George Crawfurd [q. v.], was revived in his favour.

Meanwhile Robertson deliberated as to the subject which should next employ his pen. Blair and Chesterfield recommended the ‘History of England.’ Hume advised the composition of ‘Lives’ in the manner of Plutarch. Walpole suggested the ‘History of Learning’ or a ‘History of the Period of the Antonines.’ The historian himself was attracted by the pontificate of Leo X, until he heard, through Bute, that the king was desirous of seeing a history of England from his pen, and that the government were anxious to put every source of information at his disposal. But this project fell through with the retirement of Bute, and Robertson's choice, which finally alternated between a ‘History of Greece’ and a ‘History of Charles V,’ decided for the latter. In 1769, ten years after the completion of the ‘History of Scotland,’ there appeared ‘The History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V, with a view of the Progress of Society from the subversion of the Roman Empire to the beginning of the sixteenth century’ (London, 3 vols. 4to; Philadelphia, 1770; 2nd ed. 1772, 4 vols. 8vo; 6th ed. with corrections, 1787; 10th ed. 1802). For this work Robertson obtained 4,500l., a larger sum, probably, than had ever been paid for a work of learning. Shortly after its appearance Walpole thought fit to retract some of his former praise, and Dr. Johnson (who preferred Goldsmith as an historian) remarked: ‘I would say to Robertson what an old tutor of a college said to one of his pupils, “Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.”’ Nevertheless ‘Charles V’ is generally and justly regarded as Robertson's masterpiece. It rendered the author's fame European. Hume promptly sent it to France to be translated by Suard. ‘Il me fait oublier tous mes maux,’ wrote Voltaire; ‘je me joins à l'Europe pour vous estimer.’ ‘C'est le compagnon constant de tous mes voyages,’ wrote Catherine II of Russia, of the three heavy quarto volumes, and in token of her appreciation she sent Robertson a gold snuff box richly set with diamonds.

Robertson's Introduction to his ‘Charles V,’ a descriptive estimate of the ‘dark ages’ (700–1100 A.D.), was one of the first successful attempts in England at historical generalisation on the basis of large accumulations of fact. So good a judge as Hallam considered it a marvel of penetration. Thomas Carlyle, as a boy, was ‘delighted and amazed’ by the new vistas that it opened.