Hume as Literary Patron: A Suppressed Review of Robert Henry's "History of Great Britain," 1773

Abstract

IN THE third quarter of the eighteenth century, David Hume was the leading man of letters of Great Britain. His pre-eminence was such as to place him above ordinary literary controversy: he could afford to ignore those who disagreed with him. Incapable of jealousy, personal or literary, Hume always candidly praised whenever praise was due. His letters of high commendation to Gibbon, Robertson, and Smith, of works encroaching, as it were, upon his own literary domains, are classics of disinterestedness and generosity. His many acts of assistance to rivals, such as the celebrated correcting of the manuscript of Wallace's Dissertation on the numbers of mankind (1753), a work professedly in confutation of his own Of the populousness of ancient nations (1752), are well known. His patronage was especially available to fellow-Scots, but it was also available to all who were worthy, needy, or oppressed. Robert Henry was a Scot, worthy, needy, and oppressed. He was the author of the History of Great Britain from the first invasion of it by the Romans under Julius Caesar. Written on a new plan (1771-93), which, originally turned down by the publishers, was brought out at the author's expense. This work was subjected to a deliberate campaign of persecution designed for the ruin of the author, such as can scarcely be paralleled in the annals of literature. In the end, to be sure, it triumphed over all obstacles and came to hold a consequential position in the learned world, Henry profiting from the sales to the astonishing extent of some ?3,300. His rising reputation as historian brought him in 1771 the degree of D.D. from Edinburgh University and in 1781, on the recommendation of the Earl of Mansfield, a pension of ?100 from George III. The unpleasant tale of literary intrigue waged against Henry was sketched by Isaac Disraeli in his Calamities of authors (1812). It is now to be retold more completely and from a [MODERN PHILOLOGY, May, 1942] 361