[97] It may be curious to present Stuart's idea of the literary
talents of Henry. Henry's unhappy turn for humour, and a style
little accordant with historical dignity, lie fairly open to
the critic's animadversion. But the research and application
of the writer, for that day, were considerable, and are still
appreciated. But we are told that "he neither furnishes
entertainment nor instruction. Diffuse, vulgar, and
ungrammatical, he strips history of all her ornaments. As an
antiquary, he wants accuracy and knowledge; and, as an
historian, he is destitute of fire, taste, and sentiment. His
work is a gazette, in which we find actions and events,
without their causes; and in which we meet with the names,
without the characters of personages. He has amassed all the
refuse and lumber of the times he would record." Stuart never
imagined that the time would arrive when the name of Henry
would be familiar to English readers, and by many that of
Stuart would not be recollected.
[98] 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.