106 VOLTAIRE. 



years earlier, we have no means of ascertaining. Voltaire 

 himself, in a panegyrical notice of Hume's plan (' Re- 

 marques sur 1'Essai No. 3,' in vol. v. of the work, p. 

 355), assumes that he had adopted his plan of writing 

 history ; and, in fact, the ' Siecle de Louis XIV.,' of 

 which nearly one-fourth is written on the plan of 

 Hume's appendix, had been published as far back as 

 1751, and was in such universal circulation as to have 

 been repeatedly pirated. But there can be no doubt 

 that Robertson's celebrated view of society (forming 

 the first volume of Charles V.) was suggested by the 

 * Essai,' for he intimates that the occasion for his 

 work would have been superseded by the ' Essai ' had 

 Voltaire's authorities for the facts been referred to. 

 That Gibbon, Henry, Watson, Rulhieres, all adopted 

 the new system is clear. 



On his other histories we need not dwell ; they are 

 in every respect performances of an ordinary merit. 

 The 'Charles XII.' is the best; the 'Peter the 

 Great ' the worst. The former has the great merit of 

 a clear, equable, and interesting narrative, apparently 

 collected from good sources, and given with impar- 

 tiality. The latter, beside its flimsy texture, was written 

 in too close communication with the Russian court to 

 be very trustworthy ; and it is not only glaringly par- 

 tial on points which, while independent and unbiassed, 

 he had treated with honesty, but it falls into the 

 most vulgar errors on the merits of Peter's proceed- 

 ings.* The ' Siecle de Louis XIV.' holds a middle rank 



* A contemptuous denial of the charge of poisoning his son, and 

 an elaborate vindication of the Czar's conduct (part ii. chap. 10), is 

 at complete variance with the ' Anecdotes ' previously published. 

 He had also in his ' Charles XII., } written in 1727, thirty years before 



