Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T13:58:42.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Apology for David Hume, Historian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Ernest Campbell Mossner
Ernest Campbell Mossner*
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hume as historian is still seriously misrepresented. The respect which all critics, friendly and unfriendly alike, are compelled to pay to his philosophical works is not extended to his historical works. Seeking to write a fair-minded history of England, Hume was genuinely astonished to find himself condemned at home by virtually all parties. The Whigs attacked him as Tory, the Tories as anti-clerical, the Church as anti-religious, the scholars as inaccurate. All of these accusations have some basis in fact; but, generally speaking, all centered around contemporary political and religious prejudices. Despite these initial assaults, Hume's History of England became a national classic within his lifetime and remained standard for well over a century. When Macaulay's History of England began to appear in 1849, it was generally regarded as a continuation of Hume's taking up where he had left off, and the two sets were frequently matched in binding. “To tell the world in 1849,” rhapsodizes an American reviewer, “that Hume's History is a work entitled to their favorable regard, would be like informing the public what are the peculiar features that render Niagara Falls a highly agreeable spectacle, or that George Washington was a great patriot.”

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , September 1941 , pp. 657 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 American Literary Magazine, v (1849), p. 127.—Throughout this paper, references to the writings of Hume will be placed within parentheses in the text itself, as follows: “H.” indicates the History of England (London, 1792), 8 vols.;

“L.” indicates the Letters of David Hume, ed. J. Y. T. Greig (Oxford, 1932), 2 vols.; “P.” indicates the Philosophical Works of David Hume, ed. T. H. Green and T. H. Grose (London, 1874–75), 4 vols.

All other references will appear in footnotes.

2 Modern criticism of Hume's History of England may be said to begin with Fueter's monograph in 1911; but one earlier item must be included, because it establishes an important though frequently overlooked point. The following is a selection of the more important treatments of Hume as historian:

George H. Sabine, “Hume's Contribution to the Historical Method,” Philosophical Review, xv (1906), 17–38. [Establishes Hume's essential history-mindedness.]

Ed. Fueter, Histoire de l'historiographie moderne, Traduit de l'allemand par Emile Jeanmaire avec notes et additions de l'auteur (Paris, 1914), pp. 452–456. [Classic treatment of Hume as a Rationalist historian, inferior disciple of Voltaire, lacking in political and sociological insight and instructive purpose.]

Sir Charles Firth, “The Development of the Study of Seventeenth-Century History,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Third Series, viii (1913), 25–48. [Hume on the Stuarts and the Rebellion.]

William Hunt, “Hume and Modem Historians,” Cambridge History of English Literature (Cambridge, 1913), x, 279–296. [Emphasizes literary values.]

Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation (New York, 1920), pp. 708–710.

Preserved Smith, A History of Modern Culture (London, 1930–34), ii, 256–258. [Generally appreciative of Hume's historical attitudes but critical of his learning.]

J. B. Black, “Hume,” The Art of History (London, 1926), pp. 77–116. [A first-hand analysis giving added authority to certain of Fueter's strictures, though rejecting others.]

Arno Wegrich, Die Geschichtsauffassung David Hume's im Rahmen seines philosophischen Systems (Köln, 1926). [Concerned chiefly with the metaphysics of history.]

Oliver Elton, A Survey of English Literature 1730–1780 (New York, 1928), ii, 270–277. [Emphasizes literary values.]

Rudolf Metz, David Hume, Leben und Philosophie (Stuttgart, 1929), pp. 314–323, 395. [Of all the general studies of Hume, devotes most attention to the History of England, correcting certain misapprehensions.]

Mary S. Kuypers, Studies in the Eighteenth Century Background of Hume's Empiricism (Minneapolis, 1930), pp. 120 ff. [Much good sense about Hume's partisanship in history.]

W. C. Lehmann, Adam Ferguson and the Beginnings of Modern Sociology (New York, 1930), pp. 197–205. [Corrective on Hume's social attitudes.]

Thomas P. Peardon, The Transition in English Historical Writing 1760–1830 (New York, 1930), pp. 19–23 and passim. [Follows Fueter and Black, but is highly instructive on the historical setting and influence of Hume.]

Lytton Strachey, “Hume,” Portraits in Miniature (New York, 1931), pp. 139–151. [Character of Hume's “detachment.”]

Carl L. Becker, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (New Haven, 1932), Chapter iii, “The New History: Philosophy Teaching by Example,” pp. 71–118. [Brief but illuminating remarks on the historical problems faced by Hume and his contemporaries.]

John Laird, Hume's Philosophy of Human Nature (London, 1932), pp. 261–273. [Generally appreciative, but denies that Hume was a philosophical historian.]

Wilbur C. Abbott, “David Hume: Philosopher-Historian,” Adventures in Reputation (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1935), pp. 118–146. [Most appreciative of the present century, although insisting on the dualism implied by the title.]

Harry E. Barnes, A History of Historical Writing (Norman, Oklahoma, 1937), pp. 154–156. [Summary of Fueter, Black, and Peardon with some corrections.]

3 H. E. Barnes, op. cit., p. vii; John Dewey, Logic, the Theory of Inquiry (New York, 1938), p. 237.

4 Cicero, De Legibus, i, 2: “For our national literature is deficient in history ... .”

5 Cf. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, “The Cartesian Spirit and History,” in Philosophy and History, ed. R. Klibansky and H. J. Paton (Oxford, 1936), pp. 191–196.

6 Cf. André Lalande, Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie (Paris, 1926), ii, 680, s.v. Rationalisme, B: “Doctrine d'après laquelle toute connaissance certaine vient de principes irrécusables, a priori, évidents, dont elle est la conséquence nécessaire, et, d'eux seuls, les sens ne pouvent fournir qu'une vue confuse et provisoire de la vérité.” To be sure, if the word is not used in the philosophical sense, but in the more commonplace sense of “the practice of guiding one's opinions and actions solely by what is considered reasonable” (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary), then all modern historians must lay claim to the title and a Rationalist school becomes supererogatory.

7 The following may serve as specimens of Hume's affective or alogical interpretations of history: H. i, 64; iii, 306; iv, 37; vii, 104–105; viii, 63.

8 Bolingbroke, Letters on the Study and Use of History, Letter ii, Works (London, 1754), ii, 266.

9 Boswell's Life of Johnson, ed. G. B. Hill; rev. and enl. by L. F. Powell (Oxford, 1934), iv, 194.

10 Carlyle, review of Boswell's Life of Johnson, the close.

11 A detailed analysis of this statement of Hume's, based on the correlation of all the important editions of the volumes concerned, is presented in the writer's “Was Hume a Tory Historian? Facts and Reconsiderations” in Journal of the History of Ideas, ii (1941), 225–236.

12 Gibbon's Journal to January 2d, 1763, ed. D. M. Low (London, 1929), p. 103.

13 Cf., e.g., the articles of the writer in Mind, xlv (July, 1936), 334–349 and in Philosophy, xiii (January, 1938), 84–86.

14 J. B. Black, op. cit., p. 115.

15 W. C. Abbott, op. cit., p. 129.

16 Cf. Georges Bengesco, Voltaire: Bibliographie de ses œuvres (Paris, 1882–85), i, 327–332; 340–342.

17 J. B. Black, loc. cit., p. 115.

18 The writer has prepared such an experimental synthesis of “Hume's History of English Literature.”

19 Wealth of Nations, Modern Library ed., pp. 385, 742.

20 Hume opposed the combined authorities of Hippocrates, Plato, and Aristotle among the ancients and of Bodin, Charron, Du Bos, and Arbuthnot among the moderns. Montesquieu joined Hume's opponents in 1748. For further discussion, cf. Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History (London, 1934), i, 251 ff. and F. J. Teggart, Theory of History (New Haven, 1925), pp. 172–174.

21 These records have been laid open to the inspection of the writer through the kind permission of the Dean and the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh.

22 L. i, 322–324. The last item is from a following letter to Millar, March 27, 1760 (L. i, 325). In his Introduction to the Letters (i, xxii), Greig comments appositely, “It is difficult to understand why Burton, a historian himself, should have failed to publish this illuminating list when he happened on it in the manuscripts.” Publication by Burton in 1846 might well have forestalled some of the late contumely heaped upon Hume.

23 Voltaire, Œuvres Complètes (Paris, 1877 ff.), xxv, 169–173: review from La Gazette Littéraire (2 mai, 1764) of L'Histoire complète de l'Angleterre depuis Jules César jusqu'à sa révolution, par M. David Hume (A Londres, 1764), 8 vols.

24 Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works (London, 1837), p. 406.

25 Gibbon, Memoirs, ed. G. B. Hill (London, 1900), p. 190; Kant, Introduction to the Prolegomena.

26 Boswell, op. cit., ii, 72; i, 439.

27 Cf. D. Nichol Smith, Some Observations on Eighteenth Century Poetry (London, 1937), pp. 63–64, for further illumination on this subject.

28 Boswell, op. cit., i, 155.

29 The Dunciad, iii, ll. 185–190.