Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 45 - Philosophical books

  • from III - SPECIALIST BOOKS AND MARKETS
  • Edited by Michael F. Suarez, SJ, University of Virginia, Michael L. Turner, Bodleian Library, Oxford
  • Book:
    The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain
    Published online:
    28 September 2010
    Print publication:
    29 October 2009, pp 807-817

  • Summary

    Three names dominate the trade in philosophy books in the period 1695-1830: John Locke, David Hume and Dugald Stewart. Locke, Berkeley and Hume have, of course, earned the respect and attention of academic philosophers and general readers for well over two centuries now. As professor of moral philosophy at the University of Edinburgh from 1785 to his retirement in 1810, Hume had a great effect on a generation of students that spread from Edinburgh to the Continent and North America and, hence, had a profound effect on the Scottish Enlightenment. His first book, published in 1792, Elements of the philosophy of the human mind, formed part of a three-volume set; a second volume appeared in 1814, and a third in 1827. Some may rightly believe that Stewart's influence adversely affected Britain's nineteenth-century philosophers, who, with the exception of John Stuart Mill, did not shine as luminously as those from the eighteenth century.