hume“Hume is our Politics, Hume is our Trade, Hume is our Philosophy, Hume is our Religion.” This statement by 19th century British idealist philosopher James Hutchison Stirling reflects a unique position that David Hume holds in intellectual thought. Hume profoundly impacted all of the disciplines noted by Stirling, not only during Hume’s own life, but for generations after and on to our own day. Part of his fame and importance owes to his boldly skeptical approach to a range of philosophical subjects. He questioned common notions of personal identity, and argued that there is no permanent “self” that continues over time. He dismissed standard accounts of causality and argued that our conceptions of cause/effect relations are grounded in habits of thinking, rather than in the perception of causal forces in the external world itself. He argued that it is unreasonable to believe testimonies of alleged miraculous events, and, accordingly, hints that we should reject religions that are founded on miracle testimonies. Against the common belief of the time that God’s existence could be proven through a design or causal argument, Hume offered compelling criticisms of standard theistic proofs. Also, against the common view that God plays an important role in the creation and reinforcement of moral values, Hume offered one of the first purely secular moral theories, which grounded morality in the pleasing and useful consequences that result from our actions. For additional articles on Hume in this encyclopedia see the following: David Hume: Metaphysical and Epistemological Theories, David Hume: Moral Theory, David Hume: Writings on Religion, and David Hume: Essays, Moral, Political and Literary.
1. Life
David Hume was born in 1711 to a moderately wealthy family from Berwickshire Scotland, near Edinburgh. His background was politically Whiggish and religiously Calvinistic. As a child he faithfully attended the local Church of Scotland pastored by his uncle. Hume was educated by his widowed mother until he left for the University of Edinburgh at the age of eleven. His letters describe how as a young student he took religion seriously and obediently followed a list of moral guidelines taken from The Whole Duty of Man, a popular Calvinistic devotional.
Leaving the University of Edinburgh at around age fifteen to pursue his education privately, he was encouraged to consider a career in law, but his interests turned to philosophy. During these years of private study he began raising serious questions about religion, as he recounts in the following letter:
Tis not long ago that I burn’d an old Manuscript Book, wrote before I was twenty; which contain’d, Page after Page, the gradual Progress of my Thoughts on that head [i.e. religious belief]. It begun with an anxious Search after Arguments, to confirm the common Opinion: Doubts stole in, dissipated, return’d, were again dissipated, return’d again.
Although his manuscript book was destroyed, several pages of Hume’s study notes survive from his early twenties. These show a preoccupation with the subjects of proof of God’s existence and atheism, particularly as he read on these topics in classical Greek and Latin texts and in Pierre Bayle’s skeptical Historical and Critical Dictionary. During these years of private study, some of which was in France, Hume composed his three-volume Treatise of Human Nature, which was published anonymously in two installments before he was thirty (1739, 1740). The Treatise explores several philosophical topics such as space, time, causality, external objects, the passions, free will, and morality, offering original and often skeptical appraisals of these notions. Although religious belief is not the subject of any specific section of the Treatise, it is a recurring theme. Book I of the Treatise was unfavorably reviewed in the History of the Works of the Learned with a succession of sarcastic comments. Although scholars today recognize it as a philosophical masterpiece, Hume was disappointed with the minimal interest his book spawned.
In 1741 and 1742 Hume published his two-volume Essays, Moral and Political. The essays were written in a popular style and met with better success than the Treatise. In 1744-1745 Hume was a candidate for the Chair of Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. The position was to be vacated by John Pringle, and the leading candidates were Hume and William Cleghorn. The Edinburgh Town Council was responsible for electing a replacement. Critics opposed Hume by condemning his anti-religious writings. Chief among the critics was clergyman William Wishart (d. 1752), the Principal of the University of Edinburgh. Lists of allegedly dangerous propositions from Hume’s Treatise circulated, presumably penned by Wishart. In the face of such strong opposition, the Edinburgh Town Council consulted the Edinburgh ministers. Hoping to win over the clergy, Hume composed a point by point reply to the circulating lists of dangerous propositions. It was published as A Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend in Edinburgh. The clergy were not dissuaded, and 12 of the 15 ministers voted against Hume. Hume quickly withdrew his candidacy. In 1745 Hume accepted an invitation from General St Clair to attend him as secretary. He wore the uniform of an officer, and accompanied the general on an expedition against Canada (which ended in an incursion on the coast of France) and to an embassy post in the courts of Vienna and Turin.
In 1748 he added to the above collection an essay titled “Of National Characters.” In a lengthy footnote to this piece, Hume attacks the character of the clergy, accusing this profession of being motivated by ambition, conceit, and revenge. This footnote became a favorite target of attack by the clergy. Given the success of his Essays, Hume was convinced that the poor reception of his Treatise was caused by its style rather than by its content. In 1748 he published his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, a more popular rendition of Book I of his Treatise. The Enquiry also includes two sections not found in the Treatise and which contain fairly direct attacks on religious belief: “Of Miracles” and a dialogue titled “Of a Particular Providence and of a Future State.”
In 1751 Hume published his Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, which recasts in a very different form parts of Book III of his Treatise. Although this work does not attack religion directly, it does so indirectly by establishing a system of morality on utility and human sentiments alone, and without appeal to divine moral commands. Critics such as James Balfour criticized Hume’s theory for being Godless. However, by the end of the century Hume was recognized as the founder of the moral theory of utility. Utilitarian political theorist Jeremy Bentham acknowledges Hume’s direct influence upon him. The same year Hume also published his Political Discourses, which drew immediate praise and influenced economic thinkers such as Adam Smith, Godwin, and Thomas Malthus.
In 1751-1752 Hume sought a philosophy chair at the University of Glasgow, and was again unsuccessful. In 1752 Hume’s employment as librarian of the Advocate’s Library in Edinburgh provided him with the resources to pursue his interest in history. There he wrote much of his highly successful six-volume History of England (published from 1754 to 1762). The first volume was unfavorably received, partially for its defense of Charles I, and partially for two sections which attack Christianity. In one passage Hume notes that the first Protestant reformers were fanatical or “inflamed with the highest enthusiasm” in their opposition to Roman Catholic domination. In the second passage he labels Roman Catholicism a superstition which “like all other species of superstition… rouses the vain fears of unhappy mortals.” The most vocal attack against Hume’s History came from Daniel MacQueen in his 300 page Letters on Mr. Hume’s History. MacQueen combs through Hume’s first volume of the History, exposing all the allegedly “loose and irreligious sneers” Hume makes against Christianity. Ultimately, this negative response led Hume to delete the two controversial passages from succeeding editions of the History.
At about this time Hume also wrote his two most substantial works on religion: The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Natural History of Religion. The Natural History appeared in 1757, but, on the advice of friends who wished to steer Hume away from religious controversy, the Dialogues remained unpublished until 1779, three years after his death. The Natural History aroused controversy even before it was made public. In 1756 a volume of Hume’s essays titled Five Dissertations was printed and ready for distribution. The essays included (1) “The Natural History of Religion,” (2) “Of the Passions,” (3) “Of Tragedy,” (4) “Of Suicide,” and (5) “Of the Immortality of the Soul.” The latter two essays made direct attacks on common religious doctrines by defending a person’s moral right to commit suicide and by criticizing the idea of life after death. Early copies were passed around, and someone of influence threatened to prosecute Hume’s publisher if the book was distributed as is. The printed copies of Five Dissertations were then physically altered, with a new essay “Of the Standard of Taste” inserted in place of the two removed essays. Hume also took this opportunity to alter two particularly offending paragraphs in the Natural History. The essays were then bound with the new title Four Dissertations and distributed in January, 1757.
In the years following Four Dissertations, Hume completed his last major literary work, The History of England. In 1763, at age 50, Hume was invited to accompany the Earl of Hertford to the embassy to Paris, with a near prospect of being his secretary. He eventually accepted, and remarks at the reception he received in Paris “from men and women of all ranks and stations.” He returned to Edinburgh in 1766, and continued developing relations with the greatest minds of the time. Among these was Jean Jacques Rousseau who in 1766 was ordered out of Switzerland by the government in Berne. Hume offered Rousseau refuge in England and secured him a government pension. In England, Rousseau became suspicious of plots, and publicly charged Hume with conspiring to ruin his character, under the appearance of helping him. Hume published a pamphlet defending his actions and was exonerated. Another secretary appointment took him away from 1767-1768. Returning again to Edinburgh, his remaining years were spent revising and refining his published works, and socializing with friends in Edinburgh’s intellectual circles. In 1776, at age 65, he died from an internal disorder which had plagued him for many months.
After his death, Hume’s name took on new significance as several of his previously unpublished works appeared. The first was a brief autobiography, My Own Life, which many have praised as the best short autobiography in English. Even this unpretentious work aroused religious controversy. As Hume’s friends, Adam Smith and S.J. Pratt, published affectionate eulogies describing how he died with no concern for an afterlife, religious critics responded by condemning this unjustifiable admiration of Hume’s infidelity. Two years later, in 1779, Hume’s Dialogues appeared. Again, the response was mixed. Admirers of Hume considered it a masterfully written work, while religious critics branded it as dangerous to religion. Finally, in 1782, Hume’s two suppressed essays on suicide and immortality were published. Their reception was almost unanimously negative.
2. Main Controversies
The entire sequence of critical reactions to Hume’s writings constitutes a record of his literary reputation. A recurring reaction among his readers is that he tried to be original in everything he wrote. As one critic states,
The great object of Mr. Hume’s ambition, as we are informed by himself, was literary fame. And in order to excite public attention, he seems to have thought it necessary to be singular. Accordingly, we find an affectation of singularity of sentiment, very predominant in his writings. [Joseph Towers, Observations on Mr. Hume’s History of England (1778)]
In the eyes of his readers, this drive for singularity manifested itself in philosophical scepticism, religious infidelity, and political arch-conservativism. The more he wrote and critics responded, the more an aura of intrigue and even danger developed around him. This nefarious reputation became so pronounced that it often encumbered his social life and made him the target of verbal attacks and gross misrepresentation. Whatever views Hume may have voiced in his scholarly writings, in his private life he was unpretentious, charitable, witty, and, above all, sociable. As his friends tell us, he rarely engaged in serious philosophical discourse at social gatherings, and, if he did, he graciously accepted rebuttals to his sceptical and antireligious views. Critics who knew this side of Hume treated him with dignity. Others – particularly those unacquainted with him – showed no such respect.
From the time of his first published works, Hume was engaged in various public controversies. He failed to receive teaching appointments at both Edinburgh and Glasgow largely because of his reputation as a religious infidel. His essay “Of Miracles” (1748) sparked critical reactions from clergy of different denominations. The first published volume of his History (1754) also struck a raw nerve because of its insinuation that Christianity was motivated by fanaticism and superstition. One of the most public of the early controversies, though, involved the efforts of some conservative clergy in the Scottish Church to excommunicate – or at least censure – Hume and his colleague Henry Home, Lord Kames, for their infidel writings. One of the instigators of this effort was retired Clergyman George Anderson (1677–1756) – although in his retired status he could not directly participate in the formal proceedings themselves. Pamphlets were published on the subject, pro and contra, and, in 1756 the case against Hume was brought before a committee of the General Assembly – the Scottish Church’s highest judicial body. The conservative side argued that Hume posed a genuine threat to religion, and it was the Church’s duty to take action against him. The moderate side argued that Hume’s views were self-refuting and, in any event, as a non-believer, censuring him would have no impact. In a vote of 17 to 50, the decision was made to not pursue the matter further.
The previous summer’s victory for Hume, though, was short-lived, as he quickly became involved in a dispute with the Church of Scotland regarding the morality of stage plays. The central figure in the controversy was Hume’s close friend, clergyman John Home, who received his preaching license in 1745. For a couple years he had been refining a tragic play titled Douglas and, while his initial efforts of having it produced in London failed, his local friends supported him for what turned out to be a very successful Edinburgh production. This raised two concerns among conservative Scottish clergy. First, stage plays in Edinburgh were both infrequent and, so they believed, unwholesome; second, the idea of a clergyman engaged in such a production was scandalous. Hume entered the controversy by writing a dedication to Home, which was prefaced to the philosopher’s Four Dissertations (1757). In this he extols Douglas as “one of the most interesting and pathetic pieces that was ever exhibited on any theatre” and says that Home possesses “the true theatric genius of Shakespear and Otway, refined from the unhappy barbarism of the one, and licentiousness of the other.” Hume’s public endorsement forced London critics to take notice. At the same time, though, it inexorably linked Home the clergyman with Hume the infidel. In Scotland, conservative clergy attacked Home’s immoral playwriting hobby and attempted to take action against clergy who attended its production. In London, critics laughed at Hume’s overblown praise of a mediocre play. One writer, John Hawkesworth, stated that Hume’s “critical stocks” were thereby “reduced almost to bankruptcy.” Home himself had no choice but to resign his church position. A highlight of this controversy is John MacLaurin’s Philosopher’s Opera (1757), which lampoons Hume, Home and their Edinburgh supporters.
The controversy surrounding Home’s Douglas was largely a local matter. Ten years later he was embroiled in an international controversy involving his attempts at hospitality towards Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Born in Geneva and fleeing that city at age 16, Rousseau (1712–1778) moved to Savoy where, under the influence of his benefactress Baronne de Warens, he transformed from an uneducated apprentice to a man of letters. At age 30 he moved to Paris and, with the young Denis Diderot, formed an intellectual circle – the philosophes. In 1762 his two greatest theoretical works appeared, Émile and The Social Contract. The former of these sparked a religious controversy, and, fearing imprisonment, Rousseau fled Paris for Switzerland. During the next few years he wrote in defence of himself, but in 1765 was forced out of Switzerland as well. Beginning in January 1766, at Hume’s invitation, he spent a year in England at a rural home that Hume arranged for him. Through political connections Hume even secured a pension for Rousseau from King George III. In the minds of many British men of letters, though, Rousseau was eccentric, arrogant, and had a martyr complex. Capitalizing on these preconceptions, British novelist Horace Walpole wrote a satirical letter in the name of Frederick, King of Prussia, inviting Rousseau to take refuge in that country. Since Rousseau thrives on misfortune, Walpole writes, “I am a king, and can make you as miserable as you can wish.” The letter was printed in a London newspaper, where Rousseau first saw it. Humiliated, he was convinced that Hume was in on the joke and had even invited Rousseau to England to make him an object of ridicule. Rousseau refused his pension and, in a letter to Hume dated July 10, threatened to go public with his accusations. Hume then preemptively published A Concise and Genuine Account of the Dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr. Rousseau: with the Letters that Passed between them during their Controversy (1766). The pamphlet exonerated Hume, but also made Rousseau look mentally unstable. A subsequent pamphlet against Rousseau by Voltaire reinforced public perception of his mental problems. According to Hume’s critics, publishing the Concise and Genuine Account was overkill, and violated Hume’s duty as a host to treat his emotionally sensitive guest with dignity.
Four years later the tables were turned on Hume when he himself became the object of what he felt was an undignified assault. His assailant was James Beattie (1735–1803), the young professor of Moral Philosophy and Logic at Marischal College, Aberdeen, who believed that Hume’s sceptical and anti-religious philosophy posed a public threat to religion and morality. His work, An Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth (1770), relentlessly attacks Hume’s philosophy as it appears in his Treatise of Human Nature, published 30 years earlier. Beattie was soon joined by the blind poet Thomas Blacklock – Hume’s former friend – who, in a series of letters in an Edinburgh newspaper, justified Beattie’s attack. Hume only once refers to Beattie in his surviving letters, calling him “that bigotted silly Fellow.” Outside sources, though, report that Hume’s reaction was very severe:
Was there any particular BOOK [i.e., Beattie’s Essay] ever written against him [i.e., Hume], that shook his system to pieces about his ears, and reduced it to a heap of ruins, the success and eclat of which might be supposed to have hurt his mind, and to have affected his health? Was there any AUTHOR [i,e., Beattie] whose name his friends never dared to mention before him, and warned all strangers, that were introduced to him, against doing it, because he never failed, when by any accident it was done, to fly out into a transport of passion and swearing? [George Horne, Letter to Adam Smith (1777)]
Beattie was aware of Hume’s reaction, and was similarly aware of attempts by some of Hume’s friends to tarnish his reputation in retaliation. Beattie prevailed, though, and was honoured by gaining an audience with the King and Queen, and receiving a royal pension. Hume’s strong feeling about Beattie is somewhat of a puzzle in view of the mountain of critical attacks that appeared against Hume during his life. James Boswell, though, offers some explanation:
The writers who attacked David Hume before Beattie took the lash in hand, treated him with so much deference that they had no effect. He was cased in a covering of respect. But Beattie stripped him of all his assumed dignity, and having laid his back bare, scourged him till he smarted keenly, and cursed again. David was on very civil terms with his former opponents, being treated by them as Dr. Shebbeare was in the pillory, who was being allowed to wear a fine powdered flowing wig. But he was virulent against Beattie, as I have witnessed, for Beattie treated him as an enemy to morals and religion deserved. [James Boswell, Boswelliana (1884)]
A few months before his death, Hume composed a short autobiography titled “My Own Life.” Two major events that are conspicuously missing from his account – as later critics have observed – are his disputes with Rousseau and Beattie.
3. Posthumous Controversies
Hume was in rapid decline during the last few months of his life from what he described as “a habitual diarrhoea of more than a year’s standing;” a similar disorder led to his mother’s death. He became emaciated and fatigued, and was in bed much of the time. On the advice of his physician, he took a journey during May and June 1776, hoping that the change would improve his health. Some of the events were recorded by John Home, who accompanied him much of the way. There was some improvement, but only temporary, and he returned to his Edinburgh home to prepare for death. In his final months he regularly received guests, and we have accounts of visits by James Boswell, William Cullen, and Adam Smith. We read in these accounts that he was cheerful, fully lucid, and unflinching in his infidelity. While Cullen’s and Boswell’s accounts were not published until later centuries, Smith’s appeared a half-year after Hume’s death and sparked instant controversy. Two parts of Smith’s account were particularly offensive. First, parodying Lucian’s classic Dialogues of the Dead, which he was reading at the time, Hume devised several comical excuses for why Charon should not ferry him across the river Styx into Hades, one of which was so that he could see “the downfal of some of the prevailing systems of superstition.” The second was Smith’s concluding comment that “Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.” The idea of an infidel being the model of virtue was shocking. Even one hundred years after the fact, religious writers fumed over Hume’s irreverent attitude towards death and Smith’s eulogy, as if this was recent news.
An intriguing twist to the story of Hume’s death surfaced at the turn of the 19th century, but was soon forgotten and has since gone unnoticed by Hume scholars. Shortly after Hume’s death, it appears that Hume’s housekeeper – probably Margaret Irvine – was riding in a stagecoach with three other passengers – including the father-in-law of Hume’s friend James Edmonstone. The subject of Hume’s death arose, and the passengers were commenting on the philosopher’s peaceful state of mind. Irvine then volunteered her firsthand experience. Hume indeed appeared tranquil in the presence of visitors, Irvine related, but it was all a show. In private, he was gripped with anguish to the point that his bed shook and he did not want to be left alone; he stated that he had been in search of light all his life but was now in greater darkness than ever. Five items discuss this story from what seems to be three independent sources. The most detailed narrative of Irvine’s account is “On the Death-Bed of Hume the Historian” in the Christian Observer (1831) which reprints an article that “appeared many years ago in an Edinburgh newspaper.” The most convincing authentication of the story is in Alexander Haldane’s Memoirs (1852), which traces it from Hume’s housekeeper, to Mr. Abercromby of Tullibody (Edmonstone’s father-in-law) who was on the coach, to Abercromby’s neighbours, the Haldane family. What can we say about the authenticity of this story? First, it is reasonable to believe that Margaret Irvine was on a stagecoach with Abercromby and others, and that she indeed discussed Hume’s dying days – though probably not in the exact words that the narrators ascribe to her. Second, it is reasonable to believe that she witnessed Hume in anguish, especially in his final weeks, and that Hume’s mannerisms changed when his guests left. Third, it is not clear, however, whether the anguish she perceived was the result of Hume’s reflections on an afterlife, his possible declining mental state, or his suffering from a terminal illness. In any event, we must conclude that the reports of Hume’s thoroughly tranquil decline by Boswell, Cullen, and Smith are not as accurate as history has assumed.
Through Smith’s account, the public perception of Hume was that, in spite of his infidelity, he was a morally virtuous person and that he died peacefully with no concern about an afterlife. This characterization inevitably led to comparisons between Hume and recently deceased believers. The first of these was William Dodd, an Anglican clergyman who was executed for forgery two months before Hume’s death. The contrast here was between Hume the virtuous infidel and Dodd the immoral believer, which was explored in an anonymous work titled A Philosophical and Religious Dialogue in the Shades (1778). The second of these was Samuel Johnson, who died in 1784. Johnson had a well-known fear of death that threw him into fits of rage and periods of depression. The Christian faith, it was commonly presumed, offers special comfort to dying believers, and the deaths of Hume and Johnson defied this conventional wisdom from opposite ends. Using Hume and Johnson as models, William Agutter’s On the Differences Between the Deaths of the Righteous and the Wicked (1800) explores the dying attitudes of infidels and believers.
Adam Smith was not the only one who wrote a eulogy of Hume, and others that did typically met with harsh reception. Within a few weeks of Hume’s death, John Home wrote a series of anonymous letters to the London Chronicle in praise of Hume’s character and writings. This was followed by Home’s anonymous and equally flattering “Account of the Life and Writings of David Hume,” which met with sharp attack. Perhaps around this time he also wrote an unpublished “Sketch of the Character of Mr. Hume.” Samuel Jackson Pratt wrote a lengthy Apology for the Life of David Hume (1777), which, alluding to the tranquil death of the famed infidel, he opens with the extraordinary statement that “David Hume is dead! Never were the pillars of Orthodoxy so desperately shaken, as they are now, by that event.” Several critics, particularly George Horne, attacked Pratt’s work for its poor style and substance. In late 1776 an anonymous biography of Hume appeared titled “An Account of the Life and Writings of David Hume,” which both praised Hume and attacked Beattie. When the “Account” was reprinted a half year later in an Edinburgh newspaper, it met with criticism from defenders of Beattie.
When the initial interest surrounding Hume’s death subsided, works continued to appear that emphasized his reputation as an author and infidel, some of which were fictional pieces. The most notable of these is Henry Mackenzie’s “Story of La Roche,” which, while attempting to remain true to Hume’s character, presents a completely fictional account of the young Hume’s personal acquaintance with an elderly Swiss minister and his young daughter. Among the more interesting indications of Hume’s posthumous reputation is a controversy surrounding the 1805 candidacy of John Leslie for Chair of Mathematics at the University of Edinburgh. A brief footnote in one of Leslie’s writings endorses what purports to be Hume’s view of causality. Scottish clergy from the Tory side of the moderate party opposed Leslie in favour of a candidate who was a clergyman from their own faction. Capitalizing on Hume’s controversial reputation, they brought the matter before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and argued that a man who supports Hume’s philosophy is unfit for professorship. Ironically, the conservative clergy who supported Leslie were unaffected by such anti-Humean arguments, and, constituting a majority with the Whig moderates, they stopped the process. Leslie’s candidacy ultimately succeeded. An animated account of the Leslie controversy is presented by Henry Cockburn in Memorials of his Time (1859).
4. Hume’s Published Writings
There are many published editions of Hume’s writings. The best of these are the volumes are The Philosophical Works of David Hume (1874-1875), ed. T.H. Green and T.H. Grose; Hume’s Treatise (Oxford, 1978) and Enquiries (Oxford, 1975) ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch; Hume’s History of England (Liberty Classics, 1983); Hume’s Essays, Moral, Political and Literary (Liberty Classics, 1987), ed. E.F. Miller. Oxford University Press is currently producing a critical edition of Hume’s philosophical writings, edited by T. Beauchamp, M. Box, D.F. Norton, and M.A. Stewart. Thoemmes Press has published a ten-volume collection 18th and 19th century critical discussions of Hume titled Early Responses to Hume’s Writings (Thoemmes Press, 1999-2005), ed. J. Fieser. Currently, the best biography of Hume is E.C. Mossner’s The Life of David Hume (Oxford, 1980). For online e-texts of Hume’s writings and some commentaries, see the Hume Archives. Below is a chronological list of Hume’s publications.
(1) A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects (1739-40).
Notes: in three volumes, published anonymously: Vol. I. Of the Understanding; Vol. II. Of the Passions. Vol. III. Of Morals. The work did not sell well, and no subsequent edition of the Treatise appeared until the early 19th century. This is Hume’s principle philosophical work, the central notions of which were rewritten more popularly in Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding (1748) and An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).
(2) An Abstract of a Book lately Published; entituled, A Treatise of Human Nature, &c. Wherein the chief Argument of that Book is farther Illustrated and Explained (1740).
Notes: 16 page pamphlet, published anonymously as an effort to bring attention to the Treatise. No subsequent edition of this appeared until 1938.
(3) Essays, Moral and Political (1741-1742).
Notes: published anonymously in two volumes, in 1741 and 1742 respectively. In subsequent editions some essays were dropped and others added; the collection was eventually combined with his Political Discourses (1752) and retitled Essays, Moral, Political and Literary in Hume’s collection of philosophical works, Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects (1753).
(4) A Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend in Edinburgh: Containing Some Observations on a Specimen of the Principles concerning Religion and Morality, said to be maintain’d in a Book lately publish’d, intituled, A Treatise of Human Nature, &c (1745)
Notes: 34 page pamphlet published anonymously surrounding Hume’s candidacy for candidate for the Chair of Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. The pamphlet responds to criticisms regarding the Treatise.
(5) Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding. By the Author of the Essays Moral and Political (1748)
Notes: published anonymously; later retitled Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. This is a popularized version of key themes that appear mainly in the Treatise, Book 1.
(6) A True Account of the Behaviour and conduct of Archibald Stewart, Esq; late Lord Provost of Edinburgh. In a letter to a Friend (1748).
Notes: 51 page pamphlet published anonymously as a defense of Archibald Stewart, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, surrounding a political controversy.
(7) An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. By David Hume, Esq. (1751)
Notes: This is a popularized version of key themes that appear mainly in the Treatise, Book 3.
(8) The Petition of the Grave and Venerable Bellmen (or Sextons) of the Church of Scotland (1751)
Notes: anonymous pamphlet surrounding the Church of Scotland’s efforts to increase their stipends.
(9) Political discourses. By David Hume Esq. (1752)
Notes: collection of essays on economic and political subjects, which was eventually combined with his Essays Moral and Political (1741-1742) and retitled Essays, Moral, Political and Literary in Hume’s collection of philosophical works, Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects (1753).
(10) Scotticisms (1752).
Notes: 6 page pamphlet published anonymously, listing Scottish idioms.
(11) The History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Cæsar to the Revolution in 1688 (1754-1762)
Notes: published in four installments: (a) The history of Great Britain. Vol. I. Containing the reigns of James I. and Charles I. By David Hume, Esq. (1754); (b) The history of Great Britain. Vol. II. Containing the Commonwealth, and the reigns of Charles II. and James II. By David Hume, Esq. (1757); (c) The history of England, under the House of Tudor Comprehending the reigns of K. Henry VII. K. Henry VIII. K. Edward VI. Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth. … By David Hume, Esq (1759); (d) The history of England, from the invasion of Julius Cæsar to the accession of Henry VII. … By David Hume, Esq. (1762).
(12) Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. By David Hume, Esq; In four volumes (1753)
Notes: Hume’s collected philosophical works, which includes (a) Essays, Moral and Political, (b) Philosophical Essays concerning Human Understanding, (c) Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, and (d) Political Discourses. Essays from Four Dissertations (1757) were later added.
(13) Four Dissertations. I. The Natural History of Religion. II. Of the Passions. III. Of Tragedy. IV. Of the Standard of Taste. By David Hume, esq. (1757)
Notes: this volume was originally to include “Of Suicide” and “Of the Immortality of the Soul,” which were removed at the last minute and appeared in 1783 in an unauthorized posthumous edition. The four essays in Four Dissertations were later added to various sections of Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects.
(14) Letter to Critical Review, April 1759, Vol. 7. pp. 323-334
Notes: defense of William Wilkie’s epic poem Epigoniad.
(15) Expos‚ succinct de la contestation qui s’est ‚lev‚e entre M. Hume et M. Rousseau, avec les piŠces justificatives (1766)
Notes: 127 page pamphlet containing letters between Hume and Rousseau, published anonymously, translated from English by J.B.A. Suard. The pamphlet was translated back to English in A Concise and Genuine account of the Dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr. Rousseau: with the Letters that Passed Between them during their Controversy (1766).
(16) Advertisement to Baron Manstein’s Memoirs of Russia, Historical, Political and Military, from MDCXXVII, to MDCXLIV (1770)
Notes: the opening advertisement in this work is signed by Hume.
(17) The Life of David Hume, Esq. Written by Himself (1777)
Notes: The only authorized edition of this work is that contained in the 1777 edition of Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. This separately published edition includes “Letter from Adam Smith, LL.D. to William Strahan, Esq”.
(18) Dialogues Concerning Natural religion. By David Hume, Esq. (1779)
Notes: posthumous edition from manuscript, contains Hume’s most detailed attack on natural religion.
(19) Essays on Suicide, and the Immortality of the Soul, ascribed to the late David Hume, Esq. Never before Published. With Remarks, intended as an Antidote to the Poison contained in these Performances, by the Editor. To which is added, Two Letters on Suicide, from Rosseau’s [sic] Eloisa (1783)
Notes: unauthorized publication of the two essays that were originally associated with Four Dissertations.
5. Collections of Hume’s Letters
There is as yet no exhaustive or critical edition of Hume’s letters. The known correspondence have been appeared in various publications since Hume’s death. The most noteworthy are listed below in chronological order.
(1) Thomas Edward Ritchie, An Account of the life and Writings of David Hume, Esq. (1807)
Notes: First lengthy biography of Hume with quotations from letters by Hume. The originals of some of these letters have since been lost.
(2) Private Correspondences of David Hume with Several Distinguished Persons, between the years 1761 and 1776. Now first Published from the Originals (1820).
Notes: Anonymously edited collection, contains the first publication of Hume’s letters to the Comtesse de Boufflers, the original manuscripts of which have not since surfaced.
(3) Thomas Murray, Letters of David Hume and Extracts from Letters Referring to Him (1841)
Notes: letters from Hume’s service under the Marquis of Annandale.
(4) John Hill Burton, Life and Correspondences of David Hume. From the Papers Bequeathed by his Nephew to the Royal Society of Edinburgh; and other Original Sources. (1846)
Notes: two-volume biography, based on Hume’s personal collection of hundreds of letters and manuscripts in possession of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (now in possession of the National Library of Scottland).
(5) John Hill Burton, Letters of Eminent Persons Addressed to David Hume. From the Papers bequeathed by his Nephew to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. (1849)
Notes: collection of letters to Hume from Hume’s personal collection of letters and manuscripts.
(6) G. Birbeck Hill, Letters of David Hume to William Strahan (1888)
Notes: collection of previously unpublished letters to and from Hume and his printer William Strahan.
(7) J.Y.T. Greig, Letters of David Hume (1932)
Notes: two volumes, currently the best collection of Hume’s letters (along with the following item).
(8) R. Klibansky and E.C. Mossner, New Letters of David Hume (1954)
Notes: volume of new letters, aimed as a supplement to Greig’s volume.
1. Life
David Hume was born in 1711 to a moderately wealthy family from Berwickshire Scotland, near Edinburgh. His background was politically Whiggish and religiously Calvinistic. As a child he faithfully attended the local Church of Scotland pastored by his uncle. Hume was educated by his widowed mother until he left for the University of Edinburgh at the age of eleven. His letters describe how as a young student he took religion seriously and obediently followed a list of moral guidelines taken from The Whole Duty of Man, a popular Calvinistic devotional.
Leaving the University of Edinburgh at around age fifteen to pursue his education privately, he was encouraged to consider a career in law, but his interests turned to philosophy. During these years of private study he began raising serious questions about religion, as he recounts in the following letter:
Tis not long ago that I burn’d an old Manuscript Book, wrote before I was twenty; which contain’d, Page after Page, the gradual Progress of my Thoughts on that head [i.e. religious belief]. It begun with an anxious Search after Arguments, to confirm the common Opinion: Doubts stole in, dissipated, return’d, were again dissipated, return’d again.
Although his manuscript book was destroyed, several pages of Hume’s study notes survive from his early twenties. These show a preoccupation with the subjects of proof of God’s existence and atheism, particularly as he read on these topics in classical Greek and Latin texts and in Pierre Bayle’s skeptical Historical and Critical Dictionary. During these years of private study, some of which was in France, Hume composed his three-volume Treatise of Human Nature, which was published anonymously in two installments before he was thirty (1739, 1740). The Treatise explores several philosophical topics such as space, time, causality, external objects, the passions, free will, and morality, offering original and often skeptical appraisals of these notions. Although religious belief is not the subject of any specific section of the Treatise, it is a recurring theme. Book I of the Treatise was unfavorably reviewed in the History of the Works of the Learned with a succession of sarcastic comments. Although scholars today recognize it as a philosophical masterpiece, Hume was disappointed with the minimal interest his book spawned.
In 1741 and 1742 Hume published his two-volume Essays, Moral and Political. The essays were written in a popular style and met with better success than the Treatise. In 1744-1745 Hume was a candidate for the Chair of Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. The position was to be vacated by John Pringle, and the leading candidates were Hume and William Cleghorn. The Edinburgh Town Council was responsible for electing a replacement. Critics opposed Hume by condemning his anti-religious writings. Chief among the critics was clergyman William Wishart (d. 1752), the Principal of the University of Edinburgh. Lists of allegedly dangerous propositions from Hume’s Treatise circulated, presumably penned by Wishart. In the face of such strong opposition, the Edinburgh Town Council consulted the Edinburgh ministers. Hoping to win over the clergy, Hume composed a point by point reply to the circulating lists of dangerous propositions. It was published as A Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend in Edinburgh. The clergy were not dissuaded, and 12 of the 15 ministers voted against Hume. Hume quickly withdrew his candidacy. In 1745 Hume accepted an invitation from General St Clair to attend him as secretary. He wore the uniform of an officer, and accompanied the general on an expedition against Canada (which ended in an incursion on the coast of France) and to an embassy post in the courts of Vienna and Turin.
In 1748 he added to the above collection an essay titled “Of National Characters.” In a lengthy footnote to this piece, Hume attacks the character of the clergy, accusing this profession of being motivated by ambition, conceit, and revenge. This footnote became a favorite target of attack by the clergy. Given the success of his Essays, Hume was convinced that the poor reception of his Treatise was caused by its style rather than by its content. In 1748 he published his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, a more popular rendition of Book I of his Treatise. The Enquiry also includes two sections not found in the Treatise and which contain fairly direct attacks on religious belief: “Of Miracles” and a dialogue titled “Of a Particular Providence and of a Future State.”
In 1751 Hume published his Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, which recasts in a very different form parts of Book III of his Treatise. Although this work does not attack religion directly, it does so indirectly by establishing a system of morality on utility and human sentiments alone, and without appeal to divine moral commands. Critics such as James Balfour criticized Hume’s theory for being Godless. However, by the end of the century Hume was recognized as the founder of the moral theory of utility. Utilitarian political theorist Jeremy Bentham acknowledges Hume’s direct influence upon him. The same year Hume also published his Political Discourses, which drew immediate praise and influenced economic thinkers such as Adam Smith, Godwin, and Thomas Malthus.
In 1751-1752 Hume sought a philosophy chair at the University of Glasgow, and was again unsuccessful. In 1752 Hume’s employment as librarian of the Advocate’s Library in Edinburgh provided him with the resources to pursue his interest in history. There he wrote much of his highly successful six-volume History of England (published from 1754 to 1762). The first volume was unfavorably received, partially for its defense of Charles I, and partially for two sections which attack Christianity. In one passage Hume notes that the first Protestant reformers were fanatical or “inflamed with the highest enthusiasm” in their opposition to Roman Catholic domination. In the second passage he labels Roman Catholicism a superstition which “like all other species of superstition… rouses the vain fears of unhappy mortals.” The most vocal attack against Hume’s History came from Daniel MacQueen in his 300 page Letters on Mr. Hume’s History. MacQueen combs through Hume’s first volume of the History, exposing all the allegedly “loose and irreligious sneers” Hume makes against Christianity. Ultimately, this negative response led Hume to delete the two controversial passages from succeeding editions of the History.
At about this time Hume also wrote his two most substantial works on religion: The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Natural History of Religion. The Natural History appeared in 1757, but, on the advice of friends who wished to steer Hume away from religious controversy, the Dialogues remained unpublished until 1779, three years after his death. The Natural History aroused controversy even before it was made public. In 1756 a volume of Hume’s essays titled Five Dissertations was printed and ready for distribution. The essays included (1) “The Natural History of Religion,” (2) “Of the Passions,” (3) “Of Tragedy,” (4) “Of Suicide,” and (5) “Of the Immortality of the Soul.” The latter two essays made direct attacks on common religious doctrines by defending a person’s moral right to commit suicide and by criticizing the idea of life after death. Early copies were passed around, and someone of influence threatened to prosecute Hume’s publisher if the book was distributed as is. The printed copies of Five Dissertations were then physically altered, with a new essay “Of the Standard of Taste” inserted in place of the two removed essays. Hume also took this opportunity to alter two particularly offending paragraphs in the Natural History. The essays were then bound with the new title Four Dissertations and distributed in January, 1757.
In the years following Four Dissertations, Hume completed his last major literary work, The History of England. In 1763, at age 50, Hume was invited to accompany the Earl of Hertford to the embassy to Paris, with a near prospect of being his secretary. He eventually accepted, and remarks at the reception he received in Paris “from men and women of all ranks and stations.” He returned to Edinburgh in 1766, and continued developing relations with the greatest minds of the time. Among these was Jean Jacques Rousseau who in 1766 was ordered out of Switzerland by the government in Berne. Hume offered Rousseau refuge in England and secured him a government pension. In England, Rousseau became suspicious of plots, and publicly charged Hume with conspiring to ruin his character, under the appearance of helping him. Hume published a pamphlet defending his actions and was exonerated. Another secretary appointment took him away from 1767-1768. Returning again to Edinburgh, his remaining years were spent revising and refining his published works, and socializing with friends in Edinburgh’s intellectual circles. In 1776, at age 65, he died from an internal disorder which had plagued him for many months.
After his death, Hume’s name took on new significance as several of his previously unpublished works appeared. The first was a brief autobiography, My Own Life, which many have praised as the best short autobiography in English. Even this unpretentious work aroused religious controversy. As Hume’s friends, Adam Smith and S.J. Pratt, published affectionate eulogies describing how he died with no concern for an afterlife, religious critics responded by condemning this unjustifiable admiration of Hume’s infidelity. Two years later, in 1779, Hume’s Dialogues appeared. Again, the response was mixed. Admirers of Hume considered it a masterfully written work, while religious critics branded it as dangerous to religion. Finally, in 1782, Hume’s two suppressed essays on suicide and immortality were published. Their reception was almost unanimously negative.
2. Main Controversies
The entire sequence of critical reactions to Hume’s writings constitutes a record of his literary reputation. A recurring reaction among his readers is that he tried to be original in everything he wrote. As one critic states,
The great object of Mr. Hume’s ambition, as we are informed by himself, was literary fame. And in order to excite public attention, he seems to have thought it necessary to be singular. Accordingly, we find an affectation of singularity of sentiment, very predominant in his writings. [Joseph Towers, Observations on Mr. Hume’s History of England (1778)]
In the eyes of his readers, this drive for singularity manifested itself in philosophical scepticism, religious infidelity, and political arch-conservativism. The more he wrote and critics responded, the more an aura of intrigue and even danger developed around him. This nefarious reputation became so pronounced that it often encumbered his social life and made him the target of verbal attacks and gross misrepresentation. Whatever views Hume may have voiced in his scholarly writings, in his private life he was unpretentious, charitable, witty, and, above all, sociable. As his friends tell us, he rarely engaged in serious philosophical discourse at social gatherings, and, if he did, he graciously accepted rebuttals to his sceptical and antireligious views. Critics who knew this side of Hume treated him with dignity. Others – particularly those unacquainted with him – showed no such respect.
From the time of his first published works, Hume was engaged in various public controversies. He failed to receive teaching appointments at both Edinburgh and Glasgow largely because of his reputation as a religious infidel. His essay “Of Miracles” (1748) sparked critical reactions from clergy of different denominations. The first published volume of his History (1754) also struck a raw nerve because of its insinuation that Christianity was motivated by fanaticism and superstition. One of the most public of the early controversies, though, involved the efforts of some conservative clergy in the Scottish Church to excommunicate – or at least censure – Hume and his colleague Henry Home, Lord Kames, for their infidel writings. One of the instigators of this effort was retired Clergyman George Anderson (1677–1756) – although in his retired status he could not directly participate in the formal proceedings themselves. Pamphlets were published on the subject, pro and contra, and, in 1756 the case against Hume was brought before a committee of the General Assembly – the Scottish Church’s highest judicial body. The conservative side argued that Hume posed a genuine threat to religion, and it was the Church’s duty to take action against him. The moderate side argued that Hume’s views were self-refuting and, in any event, as a non-believer, censuring him would have no impact. In a vote of 17 to 50, the decision was made to not pursue the matter further.
The previous summer’s victory for Hume, though, was short-lived, as he quickly became involved in a dispute with the Church of Scotland regarding the morality of stage plays. The central figure in the controversy was Hume’s close friend, clergyman John Home, who received his preaching license in 1745. For a couple years he had been refining a tragic play titled Douglas and, while his initial efforts of having it produced in London failed, his local friends supported him for what turned out to be a very successful Edinburgh production. This raised two concerns among conservative Scottish clergy. First, stage plays in Edinburgh were both infrequent and, so they believed, unwholesome; second, the idea of a clergyman engaged in such a production was scandalous. Hume entered the controversy by writing a dedication to Home, which was prefaced to the philosopher’s Four Dissertations (1757). In this he extols Douglas as “one of the most interesting and pathetic pieces that was ever exhibited on any theatre” and says that Home possesses “the true theatric genius of Shakespear and Otway, refined from the unhappy barbarism of the one, and licentiousness of the other.” Hume’s public endorsement forced London critics to take notice. At the same time, though, it inexorably linked Home the clergyman with Hume the infidel. In Scotland, conservative clergy attacked Home’s immoral playwriting hobby and attempted to take action against clergy who attended its production. In London, critics laughed at Hume’s overblown praise of a mediocre play. One writer, John Hawkesworth, stated that Hume’s “critical stocks” were thereby “reduced almost to bankruptcy.” Home himself had no choice but to resign his church position. A highlight of this controversy is John MacLaurin’s Philosopher’s Opera (1757), which lampoons Hume, Home and their Edinburgh supporters.
The controversy surrounding Home’s Douglas was largely a local matter. Ten years later he was embroiled in an international controversy involving his attempts at hospitality towards Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Born in Geneva and fleeing that city at age 16, Rousseau (1712–1778) moved to Savoy where, under the influence of his benefactress Baronne de Warens, he transformed from an uneducated apprentice to a man of letters. At age 30 he moved to Paris and, with the young Denis Diderot, formed an intellectual circle – the philosophes. In 1762 his two greatest theoretical works appeared, Émile and The Social Contract. The former of these sparked a religious controversy, and, fearing imprisonment, Rousseau fled Paris for Switzerland. During the next few years he wrote in defence of himself, but in 1765 was forced out of Switzerland as well. Beginning in January 1766, at Hume’s invitation, he spent a year in England at a rural home that Hume arranged for him. Through political connections Hume even secured a pension for Rousseau from King George III. In the minds of many British men of letters, though, Rousseau was eccentric, arrogant, and had a martyr complex. Capitalizing on these preconceptions, British novelist Horace Walpole wrote a satirical letter in the name of Frederick, King of Prussia, inviting Rousseau to take refuge in that country. Since Rousseau thrives on misfortune, Walpole writes, “I am a king, and can make you as miserable as you can wish.” The letter was printed in a London newspaper, where Rousseau first saw it. Humiliated, he was convinced that Hume was in on the joke and had even invited Rousseau to England to make him an object of ridicule. Rousseau refused his pension and, in a letter to Hume dated July 10, threatened to go public with his accusations. Hume then preemptively published A Concise and Genuine Account of the Dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr. Rousseau: with the Letters that Passed between them during their Controversy (1766). The pamphlet exonerated Hume, but also made Rousseau look mentally unstable. A subsequent pamphlet against Rousseau by Voltaire reinforced public perception of his mental problems. According to Hume’s critics, publishing the Concise and Genuine Account was overkill, and violated Hume’s duty as a host to treat his emotionally sensitive guest with dignity.
Four years later the tables were turned on Hume when he himself became the object of what he felt was an undignified assault. His assailant was James Beattie (1735–1803), the young professor of Moral Philosophy and Logic at Marischal College, Aberdeen, who believed that Hume’s sceptical and anti-religious philosophy posed a public threat to religion and morality. His work, An Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth (1770), relentlessly attacks Hume’s philosophy as it appears in his Treatise of Human Nature, published 30 years earlier. Beattie was soon joined by the blind poet Thomas Blacklock – Hume’s former friend – who, in a series of letters in an Edinburgh newspaper, justified Beattie’s attack. Hume only once refers to Beattie in his surviving letters, calling him “that bigotted silly Fellow.” Outside sources, though, report that Hume’s reaction was very severe:
Was there any particular BOOK [i.e., Beattie’s Essay] ever written against him [i.e., Hume], that shook his system to pieces about his ears, and reduced it to a heap of ruins, the success and eclat of which might be supposed to have hurt his mind, and to have affected his health? Was there any AUTHOR [i,e., Beattie] whose name his friends never dared to mention before him, and warned all strangers, that were introduced to him, against doing it, because he never failed, when by any accident it was done, to fly out into a transport of passion and swearing? [George Horne, Letter to Adam Smith (1777)]
Beattie was aware of Hume’s reaction, and was similarly aware of attempts by some of Hume’s friends to tarnish his reputation in retaliation. Beattie prevailed, though, and was honoured by gaining an audience with the King and Queen, and receiving a royal pension. Hume’s strong feeling about Beattie is somewhat of a puzzle in view of the mountain of critical attacks that appeared against Hume during his life. James Boswell, though, offers some explanation:
The writers who attacked David Hume before Beattie took the lash in hand, treated him with so much deference that they had no effect. He was cased in a covering of respect. But Beattie stripped him of all his assumed dignity, and having laid his back bare, scourged him till he smarted keenly, and cursed again. David was on very civil terms with his former opponents, being treated by them as Dr. Shebbeare was in the pillory, who was being allowed to wear a fine powdered flowing wig. But he was virulent against Beattie, as I have witnessed, for Beattie treated him as an enemy to morals and religion deserved. [James Boswell, Boswelliana (1884)]
A few months before his death, Hume composed a short autobiography titled “My Own Life.” Two major events that are conspicuously missing from his account – as later critics have observed – are his disputes with Rousseau and Beattie.
3. Posthumous Controversies
Hume was in rapid decline during the last few months of his life from what he described as “a habitual diarrhoea of more than a year’s standing;” a similar disorder led to his mother’s death. He became emaciated and fatigued, and was in bed much of the time. On the advice of his physician, he took a journey during May and June 1776, hoping that the change would improve his health. Some of the events were recorded by John Home, who accompanied him much of the way. There was some improvement, but only temporary, and he returned to his Edinburgh home to prepare for death. In his final months he regularly received guests, and we have accounts of visits by James Boswell, William Cullen, and Adam Smith. We read in these accounts that he was cheerful, fully lucid, and unflinching in his infidelity. While Cullen’s and Boswell’s accounts were not published until later centuries, Smith’s appeared a half-year after Hume’s death and sparked instant controversy. Two parts of Smith’s account were particularly offensive. First, parodying Lucian’s classic Dialogues of the Dead, which he was reading at the time, Hume devised several comical excuses for why Charon should not ferry him across the river Styx into Hades, one of which was so that he could see “the downfal of some of the prevailing systems of superstition.” The second was Smith’s concluding comment that “Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.” The idea of an infidel being the model of virtue was shocking. Even one hundred years after the fact, religious writers fumed over Hume’s irreverent attitude towards death and Smith’s eulogy, as if this was recent news.
An intriguing twist to the story of Hume’s death surfaced at the turn of the 19th century, but was soon forgotten and has since gone unnoticed by Hume scholars. Shortly after Hume’s death, it appears that Hume’s housekeeper – probably Margaret Irvine – was riding in a stagecoach with three other passengers – including the father-in-law of Hume’s friend James Edmonstone. The subject of Hume’s death arose, and the passengers were commenting on the philosopher’s peaceful state of mind. Irvine then volunteered her firsthand experience. Hume indeed appeared tranquil in the presence of visitors, Irvine related, but it was all a show. In private, he was gripped with anguish to the point that his bed shook and he did not want to be left alone; he stated that he had been in search of light all his life but was now in greater darkness than ever. Five items discuss this story from what seems to be three independent sources. The most detailed narrative of Irvine’s account is “On the Death-Bed of Hume the Historian” in the Christian Observer (1831) which reprints an article that “appeared many years ago in an Edinburgh newspaper.” The most convincing authentication of the story is in Alexander Haldane’s Memoirs (1852), which traces it from Hume’s housekeeper, to Mr. Abercromby of Tullibody (Edmonstone’s father-in-law) who was on the coach, to Abercromby’s neighbours, the Haldane family. What can we say about the authenticity of this story? First, it is reasonable to believe that Margaret Irvine was on a stagecoach with Abercromby and others, and that she indeed discussed Hume’s dying days – though probably not in the exact words that the narrators ascribe to her. Second, it is reasonable to believe that she witnessed Hume in anguish, especially in his final weeks, and that Hume’s mannerisms changed when his guests left. Third, it is not clear, however, whether the anguish she perceived was the result of Hume’s reflections on an afterlife, his possible declining mental state, or his suffering from a terminal illness. In any event, we must conclude that the reports of Hume’s thoroughly tranquil decline by Boswell, Cullen, and Smith are not as accurate as history has assumed.
Through Smith’s account, the public perception of Hume was that, in spite of his infidelity, he was a morally virtuous person and that he died peacefully with no concern about an afterlife. This characterization inevitably led to comparisons between Hume and recently deceased believers. The first of these was William Dodd, an Anglican clergyman who was executed for forgery two months before Hume’s death. The contrast here was between Hume the virtuous infidel and Dodd the immoral believer, which was explored in an anonymous work titled A Philosophical and Religious Dialogue in the Shades (1778). The second of these was Samuel Johnson, who died in 1784. Johnson had a well-known fear of death that threw him into fits of rage and periods of depression. The Christian faith, it was commonly presumed, offers special comfort to dying believers, and the deaths of Hume and Johnson defied this conventional wisdom from opposite ends. Using Hume and Johnson as models, William Agutter’s On the Differences Between the Deaths of the Righteous and the Wicked (1800) explores the dying attitudes of infidels and believers.
Adam Smith was not the only one who wrote a eulogy of Hume, and others that did typically met with harsh reception. Within a few weeks of Hume’s death, John Home wrote a series of anonymous letters to the London Chronicle in praise of Hume’s character and writings. This was followed by Home’s anonymous and equally flattering “Account of the Life and Writings of David Hume,” which met with sharp attack. Perhaps around this time he also wrote an unpublished “Sketch of the Character of Mr. Hume.” Samuel Jackson Pratt wrote a lengthy Apology for the Life of David Hume (1777), which, alluding to the tranquil death of the famed infidel, he opens with the extraordinary statement that “David Hume is dead! Never were the pillars of Orthodoxy so desperately shaken, as they are now, by that event.” Several critics, particularly George Horne, attacked Pratt’s work for its poor style and substance. In late 1776 an anonymous biography of Hume appeared titled “An Account of the Life and Writings of David Hume,” which both praised Hume and attacked Beattie. When the “Account” was reprinted a half year later in an Edinburgh newspaper, it met with criticism from defenders of Beattie.
When the initial interest surrounding Hume’s death subsided, works continued to appear that emphasized his reputation as an author and infidel, some of which were fictional pieces. The most notable of these is Henry Mackenzie’s “Story of La Roche,” which, while attempting to remain true to Hume’s character, presents a completely fictional account of the young Hume’s personal acquaintance with an elderly Swiss minister and his young daughter. Among the more interesting indications of Hume’s posthumous reputation is a controversy surrounding the 1805 candidacy of John Leslie for Chair of Mathematics at the University of Edinburgh. A brief footnote in one of Leslie’s writings endorses what purports to be Hume’s view of causality. Scottish clergy from the Tory side of the moderate party opposed Leslie in favour of a candidate who was a clergyman from their own faction. Capitalizing on Hume’s controversial reputation, they brought the matter before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and argued that a man who supports Hume’s philosophy is unfit for professorship. Ironically, the conservative clergy who supported Leslie were unaffected by such anti-Humean arguments, and, constituting a majority with the Whig moderates, they stopped the process. Leslie’s candidacy ultimately succeeded. An animated account of the Leslie controversy is presented by Henry Cockburn in Memorials of his Time (1859).
4. Hume’s Published Writings
There are many published editions of Hume’s writings. The best of these are the volumes are The Philosophical Works of David Hume (1874-1875), ed. T.H. Green and T.H. Grose; Hume’s Treatise (Oxford, 1978) and Enquiries (Oxford, 1975) ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch; Hume’s History of England (Liberty Classics, 1983); Hume’s Essays, Moral, Political and Literary (Liberty Classics, 1987), ed. E.F. Miller. Oxford University Press is currently producing a critical edition of Hume’s philosophical writings, edited by T. Beauchamp, M. Box, D.F. Norton, and M.A. Stewart. Thoemmes Press has published a ten-volume collection 18th and 19th century critical discussions of Hume titled Early Responses to Hume’s Writings (Thoemmes Press, 1999-2005), ed. J. Fieser. Currently, the best biography of Hume is E.C. Mossner’s The Life of David Hume (Oxford, 1980). For online e-texts of Hume’s writings and some commentaries, see the Hume Archives. Below is a chronological list of Hume’s publications.
(1) A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects (1739-40).
Notes: in three volumes, published anonymously: Vol. I. Of the Understanding; Vol. II. Of the Passions. Vol. III. Of Morals. The work did not sell well, and no subsequent edition of the Treatise appeared until the early 19th century. This is Hume’s principle philosophical work, the central notions of which were rewritten more popularly in Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding (1748) and An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).
(2) An Abstract of a Book lately Published; entituled, A Treatise of Human Nature, &c. Wherein the chief Argument of that Book is farther Illustrated and Explained (1740).
Notes: 16 page pamphlet, published anonymously as an effort to bring attention to the Treatise. No subsequent edition of this appeared until 1938.
(3) Essays, Moral and Political (1741-1742).
Notes: published anonymously in two volumes, in 1741 and 1742 respectively. In subsequent editions some essays were dropped and others added; the collection was eventually combined with his Political Discourses (1752) and retitled Essays, Moral, Political and Literary in Hume’s collection of philosophical works, Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects (1753).
(4) A Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend in Edinburgh: Containing Some Observations on a Specimen of the Principles concerning Religion and Morality, said to be maintain’d in a Book lately publish’d, intituled, A Treatise of Human Nature, &c (1745)
Notes: 34 page pamphlet published anonymously surrounding Hume’s candidacy for candidate for the Chair of Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. The pamphlet responds to criticisms regarding the Treatise.
(5) Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding. By the Author of the Essays Moral and Political (1748)
Notes: published anonymously; later retitled Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. This is a popularized version of key themes that appear mainly in the Treatise, Book 1.
(6) A True Account of the Behaviour and conduct of Archibald Stewart, Esq; late Lord Provost of Edinburgh. In a letter to a Friend (1748).
Notes: 51 page pamphlet published anonymously as a defense of Archibald Stewart, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, surrounding a political controversy.
(7) An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. By David Hume, Esq. (1751)
Notes: This is a popularized version of key themes that appear mainly in the Treatise, Book 3.
(8) The Petition of the Grave and Venerable Bellmen (or Sextons) of the Church of Scotland (1751)
Notes: anonymous pamphlet surrounding the Church of Scotland’s efforts to increase their stipends.
(9) Political discourses. By David Hume Esq. (1752)
Notes: collection of essays on economic and political subjects, which was eventually combined with his Essays Moral and Political (1741-1742) and retitled Essays, Moral, Political and Literary in Hume’s collection of philosophical works, Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects (1753).
(10) Scotticisms (1752).
Notes: 6 page pamphlet published anonymously, listing Scottish idioms.
(11) The History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Cæsar to the Revolution in 1688 (1754-1762)
Notes: published in four installments: (a) The history of Great Britain. Vol. I. Containing the reigns of James I. and Charles I. By David Hume, Esq. (1754); (b) The history of Great Britain. Vol. II. Containing the Commonwealth, and the reigns of Charles II. and James II. By David Hume, Esq. (1757); (c) The history of England, under the House of Tudor Comprehending the reigns of K. Henry VII. K. Henry VIII. K. Edward VI. Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth. … By David Hume, Esq (1759); (d) The history of England, from the invasion of Julius Cæsar to the accession of Henry VII. … By David Hume, Esq. (1762).
(12) Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. By David Hume, Esq; In four volumes (1753)
Notes: Hume’s collected philosophical works, which includes (a) Essays, Moral and Political, (b) Philosophical Essays concerning Human Understanding, (c) Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, and (d) Political Discourses. Essays from Four Dissertations (1757) were later added.
(13) Four Dissertations. I. The Natural History of Religion. II. Of the Passions. III. Of Tragedy. IV. Of the Standard of Taste. By David Hume, esq. (1757)
Notes: this volume was originally to include “Of Suicide” and “Of the Immortality of the Soul,” which were removed at the last minute and appeared in 1783 in an unauthorized posthumous edition. The four essays in Four Dissertations were later added to various sections of Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects.
(14) Letter to Critical Review, April 1759, Vol. 7. pp. 323-334
Notes: defense of William Wilkie’s epic poem Epigoniad.
(15) Expos‚ succinct de la contestation qui s’est ‚lev‚e entre M. Hume et M. Rousseau, avec les piŠces justificatives (1766)
Notes: 127 page pamphlet containing letters between Hume and Rousseau, published anonymously, translated from English by J.B.A. Suard. The pamphlet was translated back to English in A Concise and Genuine account of the Dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr. Rousseau: with the Letters that Passed Between them during their Controversy (1766).
(16) Advertisement to Baron Manstein’s Memoirs of Russia, Historical, Political and Military, from MDCXXVII, to MDCXLIV (1770)
Notes: the opening advertisement in this work is signed by Hume.
(17) The Life of David Hume, Esq. Written by Himself (1777)
Notes: The only authorized edition of this work is that contained in the 1777 edition of Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. This separately published edition includes “Letter from Adam Smith, LL.D. to William Strahan, Esq”.
(18) Dialogues Concerning Natural religion. By David Hume, Esq. (1779)
Notes: posthumous edition from manuscript, contains Hume’s most detailed attack on natural religion.
(19) Essays on Suicide, and the Immortality of the Soul, ascribed to the late David Hume, Esq. Never before Published. With Remarks, intended as an Antidote to the Poison contained in these Performances, by the Editor. To which is added, Two Letters on Suicide, from Rosseau’s [sic] Eloisa (1783)
Notes: unauthorized publication of the two essays that were originally associated with Four Dissertations.
5. Collections of Hume’s Letters
There is as yet no exhaustive or critical edition of Hume’s letters. The known correspondence have been appeared in various publications since Hume’s death. The most noteworthy are listed below in chronological order.
(1) Thomas Edward Ritchie, An Account of the life and Writings of David Hume, Esq. (1807)
Notes: First lengthy biography of Hume with quotations from letters by Hume. The originals of some of these letters have since been lost.
(2) Private Correspondences of David Hume with Several Distinguished Persons, between the years 1761 and 1776. Now first Published from the Originals (1820).
Notes: Anonymously edited collection, contains the first publication of Hume’s letters to the Comtesse de Boufflers, the original manuscripts of which have not since surfaced.
(3) Thomas Murray, Letters of David Hume and Extracts from Letters Referring to Him (1841)
Notes: letters from Hume’s service under the Marquis of Annandale.
(4) John Hill Burton, Life and Correspondences of David Hume. From the Papers Bequeathed by his Nephew to the Royal Society of Edinburgh; and other Original Sources. (1846)
Notes: two-volume biography, based on Hume’s personal collection of hundreds of letters and manuscripts in possession of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (now in possession of the National Library of Scottland).
(5) John Hill Burton, Letters of Eminent Persons Addressed to David Hume. From the Papers bequeathed by his Nephew to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. (1849)
Notes: collection of letters to Hume from Hume’s personal collection of letters and manuscripts.
(6) G. Birbeck Hill, Letters of David Hume to William Strahan (1888)
Notes: collection of previously unpublished letters to and from Hume and his printer William Strahan.
(7) J.Y.T. Greig, Letters of David Hume (1932)
Notes: two volumes, currently the best collection of Hume’s letters (along with the following item).
(8) R. Klibansky and E.C. Mossner, New Letters of David Hume (1954)
Notes: volume of new letters, aimed as a supplement to Greig’s volume.
