Bongie David Hume Prophet of the Counter-Revolution

8/2/2019 Bongie David Hume Prophet of the Counter-Revolution

1/240

DavidHume


2/240

LaurenceL. Bongie


3/240

DavidHumeProphetofthe

Counter-revolution

L

aur

enceL

.Bongie

WithaForewordbyDonaldW.Livingston

SECONDEDITION

Liber tyFund

Indianapo l is


4/240

ThisbookispublishedbyLibertyFund, Inc., afoundationestablishedto

encouragestudyoftheidealofasocietyoffreeandresponsibleindividuals.

Thecuneiforminscriptionthatservesasourlogoandasthedesignmotiffor

ourendpapersistheearliest-knownwrittenappearanceofthewordfreedom

(amagi), orliberty.Itistakenfromaclaydocumentwrittenabout2300 b.c.intheSumeriancity-stateofLagash.

2000 byLibertyFund, Inc. Frontispiece1998 byEvangelosPhotography

Ltd, M. Espinosa. Allrightsreserved

Firstpublishedin1965 byOxfordUniversityPress

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

04 03 02 01 00 C 5 4 3 2 1

04 03 02 01 00 P 5 4 3 2 1

LibraryofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bongie, LaurenceL.

DavidHume:prophetofthecounter-revolution/LaurenceL. Bongie;

withaforewordbyDonaldW. Livingston.

p. cm.

Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.

ISBN0-86597-208-7(hardcover:alk. paper).

ISBN0-86597-209-5

(pbk.:alk. paper)

1. Hume, David, 17111776. HistoryofEngland. 2. GreatBritain

HistoryPuritan Revolution, 16421660Historiography. 3. Great Britain

HistoryEarlyStuarts, 16031649Historiography. 4. FranceHistory

Revolution, 17891799. 5. ConservatismHistory18thcentury.

6. Counter-revolutionaries. I. Title.

DA30.H93B66 2000

942dc21 99-25723

LibertyFund, Inc.

8335AllisonPointeTrail, Suite300

Indianapolis, Indiana46250-1684


5/240

Contents

Foreword

vii

PrefacetotheLiber tyFundEdition

xi

Int roduction

xiii

I. Before1789

1. RoyalPanegyrics 1

2. TheScienceandArtofEnglishHistory 2

3. JehovahAmongtheHebrews 10

4. PapistorPyrrhonian? 15

5. TheScot tishBossuet 35

6. DebatewithTurgot 54

7. EarlyHostility:Mirabeau, Mably,andBrissot 60

8. DefenceandDefiance 65

9. AnticipatingtheStorm 75

II. TheRevolutionand

theRleofHistory

1. HistoryasaWeaponofCounter-revolution 79

2. HistoryastheSuperstitionofSlaves 93

v


6/240

III. From1789to

theTrialofLouisXVI

1. PropheticParallelsandtheCounter-revolutionaryLessonsofHume 103

2. TheLongParliament:BrissotVersusClermont-Tonnerre 123

3. ARepublicanAntidote:CatherineMacaulay-Graham 132

IV.

TheTrialof

LeStuartFranais

1. LouisXVIandCharlesI:ACondemnedKingsMeditations 141

2. DavidHumeandStuartHistoryfortheDefence 149

3. CromwellintheConvention:TheJudgementofPosterity 156

4. TheParallelRejected:BrutustotheRescue 165

5. PrinciplesVersusPrecedents 171

V. TheAftermath

1. RepublicanQualms 177

2. WaitingforGeneralMonk 1863. Conclusion 196

IndexofNamesandTit les

203

vi

Contents


7/240

Foreword

Philosophersrarelywritehistory, andDavidHume(171176)isunique

inbeing recognizedasonewhomadecanonicalcontributionstobothphilosophyandhistory. ManythinkofHumeasaphilosopherbutinhis

owntimehewasknownasanessayistandauthorofthesix-volumeHis-

toryofEngland (175462). TheHistory wasaclassicinhislifetimeandwentthroughatleast167 posthumouseditions. Itwasthestandardworkonthesubjectfornearlya century, untilThomasBabingtonMacaulays

HistoryofEngland begantochallengeitin1849. Evenso, Humesworkwaspublishediffinallyonlyinanabridgedformcontinuallyintothe

twentieth century. Someeditions issued inprintingsof100,000. The

young WinstonChurchill learnedEnglish history from one of these

abridgementsknownasthestudentsHume.

ThemostsubstantialpartoftheHistory isHumesaccountofthe

reignoftheStuarts, whichincludedtheEnglishCivilWar, thetrialandexecutionofCharlesI, andtheestablishmentofaPuritanrepublic under

OliverCromwell. The claimthatthepeoplehadthelegalauthorityto

puttotrialandtoexecutetheirsovereignshockedseventeenth-century

Europeand castashadowfarintotheeighteenth century. Humesac-

countoftheseeventsquicklybecamethemostforcefulandmemorable.ButtheinfluenceoftheHistory wasnotconfinedtotheEnglish-

speaking world. LaurenceBongiedemonstratesthatduring theevents

leading uptotheFrenchRevolutionandfora considerabletimethere-after, HumesaccountoftheEnglishCivilWarwasusedbytheFrenchtomakesenseoftheterribleeventsthroughwhichtheywereliving. Hume

hadinterpretedtherevolutioninEnglandthatledtotheexecutionof

Charles I and aPuritan republic under the military government ofCromwellasanintellectualandspiritualpathologymingledwithambi-

tion. WhatthePuritanseventuallysoughtwasnotreformbutatotaltrans-formationof the socialandpoliticalorder inaccordwitha religious

ideology. Humesnarrativeseemedisomorphic towhatwashappeninginFrance. The goaloftheFrenchRevolutionwasnotreformbutarootandbranchtransformationofsociety. TheJacobinsstoodforthePuri-

tans, andtheJacobinsself-evidenttruthsoftherightsofmanstoodfor

vii


8/240

theself-certifying enthusiasmsandrevelationsofthePuritans;LouisXVIwasCharlesI, andNapoleonwasCromwell.

EdmundBurkesReflectionsontheRevolutioninFrance is commonly

viewedastheoriginofthemodern conservativeintellectualtradition, be-causehedeemedtheFrenchRevolutiontobeaneventuniquetomod-ern times: notatallaneffortat reformbut thehubristic attempt to

transformthewholeofsocietyinaccordwithanideology. ButHumebe-foreBurkehadattachedessentiallythisinterpretationtothePuritanrev-olutioninEngland. Additionally, iftheintellectual coreofconservatism

isa critiqueofideologyinpolitics, thenHumesHistorynotBurkes

Reflectionswouldappeartobetheprimalsourceofmodern conser-

vati

sm.La

ur

en

ceBon

gi

e,in

Da

vidHu

me:Pr

oph

et

ofth

e

Count

er-r

evoluti

on,

gives us good reason to think this was true of French conservative

thought. Therefore, onemightwellwonderwhethermuchofwhatBurke

perceived in the French Revolution as a spiritual disorder was whatHumesaccountofthePuritanrevolutionhadpreparedhimtosee.

ThomasJefferson consideredHumesHistory sucha formidable

forcethathebanneditfromtheUniversityofVirginia. Oftheworkhe

wrotetoWilliamDuaneonAugust12, 1810, thatithasspreaduniver-saltoryismovertheland.Six yearslater, onNovember25, 1816, Jeffer-sonwroteofHumesworktoJohnAdamsthat, Thissinglebookhas

donemoretosapthefreeprinciplesoftheEnglishConstitutionthanthe

largeststanding army. . . .JeffersonpreferredJohnBaxtersANewand

ImpartialHistoryofEngland(1796), whichwasareworking ofHumesHis-tory fromtheWhig perspectiveandwhichJefferson calledHumeshis-

toryrepublicanized.WhatJeffersondidnotknow(becausehehadnotreadthelettersofthelastdecadeofHumeslife)wasthatHumesup -

ported completeindependencefortheAmerican coloniesasearlyas

1768 and

totheastonishmentofhisfriends

heldtothatpositionuntilhisdeathonAugust25, 1776, fivedaysafterthe completetextoftheDe-

clarationofIndependencewaspublishedinEdinburghsCaledonianMer-cury. OnOctober27, 1775, HumedeclaredtohisoldfriendBaronMure,IamanAmericaninmyprinciples, andwishwewouldletthemaloneto

governormisgovernthemselvesastheythinkproper.Themanwho

daredtosheda generoustearforthefateofCharlesIalsoresistedusingviolenceto coercethe coloniesbackintoaunionfromwhichtheywished

tosecede.Humespoliticalphilosophyisdialecticalandsubtleandhas given

riseto contraryinterpretations. ButitisnotBongiestasktointerpretit

nortojudgewhetherHumesHistory was correctlyunderstoodbythose

viii

Foreword


9/240

whoreaditduring therevolutionaryperiodinFrance. Rather, histaskis

torecordtheextraordinaryinfluencethatHumesworkexercisedduring

thisperiod. Drawing fromavastdepositofarchivalmaterials, Bongiehas

chippedawaytorevealanunexpected glimpsethroughthewalloftimethatseparatesusfromtheFrenchRevolution. Asceneunfolds, richin

detail, in which the participantsareallowed to speak for themselves

throughtheirwords, theirmute gestures, andabovealltheir context. As

withBongiesotherarchivalworkonDiderot, PrinceCharlesEdwardStuart, Condillac, andDeSadeoneisleftwithanimageinthememorymorepowerfulthanwhatatheoreticalinterpretation couldprovide. And,one comesawayviewing HumesHistorynotsimplyasanarrativeofevents

but

a

sa

for

cein

th

e cr

eati

on

ofmodern

politi

cal

li

fe.

DonaldW. Livingston

April1998

ix

Foreword


10/240


11/240

Prefaceto

theLiber tyFundEdit ion

MuchhaschangedinHumestudiessincethisbookwasfirstpublishedin1965. For example, the introduction to the first edition noted that

HumesH

istoryw

a

sneit

her

wi

dely

r

ea

dnor

r

ea

dil

ya

vaila

bl

e.T

he com-

pleteworkhadthenbeenoutofprintsincetheendofthenineteenthcentury. Today, HumesHistory ishandilyavailableintheLibertyFundedition(198385, 6 vols.), anddozensofbooksalong withscoresofar-

ticleshavefocussedattentioninrecentyearsonHumethehistorian. Per-

hapsmost importantofall, long-overdue recognitionof the integrallinkagebetweenHumeshistoricalandphilosophicalwritingshasopened

up one of the most rewarding avenues of inquiry in current Humestudies.

Historybeing oneofthemoreephemeralarts, moststudieslikethis

one, afteranintervalofseveraldecades, havenecessarilyforfeitedsome

degreeofrelevance. Ifthisworkisstillableinsomemeasuretomakea

contribution, itisnodoubtbecauseinanareawhereintheviolentbat-

tlesofthepastareconstantlybeing reformulatedandrefoughtbythe

factionsofthepresentit choosestofocusexclusivelyoninterrogationoftheprimarytexts, textsthatareinvitedtospeakasmuchaspossiblefor

themselves. DavidHume,ProphetoftheCounter-revolution doesnotsetoutto

decreewhatreallyhappenedduring theGreatRebellioninEnglandorwhatwasreally going onduring Franceseven greaterRevolutionwhen,inanongoing conflationofday-to-dayhistoryandcounter-revolutionary

historiography, thelessonsandparallelsdrawnfromHumesHistoryofthe

Stuartswereregularlyweighedandscrutinized. Rather, mystudyfocusses

ontheinterplayofconflicting perceptions, privilegedastheonlyfacts

thatarerelevanttotheinvestigation. Whethersuchfacts canexistinde-

pendentlyoftheirinterpretativeperceptionsandwhetherthey canbe

strippedbareandobjectivelyrecoveredinuncorruptedformbythesci-entifichistorianareverylargequestionsthatIdonotpursuehere.

As much the courageous contrarian, sceptical exploder of myths,and lucid revisionist in history as he was in philosophy, David Hume prided

xi


12/240

himselfon having written the first impartial account ofthe English Revo-lution.Englands Whig establishment hotly disputed Humes claim, but on

the other side oftheChannel the French reading publics admiration and

praise for the godlike fairness ofthe EnglishTacitus knew no bounds.With the coming ofthe French Revolution, Humes much lauded impar-

tiality, the tear he shed for the fate ofCharles I, became an important el-ement in counter-revolutionary ideology. The ghost ofour philosopher-

historian who wrote his Historyfor fame almost as much as for truth was

probably not displeased by the flattering attention accorded the lessons

of his Historyat every stage of Frances bloody upheaval. Now, two cen-

turies later, delighted by the explosion of renewed interest in his great

work

,Da

vi

d Humes gh

ost i

s un

doubt

edl

y still

smilin

g ben

evol

entl

yan

dtaking well-deserved curtain calls.

Note:InthisLibertyFundedition, alloftheFrenchdocumentation, rep-

resenting overone-thirdoftheoriginalOxfordUniversityPresstext, has

beentranslatedintoEnglish. Allofthetranslationsaremyown.

L. L. B.

April1998

xii

Preface to theLiber tyFundEdi t ion


13/240

xiii

1. SeemyHumeandskepticisminlateeighteenth-centuryFrance,inJ. vanderZandeandR. H. Popkin, eds., TheSkepticalTraditionAround1800:Skep-ticisminPhilosophy,Science,andSociety(Dordrecht:Kluwer, 1998), pp. 1529.

Int roduc t ion

I

David Hume was undoubtedly the eighteenth-century British writerwhoseworksweremostwidelyknownandacclaimedonthe continent

during thelaterEnlightenmentperiod. Ampleproofofthe greatrepu-tationheacquiredinFranceasanhistorianandphilosopheratthistime

isreadilyavailable. Contrarytovariousexpectations, however, evidenceof

aprofoundinfluenceasopposedtothemerereputationofhispurely

philosophicalwritingshasprovedtobedisappointinglymeagre. Occa-sionallyeven, Humesmosttelling impactinthisrespectappears, not

intheworksofhisbrotherphilosophes, wholargelymisunderstoodorwil-fullyignoredhishighlyoriginalepistemologicaldoctrine, butusually

throughthedeviceofretortion

inthewritingsoftheir greatestene-mies, thereligioustraditionalists.1

Lesssurprising, perhaps, isthefactthatthesesametraditionalistsinformulating theirpoliticalprinciplesfounditpossibletoprofittoanevengreaterextentfromHumeshistoricalwritings. Hisunrivalledhistoryof

the Stuarts had not only enjoyed spectacular success in eighteenth-centuryFrance;ithadrelatedaswellwhatmanyviewedasthemostsig-

nificant, oratleastthemosthorrifying, seriesofpoliticaleventsinthe

annalsofmodernEurope, namelytheseventeenth-centuryEnglishrev-olution. TheparticularmannerinwhichHumehadnarratedthehap-

less career of Charles I and had presented the short-lived EnglishrepublicanexperimentwastoseemtomanyFrench conservatives, bothbeforeandafter1789, ofgreatpracticalapplicabilityintheirdefenceof

theancienrgime. Itwillbeseen, Ithink, thatHumesimpactherewasof

undeniableimportance, greaterevenforatimethantherelatedinflu-enceofBurke, althoughitrepresentsa contributiontoFrench counter-


14/240

xiv

Int roduc t ion

2. In general, Ihavethroughoutthisworkrelinquishedtheuseofsec-ondarysourcematerials, sinceitwouldseemespeciallyimportantinastudyofimageandinfluencetoallowtheoriginaldocumentstospeakasmuchaspossi-bleforthemselves. Spelling inthequotationshasbeenstandardized.

revolutionarythoughtwhich, unlikethatofBurke, hasbeenalmosttotallyignoredbyhistorianstothisday.

It is perhaps necessary to indicate at this point certain limitations

which I have felt it wise to impose on this study. I have attempted

admit-tedly not always with complete successto disregard the question of

Humes true intentions or the real nature ofhis political thought. Suchconsiderations, however important they may be in themselves, seem largelyirrelevant to an investigation of the kind I have undertaken. Similarly, I

have not tried to make any general assessment ofthe merits ofDavid Hume

as an historian.2 WhetherHume interpreted well orbadly the events ofStu-

art history, whether he was more ofa Tory than Burke was a Whig, is oflit-

tl

e con

sequen

cet

o my pur

pose. My chi

efcon

cern ha

sn

ot

been

with

what

really happened in England between 1603 and 1660 nor even primarilywith what Hume really said about the Great Rebellion although, with regard

to this last point, I have provided in the second part ofmy introduction abriefsurvey ofhis general views concerning the activities ofthat period.

What has been my major concern in the present study is rather themanner in which the French, from the ancien rgime to the counter-

revolutionary period, interpreted Humes very popular history ofthose cru-

cial English events. That the French misinterpretedthe Scottish historian in

many instances is, ofcourse, entirely possible, but I have not insisted on this

point. Influence thrives on illusion as easily as on truth. It is the image

whether faithful or distortedthat transmits influence. It will be seen thatHumes version ofEnglish history projected at first against the backgroundofpre-revolutionary politics a number ofblurred and even contradictoryimages. Later, however, the continental focus ofinterpretation sharpenedacutely as the urgency ofcontemporary events compelled the Scottish his-

torians various French readers to unify more militantly theirpolitical views.

II

When, inhisHistoryoftheStuarts, Hume cameto considerthescholarlymeritsofhispredecessorClarendon, he gaveexpressiontoasentiment


15/240

Int roduc t ion

xv

Int roduc t ion

3. DavidHume, TheHistoryofEngland, London, 180810, VIII. 414. Fur-therreferencesinthissectiontoTheHistoryofEnglandwillbeplacedwithinparen-thesesinthetextitself.

whichhemighteasilyhaveallowed, Ithink, tobequiteproperlyapplied

tohimself. TheentertainingClarendoninhismostcandidhistoryof

theGreatRebellionis, Humetellsus, morepartialinappearancethan

inreality;forthoughheseemsperpetuallyanxioustoapologizefortheKing, hisapologiesareoftenwell grounded.3

Intheseventeen-fiftieswhenHume composedhisHistoryoftheStu-

artsitwas clearlyneitherfashionablenorprofitabletoapologizeforKingCharles. TheWhig party, Humetellsus, had, fora courseofnearlysev-entyyears, enjoyedthewholeauthorityofgovernment. Insomeparticu-

lars the state had not sufferedasa result. But history, certainly, hadsufferedandtruthhadsuffered. Thebiasedwritingsofsuchapologistsas

Ra

pin-Th

oyra

s,L

ock

e,an

dSi

dn

eywer

eprai

sedan

dpr

opa

gat

eda

si

fth

eyequalledthemost celebrated compositionsofantiquity. Andforgetting,

Hume complains, thataregardtoliberty, thoughalaudablepassion,ought commonlytobesubordinatetoareverenceforestablished gov-ernment, theprevailing factionhas celebratedonlythepartisansofthe

former, whopursuedastheirobjecttheperfectionof civilsociety, and

hasextolledthemattheexpenseoftheirantagonists, whomaintainedthosemaximsthatareessentialtoitsveryexistence(IX. 524). Libertyis

a goodandnobleprinciplebutithasitsdangersandifonehasto choose,itissurelymuchbetterforhumansocietytobedeprivedoflibertythantobedestituteof government(VII. 12526). Humealsoobservesthatextremesofallkindsinthesemattersaretobeavoided;truthand cer-

taintyaremostlikelytobemetwithonmiddle ground. Thereislittle

doubtthatHumehopedhisownhistorywouldbeseenasbrilliantlyim-

partial. Infact, hemayevenhavebelievedthathewould, bysomemira-cle, pleaseallfactionswithhismoderateopinions.

AshesetabouthisattackonthefortressofWhig dogma, Hume

madepersistentandunwavering useofonefavouriteweapon:his con-traryand, manythought, perverseviewofwhattheEnglish constitu-

tionwaslikebeforetheaccessionoftheStuartkings. Thepartisansof

libertywereinthehabitofaffirming thattheEnglish constitution, longbefore the settlement of 1688, was a regular plan of liberty.They

heapedabuseonJamesIandCharlesIasusurpersandinnovatorsinthe

hatedartsofdespotism. Butwhataparadox inhumanaffairsitis, Hume

objected, thatHenryVIIIshouldhavebeenalmostadoredinhislifetime


16/240

xvi

Int roduc t ion

andhismemoryberespected, whileCharlesIshould, bythesamepeo-

ple, atno greaterdistancethana century, havebeenledtoapublic andignominiousexecution, andhisnamebeeverafterpursuedbyfalsehood

andbyobloquy!(X. 205, noteFtovol. VIII.)Humefoundasimilarpara-dox inWhig estimatesofElizabethsreign. Howeverdifferentitmayhave

beeninotherparticulars, the governmentofEnglandunderElizabethbore, withrespecttothequestionofliberty, adistinctresemblancetothatoftheeighteenth-centuryTurks(VI. 414). UnderElizabeththelegislative

powerofParliamentwasamereillusion, thelibertyofthesubjectnonex-

istent. Andyet, Humeadds, theWhigshavelong indulgedtheirpreju-

dicesagainsttheStuartsbybestowing unboundedpanegyricsonthe

virt

uean

dwi

sdomofthat

Queen

.Th

eyha

veeven

been

soextr

emel

yi

g-

norantofherreignastopraiseherforaqualitywhich, ofallothers, she

wastheleastpossessedof;atenderregardforthe constitution, anda con-cernforthelibertiesandprivilegesofherpeople(VI. 403).

Thepopularparty, ontheotherhand, exclaimed constantlyagainst

thearbitraryprinciplesofCharlesI. Thiswasyetanotherparadox, tobesure, foronemayventuretoassert,Humetellsus, thatthe greatesten-emiesofthisPrincewillnotfind, inthelong lineofhispredecessors,fromthe conquesttohistime, anyoneking, exceptperhapshisfather,whoseadministrationwasnotmorearbitraryandlesslegal, orwhose con-

duct couldhavebeenrecommendedtohimbythepopularpartythem-selves, asamodel, inthisparticular, forhis government(X. 205, noteF

tovol. VIII).

Wearenottobelieve, however, thatHumelookedbackwithfond

regrettothedaysoftheTudorsorStuarts. Thiswouldbemissing theen-

tirepointheattemptedtomake. No, theeighteenth-centuryEnglishhad

noreason, following theexampleoftheirancestors, tobeinlovewith

thepictureofabsolutemonarchyortoprefertheunlimitedauthorityoftheprinceandhisunboundedprerogativestothatnobleliberty, thatsweetequality, andthathappysecurity, bywhichtheyareatpresentdis-

tinguished above all nations in the universe (VI. 42930). But the

eighteenth-centuryEnglishdidhaveoneobligationatleastastheylookedbackontheirownpoliticalhistory:thiswasthedutytoapproachpasteventswithapropersenseofperspective. TheactivitiesoftheStuartkings, thoughtheymightappeararbitraryandillegaltoEnglishmenin

theseventeen-fifties, could, ifjudgedaccording totheprinciplesandpracticesofthetimesinwhichtheywere carriedout, admitofsomeapol-ogy.Afterall, mostofthemodernlibertieswere, inthedaysoftheStu-

arts, and toan even greater extent during theTudor period, totally


17/240

Int roduc t ion

xvii

Int roduc t ion

unknownanddeemedeverywheretobeincompatiblewithall good gov-ernment. Itseemsunreasonable,Humemaintained, tojudgeofthemeasuresembracedduring oneperiod, bythemaximswhichprevailin

another(VII. 204).Hume clearly felt that he had achieved this just sense ofperspective

and the result is that he made every effort while dealing with the civil-war

period to understand and forgive the policies of James I and Charles I.Whether he also understood and forgave with equal sympathy and justice

the policies oftheir opponents has remained, however, a matter ofmuch

heated debate ever since the first volume ofhis Stuartsappeared in 1754.

ForHumethemoralissuesofthe casearenotsimplified, moreover,

byth

efa

ct

that

what

wer

etra

diti

onall

ydescri

beda

sth

ema

jor

vi

cesoftheseearlyStuarts couldequallywellbeviewedasill-timedbuthonest

virtues. Thesewerenotthe grandervirtues, tobesure, buttheevery-dayvirtuesofsincerity, integrity, and conviction. Thesekingswerenotgreat

menbuttheyweregoodmen. Inallhistory, forexample, itwouldbedif-

ficulttofindareignlessillustrious, yetmoreunspottedandunblem-ished, thanthatofJames(VI. 662). PerhapsJameserredoccasionallyinforgetting toaskhimselfthequestionWhatisbest?Thisisbecausehebe-lievedinallpietythatthequestionWhatisestablished?wasmoreimportant.HumehasnodoubtsaboutwhatwasestablishedwhenJames cametothe

Englishthrone. Everyoneacceptedinthosetimesthedoctrineofblind

andunlimitedpassiveobediencetotheprince. Undernopretencehaditeverbeenseenaslawfulforsubjectstodepartfromorinfringethatdoctrine. So completelyhadtheseprinciplesprevailedthat, during the

reignsofElizabethandherpredecessors, opposition tothemwas re-gardedasthemostflagrantseditionnotonlybythemonarchbutbythe

peopleaswell. JamesIhadthusinheritedanabsolutethrone. Hispre-

decessorwas, forexample, allowedtohaveadivineright;wasnotJamesIstitlequiteplainlythesameasthatofhispredecessor?Wasitnotnat-

uralforhimtotakethe governmentashefounditandtopursuethe

long-applaudedmeasuresofthepopularElizabeth?Perhaps, Humeadds,butitissomething ofanafterthought, Jamesshouldhaverealizedthathis

characterandhis circumstances couldnotsupportsoextensiveanau-

thority. Infacthismajordifficultiesarose chieflyfromthese circumstances

whichhadsufferedduring hisreignaradicaltransformation. Partlyasa

resultofthe changing economic situation, partlyasaresultofthein-creaseinknowledge, anewspiritoflibertywasbornatthistimeandspreadrapidlyundertheshelterofpuritanicalabsurditiesthattheo-

logicalplaguewhichhadsosuddenlyandinexplicablyinfestedthepeo-


18/240

xviii

Int roduc t ion

ple. Theresultsweredisastroustoallhopesforstable government, since

thereligiousspirit, whenitmingleswithfaction, containsinit, ourscep-

ticalhistorianbelieved, something supernaturalandunaccountable

(VI. 569). Ordinaryhumanprudence, theusualtrustin causeandeffectisbaffledbyitandtheoperationofeverymotivewhichnormallyinflu-enceshumansocietyfails(VII. 171).

Nowthisspiritofreligionorratherofenthusiasm, uncontrolled, ob-stinate, anddangerous, violentlyinclinedthePuritanstoadoptrepubli-canprinciplesandtoformastrong attachmentto civilliberty. Thetwo

principlesarenearlyallied(VI. 473), andbythisprevalenceoffanati-

cisma gloomyandsullenlyindependentdispositionestablisheditself

a

mon

gth

epeopl

ewh

obeca

meani

mat

edwith

a

cont

empt

for

a

uth

orit

yandahatredforallotherreligionsandespeciallyforCatholicism. James,ofcourse, helpedmattersnotatallwhen, foressentiallyworthyreasons,

heattemptedto civilizethebarbaric austerityofthesectsbyinfusing asmalltinctureofceremonyand cheerfulnessintothisdarkspiritofde-

votion.Nor, alas, wasCharlessubsequentlymorefortunateinthe con-sequencesofhiseffortstoabatethepeoplesextremerageagainstpopery.Andyet, itmustbe confessed, Laudsinnovationsdeserveourpraise, for

pious ceremonies, howeverridiculoustheymayseemtoaphilosophicalmind, canbeveryadvantageoustotherudemultitudeandtendtomol-

lifythatfierceand gloomyspiritofdevotiontowhichtherudemultitude

issubject. EventheEnglishChurchmayjustlybethoughttoonakedand

unadorned, andstilltoapproachtooneartheabstractandspiritualreli-

gionofthePuritans(VII. 589). Laudandhisassociatesbyreviving afew

primitiveinstitutionsofthisnaturehad correctedtheerrorofthefirstreformers. ItistruethatLaudhadattemptedtointroducethefinearts

intoreligionnotwiththeenlargedsentimentsand coolreflectionofa

legislator, butwiththeintemperatezealofasectary(VII. 590). Thenetresultofhisactionwastoinflamethatreligiousfurywhichhemeantto

repress. Itis, however, sufficientforhisvindicationtoobserve, thathis

errorswerethemostexcusableofallthosewhichprevailedduring thatzealousperiod(loc. cit.). Indeed, whereasthe crudepoliticaladvantages

derivedbytheparliamentarypartyfromthejudicialmurderofthemag-

nanimousStrafford, oneofthemosteminentpersonagesthathasap-

peared inEngland (VII. 330, 356), could perhaps in some degree

palliatetheiniquityofthesentencepronouncedagainsthim, theexecu-tionofEnglandsoldinfirmprelate, ontheotherhand, canbeascribed

tonothing butvengeanceandbigotry in thosesevere religionists, by

whomtheParliamentwasentirely governed(VII. 587).


19/240

Int roduc t ion

xix

Int roduc t ion

Mainly as a result of his worldly distaste for enthusiasm, Hume,we see, held a rather low opinion of the various parliamentary heroes.Was not Parliament afterall the aggressor during this unhappy period of

civil discord? The Stuart kings had fought only a defensive campaignforced on them by the fact that Parliament had unilaterally seen fit to

change the rules of the game and had innovated violently in constitu-

tional matters. All things considered, Hume readily admitted that many

constitutions in the history of human affairs and none more than the

British have in fact been improved by such violent innovations. He feltcompelled to insist, nevertheless, that the praise bestowed on those pa-

triots to whom the nation has been indebted for its privileges, ought to

be gi

ven

with

somer

eser

ve,an

d sur

el

y with

out th

el

ea

st ran

cour a

gain

st

those who adhered to the ancient constitution (VI. 404). The motivationof these patriots is suspect. Hume notes, for example, that the untimelyend ofHampden leaves doubtful and uncertain whether his conduct was

founded in a love ofpower ora zeal for liberty. With Cromwell, ofcourse,

there is no such doubt and uncertainty. Hume sees him as a fanatical,ambitious hypocrite; an artful and audacious conspirator who from thebeginning engaged in his crimes from the prospect ofsovereign power,

a temptation, Hume adds, which is, in general, irresistible to human na-

ture (VII. 572). Hume admits, however, that Cromwell, by making some

good use of the authority he had attained by fraud and violence, has

lessened, if not overpowered, our detestation of his enormities, by ouradmiration ofhis success and of his genius (loc. cit.).

More repelled than amused by the cant, mystical jargon,

hypocrisy, fury, and fanaticism of the Parliamentarians, Hume

found himself unable to take too seriously patriotic attempts to dignify

the Civil War with causes more considerable or noble than bigotry and

theological zeal. Ofcourse the Royalists too were zealots but as they wereat the same time maintaining the established constitution, in state as well

as church, they had an object which was natural, and which might pro-

duce the greatest passion, even without any considerable mixture ofthe-ological fervour (X. 183, note DD to vol. VII). The opponents ofCharles

did not fight for liberty; they fought for ignorant and fanatical triviali-

ties. The generality ofthe nation, Hume writes, could never have flownout into such fury in order to obtain new privileges and acquire greater

liberty than they and their ancestors had ever been acquainted with.Their fathers had been entirely satisfied with the government ofEliza-beth: why should they have been thrown into such extreme rage againstCharles, who, from the beginning of his reign, wished only to maintain


20/240

xx

Int roduc t ion

such a government? And why not, at least, compound matters with him,when by all his laws, it appeared that he had agreed to depart from it? Es-

pecially, as he had put it entirely out of his power to retract that resolu-

tion (loc. cit.).Perhaps the revolution, up to a certain point and despite its trivial

origins, did achieve some positive good. During the first period of the

Long Parliaments operations, if we except the cruel iniquity of Straf-fords attainder, the merits ofits transactions may be judged to outweighits mistakes and even entitle those measures which remedied abuses andredressed grievances to the praise of all lovers of liberty (VII. 36I).

Hume even confesses a willingness at one point to admit that a few old

eggsha

dt

o be br

ok

en t

o mak

eth

en

ew omel

ett

e. Such i

sth

e pri

ce ofprogress, and if the means used to obtain these salutary results savouroften ofartifice and violence it is to be considered, that revolutions of

government cannot be effected by the mere force ofargument and rea-soning; and that factions, being once excited, men can neither so firmly

regulate the tempers of others, nor their own, as to ensure themselves

against all exorbitances (VII. 362). But, while exalting their own au-

thority and diminishing the kings, the patriots went too far and totallysubverted the constitution. They forgot that authority as well as liberty is

requisite to government and is even requisite to the support ofliberty it-self, by maintaining the laws which can alone regulate and protect it (VII.406). Soon, not a limitation but a total abolition ofmonarchical author-ity appeared as the true aim of these sanctified hypocrites. Their vio-

lence disgraced the cause ofliberty and was injurious to the nation: It is

seldom, Hume concluded, that the people gain any thing by revolu-

tions in government; because the new settlement, jealous and insecure,must commonly be supported with more expense and severity than the

old: but on no occasion was the truth of this maxim more sensibly felt,than in the present situation of England. Complaints against the op-

pression of ship-money, against the tyranny of the Star Chamber, had

roused the people to arms: and having gained a complete victory over

the crown, they found themselves loaded with a multiplicity oftaxes, for-merly unknown; and scarcely an appearance oflaw and liberty remainedin the administration (VIII. 102).

So greatwerethealterationsimposedforciblyonthe constitution

inthislaterperiodthatHumefeelsCharlesIwasessentiallyrightinsay-ing, thathehadbeenmoreanenemytohispeoplebythese concessions,couldhehavepreventedthem, thanbyanyotheractionofhislife(VIII.110). Having violentlypulledthe governmenttopieces, thepatriotsof


21/240

Int roduc t ion

xxi

Int roduc t ion

coursethoughtupschemesforestablishing aperfectrepublic initsplace,

partsofwhich, Humeobserves, wereplausiblebutotherpartsweretoo

perfectforhumannature(VIII. 122, 412). Suchschemeswhenheldby

meninpoweraredangerous. Dangerousalsowasthe currentdoctrineofpopularsovereignty. Thatthepeoplearetheoriginofalljustpowerisa

principlewhich, Humeasserts, isnobleinitself, andseemsspecious, butisbeliedbyallhistoryandexperience(VIII. 124).

Finally, theheightofalliniquityandfanaticalextravagance(VIII.123), thepublic trialandexecutionofEnglands legalsovereign, re-mainedtobeaddedtothelistofparliamentary crimes. Itis clearfromthe

HistorythattheKingsbehaviourduring thelastscenesofhislife com-

man

dedHumes gr

eat

est

a

dmirati

on

. Our

hi

st

orian

n

ot

esthat

Charl

esinallappearancesbeforehisjudgesneverforgothisparteitherasa

princeorasaman(VIII. 131). Thepeopletoo, thoughundertherodof lawless unlimited power, could not forbear, with the most ardentprayers, pouring forththeirwishesforhispreservation(VIII. 132). How

theyregrettedtheblindfurywithwhichtheyhadearlierrejectedtheirking!Theenormityofthetrialwasexclaimedagainstbythe general

voiceofreasonandhumanity;andallmen, underwhateverformofgov-ernmenttheywereborn, rejectedthisexample, astheutmosteffortof

undisguisedusurpation, andthemostheinousinsultonlawandjustice

(VIII. 133).

IshallnotdwellfurtheronHumesaccountofthe grief, indigna-

tion, andastonishmentwhichstruckthewholenationassoonasthenews

ofCharlesIsexecution, or ratherhismurder, reached thenation.

Humesversionoftheseeventswillbeencounteredwithperhapsmore

thansufficientfrequencyinthevariousFrench counter-revolutionary

writingsdealtwithlaterinthisstudy.

TheEnglishsoonrealizedthattheyhadmurderedanhonourableandhonestking, whowas, moreover, innocentofthe crimeswithwhich

hewas charged. Andthough,Humeadds, someviolationsofthePeti-

tionofRightmayperhapsbeimputedtohim;thesearemoretobeas-cribedtothenecessityofhissituation, andtothelofty ideasof royal

prerogative, which, fromformerestablishedprecedents, hehadimbibed,

thantoanyfailureintheintegrityofhisprinciples(VIII. 142). Norisitevenpossibletosaythatwithalittlemoretacthere, alittlemoreimagi-

nationthere, Charles couldhaveperhapsavoidedthisfatal clashwithPar-liament. Evenlong aftertheevent, whenitis commonlyasimplematter

tosortouttheerrorsofbygonequarrels, oneisatalosstodetermine

what courseCharles, inhis circumstances, couldhavefollowedtomain-


22/240

xxii

Int roduc t ion

taintheauthorityoftheCrownandpreservethepeaceofthenation.

HadCharlesbeenbornanabsoluteprince, hishumanityand goodsensewouldhaverenderedhisreignhappyandhismemoryprecious. If

theEnglish constitutionandtheextentofprerogativehadbeeninhisdayquitefixedand certain, hisintegritywouldhavemadehimregardassacred the boundaries of that constitution. Unhappily, Hume con-

cludes, hisfatethrewhimintoaperiodwhentheprecedentsofmanyfor-merreignssavouredstronglyofarbitrarypower, andthe geniusofthe

peopleranviolentlytowardsliberty(VIII. 141).

Humedreworatleastseemedtodrawvariouslessonsfromthe

greateventsofthisperiod, andthesetooweshallleaveuntiltheyare

point

edout

a

gain

byth

eFr

en

ch

tra

diti

onali

st

swh

oopposed,al

most

a

centuryandahalflater, whatthey consideredtobeextraordinarilysimi-lar tendenciesandevents in theirown country. Oneof these lessons

whichwastostrikewithespecially greatforcea goodmanydisillusionedFrenchmennotlong after1789 neverthelessdeservesmentionhere. Itis,ineffect, thattheEnglishrevolutionhadbeenaperniciousactoffolly, awastedventure, andthatperhapsallsimilarrevolutionsare condemnedtoalikefate. TheKing onceoutoftheway, theEnglishrevolutionaryfac-

tionssetabouteliminating oneanotherinanendlessstriving for greaterand greatersanctity.Intheend, fromthetooeagerpursuitofliberty,

thenationfellintothemostabjectservitude. Toemphasizethepoint,

Hume concludedhis chapterimmediatelypreceding thatwhichisde-votedtoCromwellwiththefollowing warning:Byrecent, aswellasallan-

cient, example, itwasbecomeevidentthatillegalviolence, withwhatever

pretencesitmaybe covered, andwhateverobjectitmaypursue, mustin-evitablyendatlastinthearbitraryanddespotic governmentofasingle

person(VIII. 240).


23/240

DavidHume


24/240


25/240

1

1. SeeE. C. Mossner, TheLifeofDavidHume(Nelson), 1954, pp. 441506.

I

Before1789

1

RoyalPanegyrics

In1763 DavidHumearrivedinParistotakeupdutieswithLord

Hertford, BritainsfirstpeacetimeambassadortoFrancesincethe

outbreakoftheSevenYearsWar. AuthorofafamousHistoryoftheStuarts, DavidHume, frequentlyhailedastheEnglishTacitus,

was givenanofficialandpersonalwelcomesuchasfewforeignau-

thorshaveeverreceivedintheFrench capital.

ThestoryofFrancesadulationistoowellknowntoneed

retelling here,1 althoughoneexampleofitisparticularlyrelevant

toourpurpose. LetusreadHumesownaccountofhispresenta-

tion

atVe

r

saill

esin1763

t

ot

he child

r

enoft

heDa

uphin,

t

hr

eefu-

turekingsofFrance:

Thescenewhichpassedtodayreallypleasedmewithoutembar-

rassing me. IattendedLordHertfordtoVersaillesinordertobepresentedtotheDauphinessandtheyoung Princes, theonlypart

oftheroyalfamilywhomwehadnotyetseen. WhenIwaspresented

totheDucdeBerry, achildoftenyearsofage, hesaidtome, Mon-sieur, youaremuchadmiredinthiscountry;yournameisverywell-

known;anditiswith greatpleasurethatIwelcomeyou.Immedi-atelyuponwhichhisbrothertheComtedeProvence, whoistwo


26/240

2

Before1789

2. DavidHumetoAlexanderWedderburn, fromParis, 23 November1763,inTheLettersofDavidHume, ed. J. Y. T. Greig, Oxford, 1932, I. 41415.

years younger, advanced tomeand said with greatpresenceofmind, Monsieur, youhavebeenlong andimpatientlyexpectedinthis country:I countonhaving muchenjoymentwhenIamabletor

ea

dyour

finehis

t

or

y.But

what

ismo

r

er

emarka

ble, whenwewe

r

ecarriedtomakeourbowstotheComtedArtois, whoisaboutfiveyearsofage, andtoayoung Madameofbetweentwoandthree, theinfantprincelikewiseadvancedtomeinordertomakemehisha-rangue, inwhich, thoughitwasnotverydistinct, Iheardhimmum-blethewordHistoire, andsomeothertermsofpanegyric. Withhimendedthe civilitiesoftheroyalfamilyofFrancetowardsme;andImaysayitdidnotendtilltheirpowerofspeechfailedthem:forthePrincesswastooyoung tobeabletoarticulatea compliment.2

DavidHume, wesee, wasmerelyflattered. Atthetime, hecouldnothaveknowntheextenttowhicheventsdescribedsoskil-fullyinhisHistorywouldonedayassumeanewandurgentmean-ing inthepoliticallifeoftheFrenchnation. Nor couldhehaveknownthat, notquitethirtyyearslater, theeldestofthese charm-

ing children, condemnedtodiebythewillofthatsamenation,wouldoncemoretakeupthefamousMonsieurHumes greatworkaspartofhislastsearching meditations.

2

TheScienceandArtofEnglishHistory

The quite unusual popularity of Humes History ofEngland ineighteenth-centuryFrancerequiresperhapssomepreliminary gen-

eralexplanation. HisPoliticalDiscoursesandPhilosophicalEssaysin-troducedonthe continentseveralyearsearlierhadwonhimlittlemorethantheunflatteringlymild contemptofthedevoutandtheintense but largely uncomprehending praise of a number of

philosophes andsalonnires. Originalityinepistemologicalwritings

hasrarely givenanyphilosophera greatpopu laraudience. The


27/240


28/240

4

Before1789

5. Thoriedupouvoirpolitiqueetreligieuxdanslasocitcivile, dmontreparleraisonnementetparlhistoire(1796);inOeuvresdeM.deBonald, Paris, 1843, XIII. 14.

6. Ibid., XIII. 17.

7. Etudesurlasouverainet(179496);inOeuvrescompltesdeJ.deMaistre,

Lyon, 1884, I. 426.8. Sancesdescolesnormales, Paris, 1800, I. 78;II. 219, 441.

9. Discourssurlasciencesociale,inMmoiresdelInstitutNationaldesSci-encesetArts, III. 13.

torytohisopinions.5 DeBonaldaddsthatgeneralorabstractpropositionsrelating tosociety, thatistoman, applyonlythroughhistory, ortheactionsofmaninsociety.6

Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonalds spiritualally in thecounter-revolution, agreed:Historyisappliedpolitics, itsonlyvalidform;andasinphysics, ahundredvolumesofspeculativethe-

ory canbereducedtonothing byasingleexperiment, similarly,inpoliticalscience, nosystem canbeacceptedifitisnottheprob-

able corollary, moreorless, ofwell-attestedfacts.7

TheidologueVolneyspeaksofhistoryasthephysiologicalsci-enceof governmentsandasaseriesofexperiments that thehumanraceconductsonitself,thepurposeofwhichistofinda

genealogicalorderof causeandeffect, fromwhichtodeduceatheoryofrulesandprinciplesappropriateforthe guidanceofbothindividualsandnationstoward goalsofsurvivaloradvancement.8

Historyatitsbestwasthusapleasantlydisguisedformofso-

cialsciencelong beforeCambacrstriumphantlyproclaimedtotheInstitutNationalon25 February1798 theadventofthatnew

saviour:Legislators, philosophers, jurisconsults, theageofsocialsciencehasarrived, and, wemightadd, thatoftruephilosophy.9

Ishallhaveoccasionto comebacktothisviewaswellastoanim-

portantbodyofeighteenth-centurythoughtwhichviolentlydis-

agreedwithit. ForthemomentitmightbeworthwhiletoquoteHumesownsimilarviewofhistoryspurposeasexpressedintheEnquiryconcerningHumanUnderstanding(1748):

Its chiefuseisonlytodiscoverthe constantanduniversalprinci-plesofhumannature, byshowing meninallvarietiesof circum-stancesandsituations, andfurnishing uswithmaterials, fromwhich


29/240

5

TheScienceand Ar t ofEngl ishHis tory

10. EssaysMoral, PoliticalandLiterary,byDavidHume, ed. T. H. GreenandT. H. Grose, London, 1875, II. 68.

11. GazettelittrairedelEurope, February1766, p. 382.

12. Juneissue, p. 54.

wemayformourobservations, andbecomeacquaintedwiththeregularspringsofhumanactionandbehaviour. Theserecordsofwars, intrigues, factions, andrevolutions, aresomany collectionsof

experi

ment

s, bywhich

t

hepoliti

cia

nor

moral

phil

osopher

fixest

heprinciplesofhisscience;inthesamemannerasthephysicianornaturalphilosopherbecomesacquaintedwiththenatureofplants,minerals, andotherexternalobjects, bytheexperiments, whichheforms concerning them. Noraretheearth, water, andotherele-ments, examinedbyAristotle, andHippocrates, moreliketothose,whichatpresentlieunderourobservation, thanthemen, describedbyPolybiusandTacitus, aretothose, whonow governtheworld.10

ItshouldalsobenotedthatHumesearlierwritingsinphi-

losophyandeconomics couldonlyaddtohispotentialsuccessand

statureasanhistorianintheeyesoftheeighteenth-centuryreader.History, asweknow, hadtobephilosophicallhistoireraisonne

as opposed to lhistoire simple. Only the profound thinker wasjudgedworthyofattempting itandsuchnon-professionalsasSmol-lettdidlittlemorethanangertheFrenchwiththeiramateurish

andpretentiousimitations. HowcouldMr. Smolletttakeitintohishead,indignantlywritesChastellux in1766, towritehisHis-toryatthesametimeasMr. Humeiswriting his!Thematchisnotequal. . . .11 Thathistoryoughttobewrittenonlybymenpro-foundlyversedinthescienceofpoliticsisthe corresponding sen-timentexpressedinthefashionableMercuredeFranceof1763.12

Torecapitulate, then, historyintheeighteenth centurywasaverypopularliterary genre, vestedalsowithanalmostsacredfunc-

tion;andHumewasjudgedtobeofasufficientlyreflectiveturnofmindtoputasoulintoitsotherwisedeadbones.

AnotherexplanationofHumes greatsuccessinthisfieldliesundoubtedlyinthefactthathehad chosentowriteahistoryof

theEnglishnationatatimewhenastrangeanglomaniawasatits

heightonthe continent. FrenchinterestinallthingsEnglishfrom


30/240

6

Before1789

13. EdwardGibbon, Autobiography, EverymansLibrary, p. 114.

14. D.-J. Garat, Mmoireshistoriquessurle18esicleetsurM.Suard, Paris,1821, I. 72.

15. JanuaryMarch1765, p. 232.

jurystojockeys, fromfist-fightsto gloriousnavalbattles, despitethefrequentlyinanesacrificeofnationalprideinvolved, hardly

subsided, evenduring theSevenYearsWar. Gibbontellsofhiswel-

comeinParisin1763 andspeaksofhowEnglishopinions, fash-ions, even gameswereadoptedinFranceatthistimeandofhoweveryEnglishmanwasviewedasabornpatriotandphilosopher.13

Garat givesanaccountofthephenomenonthat conveysperhapsaspecialmeaning toreadersofourownspaceage:

AfterVoltairepublishedhisLettersontheEnglishandMontesquieuhi

st

wo cha

pt

er

softh

eEspritd

esLois, a

stran

gea

ppetit

edevel

opedinFranceforknowing everything thathappenedormighthappen,ormightbethought, spokenordreamedofinEngland. Ifatele-scopelikeHerschelsandalistening devicewithsimilarrangehadexistedatthetime, thesewouldhavebeenpointedatEnglandmoreoftenthanatthemoonandtheotherheavenlybodies. Thisen-thusiasmwasasmuchamatterofdeeplyreasonedadmiration, asitwasakindofcraze.14

BritishnationalhistorynaturallyreapedthebenefitsofthecurrentmaniaandHumeisbutthefirstinrankofmanyauthorsonthesubjectwhowerereadwidelyinFranceatthistime. In1765theBibliothquedesSciencesetdesBeaux-Arts, seeking anappropriatemetaphortodescribethe greatnumberofrecentpublicationsinthefieldofEnglishhistory, felt compelledtoexclaim:HistoriesofEnglandarepouring downonus!15

Anglomania, however, isnotasufficientexplanationofthistorrent. OnemustalsobearinmindthefactthatEnglishhistory,perse, wasjudgedtobepeculiarlysuperiortoallothermodernna-

tionalhistories, bothasanartistic theme-sourceandasascientificrepository. Humehimselfhadwrittento theAbbLeBlanc in


31/240

7


16. Greig, op. cit., I. 193.

17. See, forexample, hislettertotheMarquiseDuDeffand, 20 June1764,inVoltairesCorrespondence, ed. Besterman, D11939.

18. Ibid., 28 April1769;Best.D15614.

1754 thatheesteemedtheStuartperiodbothforsignaleventsandextraordinary characterstobethemostinteresting inmod-

ern history.16 Voltaire, who frequently complainedof the in-

sipidness ofFrenchhistoryandwonderedevenifitwereworthwriting,17 agreedthatthesuperiorityofEnglishevents gaveHumeanadvantageinthefield. Writing in1769 toGabriel-HenriGail-

lard, heexpressedthefollowing bittersentimentsonthesubject:

I canseenothing, inshort, fromthetimeofSaintLouistoHenriIV.Thatiswhythe compilationsofFrenchhistoryboreeveryonetodeath, myselfincluded. DavidHumehasa greatadvantageovertheabbVellyandhisilk, becausehehaswrittenthehistoryoftheEn-glish, and in France noone hasever written the history of theFrench. EveryhusbandmanofmeansinEnglandisentirelyfamiliarwiththatnations constitutionandkeepsa copyofMagnaCartainhishome. Asforourhistory, itismadeupofpetty courtsquabbles,greatbattleslost, smallbattleswon, andlettresdecachet. Wereitnotfor five or six famous assassinations, and especially the SaintBartholomewsDaymassacre, nothing couldsurpassusininsipidity.

Not

et

oot

hat

weha

venever

inven

t

eda

nyt

hing;

a

nd, finall

y,tr

ut

ht

otell, weexistintheeyesofEuropeonlyinthecenturyofLouisXIV.Imsorry, butthatishowitis.18

Lateroninthe century, Soulavie, commenting onasimilarviewof thedullnessof Frenchhistorythis timeexpressedbyRousseaushowedtowhatextentthequestionofwhethertheirsubjecttrulyexistedornothadbecomeamatterofseriouscon-

cerntoFrenchhistorians. His conclusionswere, however, ratherhopeful:Our circumstances . . . havebeensufficientlyvaried, andhuman passions have exercised their power in our midst with

enoughenergyandeffecttoprovideinterestandinstructionfor

everyageandeverynation. However, evenifwehavesomanylit-


32/240

8

Before1789

19. Jean-LouisGiraudSoulavie, Traitdelacompositionetdeltudedelhistoire,

1792, p. 64.20. LAngleterreinstruisantlaFrance, Londres, 1793, p. 70.

21. August1764, V. 810. Seealsoibid., June1760, IV. 34.

22. Considrationssurlespritetlesmoeurs, Londres, 1787, pp. 36465.

erarymasterpiecesinevery genre, wearestilllacking ahistorythatwilldohonourtoFrance.19

Weseethatanationshistory, tobeinteresting andsignifi-

cant, hadtopresentthe greatestpossiblevarietyofhumansocialsituations;first, becausesuchvarietywasaestheticallynecessaryinaliterary compositionand, second, becausethe greaterthenum-

berofeventspermutatedand combined, the greatertheresultinginformationaboutmansmoralnature. Englishhistorybestful-

filled both of these requirementsaccording to ananonymouscounter-revolutionaryworkof1793:Thehistoryofnations, andparticularlythatofGreatBritain, instructsandinterestsbytheva-rietyofitstableaux andevents;itisinthatfaithfulmirrorthatoneseesreflectedtheinterplayofeverypassionthatstirsthehumanheart.20 TheJournalEncyclopdiquethirtyyearsearlierhadmadethesamepoint:. . . nonationoffersmorevariedscenes, charactersmorediverseorillustrious;nohistoryprovidesaricherormoresweeping backgroundof instruction, amazementandpleasurethanthehistoryofGreatBritain. . . . ;whatotherEuropeanpeople

haswitnessedmorefrequentalterationinitsmanners, lawsandgovernment?21

Perhapstheonlyserious competitortoEnglishhistorywas, ascouldwellbeexpectedinthisneo-classicalage, thatofthean-

cients. Snac deMeilhanin1787 expressedhisopinionontheprobleminthefollowing manner:Fewmodernhistorians canbeplacedside-by-sidewithThucydides, Xenophon, Sallust, Livy, and,especially, Tacitus:HumeandRobertsonappeartohavefollowed

most closely in their footsteps; perhaps they would have evencaughtupwiththemhadtheywrittenintheirlanguageandbeenprovidedwithequallyinteresting scenestodepict.22 MmedeStal,writing someyearslater, agreedandalsoexplainedthesuperiority

oftheancientsinhistorybythesuperiorityoftheirsubjectmatter:


33/240

9


23. DelAllemagne; inOeuvrescompltesdeMmeLaBaronnedeStal, publiesparsonfils, Paris, 182021, XI. 113.

24. LaQuotidienne, No. 39, 8 February1826.

Thehistoriansofantiquityremainunsurpassedbecausenootherperiodinhistoryhaswitnessedsuperiormenplaysuchinfluentialrlesintheaffairsoftheir country.Englishhistorians, however,

werenextinrank:ItisthenationinEnglandthatpossesses great-ness, moresoeventhananyparticularindividual;thatiswhyhis-

torianstherearelessdramatic butmorephilosophicalthantheancients.23

Otheropinionsexpressedduring the firstdecadesof thenineteenth centurysuggestthatthisviewofEnglishnationalhis-torystillwidelyprevailed. Wereadthefollowing observation, forexample, inLaQuotidienneof1826:Ofallmodernnationalhis-tories, themostfascinating isunquestionablythehistoryofEn-

gland:asinadrama, suspense constantlyincreases, calamitiesand

suddenshiftsoffortuneareateverymomentrenewed.24

We see how important this largely eighteenth-century concept

ofthe artofhistory still was in 1826not just the art ofthe individ-ual historian, but the dramatic art, as it were, ofa nations own pastin its unfolding.The great variety ofevents inEnglish history and the

order in which these had occurred seemed to permit a perfect fu-sion of both artistic and scientific elements in one literary genre.The modern world had, quite plainly, no greater ormore significantstory to tell. This view was to change only aftera somewhat delayed

realization came to Europe that the events ofthe French revolutionhad suddenly presented historians with an even greater story.

Weshallinthe courseofthisstudyseethattherearemanyad-ditionalreasonswhichexplainwhyDavidHumesucceededsowell

ineighteenth-centuryFranceasanhistorian. Theseareofamoreparticularnatureandmore complex toanalyse. Generally, andper-hapstruisticallyspeaking, however, wemightinitiallyconcludethathis greatsuccesswastoalargeextentfoundedonthefactthathecouldhavechosennoothertopicmoresuitedtosatisfyatthesametimeboththepolitical curiosityandtheartistic interestsofmostFrenchreadersofhisday.


34/240

10

Before1789

25. Greig, op. cit., I. 193.

26. For further details on Humes French translations, see my DavidHumeandtheOfficialCensorshipoftheAncienRgime,FrenchStudies, 1958,XII. 23446.

27. MmoiresdelAbbMorellet, Paris, 1821, I. 92.28. Greig, op. cit., II. 348.

29. SeeOeuvresdeTurgotetdocumentsleconcernant, ed. G. Schelle, Paris,1913, I. 27. Turgotstranslationwasnotpublished.

3

JehovahAmongtheHebrews

Alreadyin1754, evenbeforetheEnglishpublicationofhisStuarts,HumehadintimatedtotheAbbLeBlanc, translatorofhismod-

eratelysuccessfulPoliticalDiscourses, thattheHistorywouldsucceed

wellinFrance.25 HumeproposedatthissametimethatLeBlancshouldalsotranslatetheHistoryandLeBlanc accepted, althoughhelaterfounditnecessaryto giveupthetranslation, whichwas

continuedbytheAbbPrvostandpublishedin1760.26 Thereisa gooddealofevidencetoshowthat, evenbeforethelong-delayed

appearanceofPrvoststranslation, impatientreadersinFrancehadturnedtotheoriginalEnglishversion. Morellettellsushow,imprisonedintheBastillein1760, hehadaskedMalesherbestobring him a copy ofTacitus and Humes History inEnglish.27

Chastellux the socialhistoriandeclared to friends thathe had

learnedEnglishonlytoreadHume;28 andTurgotatthistimefelttheStuartsimportantenoughtojustifyapersonaltranslation.29 Sev-

eralhundredpagesofexcerptsfromtheStuartsalsoappearedinvariousFrenchjournalsbefore1760. Additionalproofofsuchpre-translationsuccessisprovidedbytheresultsofasurveywhichI

carriedoutsomeyearsagointheDeltaseriesattheBibliothqueNationaleinParis. Outof240 privatelibrarysale cataloguesfromthepre-revolutionaryperiod chosen completelyatrandom, 109

listedHumeshistoricalwritings. Ofthese109, 12 includedver-sionsoftheStuartsinEnglishaswellasinFrench. Thiswork, infact, wasalreadywellenoughknowninFranceby1759 forHume


35/240

11

JehovahAmong theHebrews

30. Greig, op. cit., I. 3023.

31. Greig, op. cit., II. 36667.

to conveytohisfellow-historianRobertsoninMarchofthatyearthefacetiouswarning thatthelatterwouldfinditmoredifficulttothrusthimoutofhisplaceinParisthanhehadinLondon.30

OncePrvoststranslationwaspublishedin1760, pageafterpageofacclamatorynoticesappearedintheleading Frenchjour-

nals. Similareditorialattentionwas generouslyaccordedin1763and1765 toMmeBelotstranslationsoftheTudorsandthePlan-tagenets. During this time tooHume received inhis correspon-dence a great many tributes from distinguished continentalreaders. Aletterin1761 fromtheComtessedeBoufflersisex-tremeinitspraisebutquitesincere;partsofitareworthquotinghereasfairlytypicalofthereactionstoHumesStuartsamong thefashionableParisiannobility:

I cannotfindthewordsto conveytoyouwhatIfeelasIreadthiswork. Iammoved, carriedaway, andtheemotionit causesinmeissosustainedthatitbecomesinasensepainful. Mysoulisuplifted,myheartisfilledwithsentimentsofhumanityandbeneficence. . . .

Youare, Monsieur, amasterlypainter. Yourportrayalshaveagracefulness, a genuinenessandanenergythatsurpasswhateventheimaginationcanattain.

ButwhatexpressionsshallIemploytotellyouhowyourdivineimpartialityaffectsme?Iwouldhaveneedofyourowneloquencetoexpressmythoughtsfullyonthissubject. Intruth, itisasthoughIhavebeforemyeyestheworkofa celestialbeing, freedofallpas-sions, whoforthebenefitofmankindhasdeignedtowriteanac-countofrecentevents. . . . 31

SimilarreferencestoDavidHumeastheangeloftruth,thevoiceofpurereason,thevoiceofposterity,arenotuncommonatthistime. Rousseau, whowassoontowriteofHumeinadiffer-enttone, madeequallylaudatorystatementsinaletterofFebruary

1763 totheScottishphilosopher:Your grandperspectives, yourastonishing impartiality, your genius, wouldraiseyoutoomuchaboveordinarymortals, didnotthekindnessofyourheartbring


36/240

12

Before1789

32. Ibid., II. 382.

33. LettersofEminentPersonsaddressedtoDavidHume, ed. J. H. Burton, Ed-inburgh, 1849, p. 13.

34. Ibid., p. 275.35. Greig, SomeUnpublishedLetterstoDavidHume,Revuedelittrature

compare, 1932, XII. 830.

36. Annelittraire, 1763, III. 3940;seealsoibid., 1760, IV. 313.

youoncemoreneartothem. . . .32 Helvtiustoowrotein1763,bursting with enthusiasm for Humes impartial philosophicalspirit,33 andayearlaterthePrsidentdeBrosses, whojudgedthat

HumehadsurpassedevenTacitus, repeatedthesamesentiment:Youhavepaintedwithunparalleledimpartialityatruepictureofyour country, itsmanners, its characters, its government.34 Inan-

otherletterChastellux toldHumethathisnamehadbecomeasestimableintherepublic oflettersaswasthatofJehovahamongtheHebrews.35

Thewords impartialand impartiality seem tooccuralso innearlyeverypressreviewofHumesHistoryatthistime, whetheroftraditionalistorphilosophe inspiration. Frron, oneofVoltaires

greatestenemies, aftermaking theusual comparisonwithTacitus,affirmedthatHumewasthefirstEnglishauthorevertohavedonejusticetoournationandtotheministersofourreligionwhenhethoughtthatthetruthwasfavourabletothem.36 TheJour-nalEncyclopdiquepointedoutthatnohistorianoftheStuartpe-riodhadbeenimpartialbeforeHume. MostEnglishmenhad, like

Burnet, writtenaspaidpropagandistsoftheusurperWilliamofOrange. ForeignhistoriansoftheEnglishrevolutionhadnotsuc-

ceeded either. Some, like the Huguenot Rapin-Thoyras, wereblindedbytheprejudicesoftheirreligionandhadinterpreted

eventsonlyinthelightofanapologyforProtestantism. Others,likelePredOrlans, thoughnotunfavourabletotheCatholicside, hadshownaninadequateknowledgeoftheEnglishsystem

of government. Ithasbeensaid,thejournal goeson, andex-

periencehas confirmedthemaximonlytoooften, thatnationswouldbesupremelyhappyweretheygovernedbyphilosopherkings. Letusaddthathistorywillneverbewellwrittenexceptbyphilosopher


37/240

13

JehovahAmong theHebrews

37. June1760, IV. 36.

38. GazettelittrairedelEurope, 2 May1764, I. 193200;seealsoOeuvrescom-

pltesdeVoltaire, ed. Moland, XXV. 16973.

39. Humes greatreputationinhistorywas, of course, bynomeansre-strictedtoFrance. InItaly, forexample, suchmenasBeccaria, Algarotti, andGen-ovesiwerenolessflattering intheirpraise.

historians;thatistosaybymenwho, withoutregardtoany coun-

try, anyfaction, anysect, haveastheironlyambitiontowritethe

truth. Ourauthor comesvery closetothatmodel. . . .37

Voltaire, the most important historian ofthe day, praised Humeon much the same grounds in a long review published in 1764:

One canaddnothing tothefameofthisHistory, perhapsthebesteverwritteninanylanguage. . . .

Neverhasthepublic so clearlysensedthatonlyphilosophersshouldwritehistory. . . .Thephilosopherbelongstono country, tonofaction. Onewould

like

t

oseet

hehis

t

or

yoft

hewar

sbet

weenRomea

ndCart

ha

gewrit-

tenbyamanwhowasneitheraRomannoraCarthaginian. . . .. . . Mr. Hume, inhisHistory, seemsneitheraparliamentarian,

noraroyalist, noranAnglican, noraPresbyterian;wefindinhimonlythefair-mindedman. . . .Thefuryofpartieshasforalong timedeprivedEnglandofboth

a goodhistoryanda good government. WhataTorywrotewasde-niedbytheWhigs, themselves giventhelieinturnbytheTories.OnlyRapin-Thoyras, aforeigner, seemedtohavewrittenanimpar-

tialhistory;butthestainofprejudiceisyetvisibleeveninthetruthsthatThoyrasrecounts;whereasinthenewhistorianwefindamindthatrisesabovehismatter, onewhospeaksoffailings, errorsandbarbaritiesinthesamemannerthataphysicianspeaksofepidemicdisease.38

TheapparenttotalagreementofsuchunlikemenasVoltaire,Frron, andRousseauonthesubjectofHumesimpartialityshould

beenoughtoindicateinthisrespecttheunanimityofopinioninFrance. Since, however, manyofmylater conclusions concerningtheinfluenceoftheHumeimagemuststandorfallonthebasisofa carefulevaluationofthatimage, andsinceitisimportanttoshowthatthisviewofHumeshistorypersistsinFrance39 withafewno-


38/240

14

Before1789

40. Bibliothquedunhommedegot, Avignon, 1772, II. 17880. Seealsosim-ilaropinionsofCourtdeGbelinanddeTressan, inLeguidedelhistoire, ed. Jean-FranoisNedelaRochelle, Paris, 1803, I. 16162, 280.

tableexceptionsrightuptothetimeoftheRevolution, Imaybepermittedtolabourthispointalittlelonger.

DomLouis-MayeulChaudon in a work of 1772 again re-

viewed the three most widely read authors ofEnglish history:Hume, Rapin-Thoyras, andlePredOrlans. Rapin, aswasusualinFrenchCatholic estimatesatthistime, isaccusedofHuguenotprejudices:He canbedeservedlyreproachedforshowing biasagainstthelandofhisbirth, madehatefultoProtestantsbytheharshnessofLouisXIV, andforfavouring thePuritans, thosedan-gerousenthusiastswhosereligiousviewsarefitonlytomakemengrimlyferociousandwhosesystemofpoliticalindependenceiscal-

culated only to manufacture malcontents and rebels. As forle PredOrlans, AbbChaudonshowssurprising franknessinjudging hisfellow-ecclesiastic:HeistooobviouslybiasedinhistreatmentoftheStuartperiod. MostofthisFrenchJesuitsdeter-minationsaredesignedtofiteithertheinterestsofthepapacyin

RomeortheprinciplesoftheFrenchmonarchy.Humesfairnessisseen, ontheotherhand, asunique, quitewithoutprecedent:

Neverbeforehasanyauthorraisedhimselfsomuchabovethesectarianbiasandpartyprejudicesthatdividethekingdom;ever

impartial, heseemstobethespokesmanofposterity. . . .40

Alsodefending Humesimpartiality, theReverendSamuelFormey, secretaryoftheBerlinAcademyandformerlyhostileed-

itoroftheFrenchtranslationofHumesPhilosophicalEssays(1758),contrasted in 1777 the anticlericalism of thephilosophes withHumesfairnesstowardtherepresentativesofthe church:

Thereisnothing quiteso curiousastherelentlessenmitydirectedagainstthembypersonswho, farfromhaving any causefor com-plaintagainstthem, owethema genuinedebtofgratitude, sinceitistheywhointhemajorityof countriespreservedlearning andafoundationofhumanity, beneficence, and charitythroughoutthecenturiesofbarbarism;wereitnotforthem, thelawlessnessofthoseunhappytimeswouldhavebeen carriedtoafar greaterdegreeofexcess. Hume, whosetestimonywillnotbe challenged, formallyac-


39/240

15

Papis t or Pyr rhonian?

41. Examendelaquestionsitouteslesvritssontbonnesdire?inNouveauxMmoiresdelAcadmieRoyaledesSciencesetBelles-Lettres, Berlin, 1777,XXXIII. 336.

42. EncyclopdieMthodique:Histoire(1788), III. 111.

knowledgesthefactwithregardtoEnglandandthisadmissiondoeshonourtohisimpartiality. In contrast, wearerousedtoindignationwhenweencounteroneverypageofthewritingsofHelvtiusthose

bitt

er

ir

onies,

t

hosederi

sive

a

ndal

most

al

wa

ysfuri

oussorti

esa

gai

nst

a clergythat certainlydeservedhis considerationandwhobecamethetargetofhisdispleasureonlybecausetheyattemptedtoprotectFrancefromthevenomofhisdoctrine.41

ThesectionHistoireoftheEncyclopdieMthodiquein1788 gaveperhapstheultimateinpraisetotheimpartialityofHumesHistoryofEngland:Oneofthefinestpiecesofhistoryandphilosophythatexistsinanylanguage, andperhapsthemostimpartialandmostreasonableworkthathas comefromthehandofman.42 Itisob-

viouslyimpossibletosaymore!

4

PapistorPyrrhonian?

ItiswellknownthattheEnglishatthistimedidnotagreewiththeFrenchaboutHumesimpartiality. Thestrange combinationoftworeputationswhichHumeenjoyedinEngland, oneasafoolishathe-

ist, theotherasaperverseJacobite, wasscarcelyofanaturetopleaseanylarge groupinthat country.

InMyOwnLifeHumespeaksofhisdisappointmentatthedo-

mestic reception giventheStuarts:

Iwas, Iown, sanguineinmyexpectationsofthesuccessofthiswork.IthoughtthatIwastheonlyhistorianthathadatonceneglectedpresentpower, interest, andauthority, andthe cryofpopularprej-udices;andasthesubjectwassuitedtoevery capacity, Iexpectedproportionalapplause. Butmiserablewasmydisappointment:Iwasassailedbyone cryofreproach, disapprobation, andevendetesta-


40/240

16

Before1789

43. W. S. LewisandR. S. Brown, HoraceWalpolesCorrespondencewithGeorgeMontague, NewHaven, 1941, II. 176, letterof22 September1765.

tion;English, Scotch, andIrish;Whig andTory; churchmanandsectary, freethinkerandreligionist;patriotand courtier, unitedintheirrageagainstthemanwhohadpresumedtosheda generoust

ear

for

t

hefat

eofC

harl

esIa

ndt

heEarl

ofStra

ffor

d;a

nda

ft

er

t

hefirstebullitionsofthisfurywereover, whatwasstillmoremortifying,thebookseemedtosinkintooblivion. Mr. Millartoldme, thatinatwelvemonthhesoldonlyforty-five copiesofit. Iscarcely, indeed,heardofonemaninthethreeKingdoms, considerableforrankorletters, that couldendurethebook. ImustonlyexceptthePrimateofEngland, Dr. Herring, andthePrimateofIreland, Dr. Stone;whichseemtwooddexceptions. Thesedignifiedprelatesseparatelysentmemessagesnottobediscouraged.

Hume was, nevertheless, discouraged and he tells us in thissame brief autobiographical sketch that, had not the war at thattime been breaking out between France and England, he would

have retired forever from England to some provincial Frenchtown. Horace Walpole clearly reflects the typical attitude to theHistory in England in a letter to Montague from Paris in 1765.Parisians, he affirmed, were totally lacking in literary taste:

. . . could one believe that when they read ourauthors, Richardsonand Mr. Hume should be their favourites? The latter is treatedhere with perfect veneration. His History, so falsified in manypoints, so partial in as many, so very unequal in its parts, is thoughtthe standard of writing. . . .43

TheFrenchwerefullyawareofthediscrepancybetweentheir

ownestimatesofHumesworthandthoseoftheEnglish. Weread,

for

exa

mple,

in

t

heJournalEtrangerof1760t

hefoll

owing s

tat

e-

mentonthatsubject:

Mr. Humehasbeenaccusedbyhis compatriotsofstriving tooea-gerlyaftersingularopinions;itisnotourfunctiontodebatethisre-proach. Wewillnoteonlythat, althoughMr. HumeisEnglish, arepublican, andaProtestant, hehasalwaysspokenoftheFrenchwithesteem, andofkingsandCatholicswithmoderation;anditispossiblethatthissingularityhasoffendedanationthatistoomuch

inthehabitofseeing inmonarchiesonlyaherdofslavesandinpa-


41/240

17


44. SeeMayissue, 1760, pp. 16970.

45. Ibid., p. 171.

46. BibliothquedeMadamelaDauphine:No. 1, Histoire, Paris, 1770, p. 125.

47. L

Ai

gl

eet

l

eHi

bou,in

O

euvres

dive

rses

deM.

Cerutti

our

ecu

eild

ep

icescomposesavantetdepuislaRvolution, Paris, 1792, II. 47. Humeinfactshedfew

tearsforMaryStuart:seemyarticleTheEighteenth-CenturyMarianContro-versyandanUnpublishedLetterbyDavidHume,StudiesinScottishLiterature,April1964, pp. 23652.

pistsonlyabandoffanatics;anation, inshort, thatistoopronetodenying theexistenceofliberty, virtue, andphilosophyinany gov-ernmentbutitsown.44

Toshowhowwrong theyfeeltheEnglisharewithrespecttoHume,theeditorsofthisveryorthodox ancien-rgime journaldonothesi-tateto callhisworktheonly goodhistorywritteninEnglish, andundoubtedlyoneofthebesttobefoundinanylanguage.Humeisalso commended forbeing the firstEnglish writer who hasdaredtostatethatmonarchiesareaboutasfavourabletoprogressinthearts, inphilosophyandin commerceasrepublics.45

InaworkintendedfortheinstructionofMarie-Antoinette,thefutureHistoriographedeFrance, Jacob-NicolasMoreau, impliedthatHumehadprobably carriedimpartialitytoanundesirableex-

treme:. . . heoughtonlytobeimpartialbutheprideshimselfonthemostexaggeratedindifference. TheEnglish, whopossesstheRoman virtue of partiality for their country, have themselvesblamedhimforthisfaultandtheythinka gooddeallessofthisauthorthanweourselvesdo.46

Itmustbenoted, however, thatMoreausattempttounder-standandforgiveEnglandshostilitytoHumethehistorianisaFrenchattituderarelyencounteredatthistime. Muchmore com-mon is the indignant reactionof the former Jesuitand futurespeechwriterforMirabeau, Joseph-Antoine-JoachimCerutti, whowrotein1783:Mr. HumesHistory couldbe giventhetitle:TheHistoryofEnglishPassions, aswrittenbyhumanreason. TheEn-

gli

sh

ha

ver

epr

oa

ch

edhi

mfor

ca

usin

gt

ear

st

obesh

edover

th

efateofMarieStuartandofCharlesI. Theyhave calledhimoldwomanHumeforit. Thissimple goodheartednessmakeshisim-partialitymorenobleandhisphilosophymoretouching.47


42/240

18

Before1789

48. LObservateurFranaisLondres, Londres, 1769, I. 34950;IV. 109.

49. Greig, op. cit., I. 19394, letterof12 September1754.

MoreangrystillwastheresponseofoneofHumesFrenchanthologists, DamiensdeGomicourt, whopointedoutthattheun-

gratefulEnglishseemedtomakemorefussovertheirracehorses

thantheydidoveraHume. DeGomicourtmakesastute conjec-turesastothereasonsforthisneglect:Thisdispassionatewayof

writing abouthis countryanditsenemies . . . ispreciselywhatharmshimmostintheeyesofhisfellow-countrymen;iftheywereasphilo-

sophicalasM. deVoltairesaystheyarewhenhecallsEnglandtheis-landofphilosophers, theywouldnotallowthemselvestobe carried

awaysofrequentlybytheirruling anti-Frenchpassions;the good

thatMr. HumehastosayabouttheFrenchnationwhenhethinkspraiseisdeserved, themoderationwithwhichhespeaksofthechurchofRome, oroftheunfortunateStuarts, wouldnotbearea-sonforthemtoaccusethisauthorofpopery, ofJacobitism, andof

Francomania, andhisworkswouldbeasfamousinLondonastheyareinParis.48

Popery,Jacobitism, andFrancomaniathreequalitieswell cal-

culatedtoenhanceanEnglishhistoriansreputationinFrance;

theireffectwould, ofcourse, bejusttheoppositeinEngland. ThatHume himself felt his history would holda specialappeal forCatholic, monarchicalFranceismade clearinhisoriginalletter

toAbbLeBlanc in1754 proposing aFrenchtranslationoftheStuarts. Considering,Humewrote, some late transactions inFrance, yourMinistrymaythinkthemselvesobligedtoaman, who,bytheexampleofEnglishhistory, discoversthe consequencesofpuritanicalandrepublicanpretensions. Youwouldhaveremarked

inmywritings, thatmyprinciplesare, allalong, tolerablymonar-chical, andthatIabhorthatlowpractice, soprevalentinEngland,

ofspeaking withmalignityofFrance.49 Onemonthlater, Hume

camebacktothispoint, advising LeBlanctomakeanynecessaryattenuations inhistranslationoftheStuarts: IftherebesomestrokesoftheLespritforttoostrong foryour climate, youmaysoftenthematyourdiscretion. ThatIamaloveroflibertywillbeex-


43/240


44/240

20

Before1789

52. JournalBritannique, Ma

y

June1755, p. 133.53. AprilJune1756, p. 498.

54. JanuaryMarch1757, pp. 24546.

notdisownashismasterregardsasincompatiblewiththedutiesofanhistorian.Matythen citesVoltairesDfenseduSicledeLouisXIVonthenecessityforthehistoriantosticktothetruth.52

The BibliothquedesSciencesetdesBeaux-Arts, published at The

Hague, spoke unfavourably of the same work in 1756: We havesaid nothing of this History because nothing in it seems to us tobe worthy ofpraise except the style, and we have no desire to beconstantly at loggerheads with this author. . . . We have never be-

fore seen a history so dominated by the dangerous art that makesthe most evil characters seem bearable by hiding certain traitsand by softening what remains through the use of clever shad-ing and nuances. But that is not all. Mr. Hume has here taken itupon himself to identify fanaticism as the Reformations distinc-tive characteristic . . . .53

Theyearfollowing, thesamejournalreviewedthesecondvol-umeoftheStuartsandwarneditsreadersagainaboutHumesdan-

gerousportraits:. . . onemustbealwaysonones guardwithhisportraits!Histasteforparadox andhispartialityareoftenonlytoo

glaringlyapparentinhis characterportrayalsofseveralimportantpersonages. . . .TheportraitofJamesIIissolacking infeaturesre-

sembling theoriginalthatonemustneedshaveseenattachedtoitthenameofthismonarchtobelievethatitishewhomMr. Humehassoughttodepictasaprincewhowassteadyinhis counsels, dili-gentinhisschemes, braveinhisenterprises, faithful, sincere, andhon-ourable inhisdealingswithallmen.Obviously, no continentalWhig couldacceptsuchapictureofthemonsterwhohadbeen

drivenoutbytheGloriousRevolutionof1688. Quitetothe con-trary, theHuguenoteditorasserts, JamesIIhadbeen, infact, cruel,vindictive,cowardlyandtreacherous.54

Afairlysimilartonepredominatesinthissamejournalsre-viewoftheTudorsin1759, although, forobviousreasons, nowthattheJacobitequestionwasleftbehind, theeditorsfound, ashad


45/240

21


55. Ja

nuar

y

Mar

ch1759, pp. 211

12.56. OctoberDecember1761, p. 460.

57. MmoiresdeTrvoux, February1759, p. 468.

contemporaryEnglishreaders, thatHumesHistorywassomewhatimprovedinquality:

T

heparti

sa

nspirit

t

hat

encumber

edt

hea

ut

hor

inh

is

tr

eat

ment

oftheStuartperiodand causedhim, in combinationwithhisaffecta-tionofimpartiality, tofallintosomanyrevolting contradictions,hindershimlessashemovesawayfrommoderntimes. . . . Butontheotherhand, onewouldliketofindthesesameimprovementsinwhathehastosayoftheoriginsandprogressoftheReformationandofthespiritthatinspiredtheReformers. TherearepassageswhereoneistemptedtothinkthatMr. Humeisapapist, didwenotalreadyknowhimforapyrrhonian.55

HumepointsoutinMyOwnLifethattheEnglishaccordedatlasttolerablesuccesstothePlantagenets, thethirdandlastpartof

theHistory. TheBibliothquedesSciencesetdesBeaux-Arts, reviewing

thatworkin1761, navely confessedtoasimilar changeofheart:

Thishistoryimprovesastheauthormovesawayfromourowntimes. Apropersenseofhistoricalwriting thatsetsasideortouchesonlylightlytheunessential, thatselectsandarrangesinteresting

eventsjudiciouslyandpresentsthem clearly, canbedetectedevery-whereinthesetwonewvolumes.56 ItisperhapsunnecessarytopointoutthatanyattacksHumemadeagainstreligiousfanaticisminthispartoftheHistorywhichdealswiththeMiddleAgeswouldnotnormallybeinterpretedasimmoderatelyhostilebytheProtes-tanteditors.

Ifwenow comparetheseDutchaccountswithopinionsex-pressedintheCatholic Frenchjournals, wefindthattheprogres-sionofideasonthesubjectofHumesHistoryofEnglandisneatlyreversed. ThepiousMmoiresdeTrvoux enthusiasticallydevotedmanypagestoreviewing HumesStuartsand commendedHumeasanauthorwhohadwrittenwithoutbias.57 Themannerinwhich

Hume had dealt with the civil war period seemed especiallyappealing:


46/240

22

Before1789

58.Ib

id., p. 471.

59. Ibid., March1759, p. 184.

60. Ibid., p. 188.

61. Ibid., January1759, p. 217.

Thehorrendous consequencesofitareonlytoowellknown:allofEuropewashorror-struckandrousedtoindignation:thesejustfeel-ingsarerenewedintheirentiretyasweperusethishistory. Possess-ing

all

t

he virt

ues oft

he goodki

ng,C

harl

esI

r

ea

ppear

s her

e,hunteddown, arrested, heldaprisonerin captivity. Thismonarch,chargedbyunlawfulprocedure, judgedwithoutlegitimateauthor-ity, condemnedforno crime, heremovestotearsallreaderswhowillfindhimeven greateronthescaffold, evenmoresteadfast, gen-erous, andvirtuousthanhehadappearedduring thetriumphsandreversalsthatwerethe glory, astheywerethemisfortune, ofhisreign.58

EverypassageinwhichHumerehabilitatesthenamesofEn-glishCatholicsisunderlinedbytheJesuiteditors. Concerning theLondonfire, attributedby certainhistorianstothemalevolenceofCatholics, theyareespeciallypleasedtonotethatHumeaccusesneithertheCatholicsnorthePresbyteriansofit:heagreesthatthisimputationwasnothing morethana calumny given countenancebypopularprejudice.59 AsforthePopishplot, Humeacknowl-

edgesitspatentimposturewithoutdenying theunfortunateeffectthe grossabsurditiesofsuchanill-constructedfablehadontheEnglish. . . .60 On oneoccasion onlydo the Jesuit editors find

Humebiasedwhenheisseenasequallyhostiletotheenthusi-

asmofthePuritansasheisprejudicedagainsttheCatholics.61

MoresignificantstillwerethelessonstheMmoiresdeTrvouxeditorsderivedfromtheirreading ofHumesStuarts. Theseles-

sons arequiteexplicitand, inpart, anticipatesomeofthemore

eccentric andextreme interpretationsof the workby counter-revolutionarythinkersafter1789:

Onehasonlyto comparethishistoryofthereignofCharlesIwithothersthathavealsobeenwritteninaccordancewithProtestantprejudice, tosenseMr. Humessuperior genius, style, accuracy, andimpartiality. Without including in this comparisonanyCatholic


47/240

23


62. Ibid., February1759, pp. 47576.

writer, we candrawthefollowing conclusions:1. ThatsincetheirseparationfromtheRomanChurch, Protestants, lefttotheirownthinking, canhaveonlyanirresoluteanduncertaindoctrinewhichlea

vest

hemexposedt

ot

hemost

fri

ght

fula

berrati

ons, wit

hnosoli

dmeanstoregulatetheirbeliefandbring ittotrueuniformity. 2.Thattheinfluenceoftheirdoctrinehas givenrisetothemosthor-rible disruptions inEngland, and the most abominable crimesagainstsovereigns. 3. Thatunderthe coverofdisputesoverdogmaamong theProtestantsects, fanaticism, atfirstinsidiously, andaf-terwardwith great clamour, putthefinishing touchesonthena-tionsdisorders. 4. Thatthishereticalfanaticismnotonlyspreadswith greatrapidity, italsoprovidesarichandinexhaustiblebreed-

ing groundfordangerousmonsters;sincethe Independents, hadtheirleaderCromwellnotforestalledthedanger, wereonthepointofbeing subjugatedbytheAgitators, ortheLevellers, asectwhoseen-thusiasm, graftedontothefanaticismofthesesameIndependents,aimedtointroduceperfectequalityamong the citizens, and, con-sequently, the most monstrous confusion and anarchy in thegovernment. 5. Thatdebate, asMr.Humeinsinuates, evenofaspec-ulativenature, ontheextentandlimitsoftheroyalprerogative,mustneverbebroughtbeforethepeoplestribunal;thatinsuchmattersthestrictestsilencemustbeimposed, evenamong philo-sophicalreasoners;andthatin generalitissafertokeepthepeopleignorantofthelimitsoftheirobedience, thanitistoinstructthemonthelimitsthatsovereignsoughttoobserve.62

AsIhavealreadypointedout, thequestionofwhetherHumereallyimpliesallthis, whethertheJesuitsmadea correctordis-tortedinterpretationofhisintentions, issomewhatirrelevantto

mypurpose. Theessentialfactisthatsuchinterpretationsweremadeand made frequently by an astonishing variety of readers in

eighteenth-centuryFrance. Ofcourse, theMmoiresdeTrvouxed-itorsareforcedtododgeaboutratherawkwardlywhentheyen-

counter passages inspired by Humes more frankly irreligiousmoods. Still, thisaspectoftheHistorywasnotseenasaninsupera-

bleproblem. TheStuartswasafterallbyaProtestantandevena

Humemust

beexpect

edt

owa

nder

fr

omt

hetr

ut

hfr

omti

met

otime. TheProtestantBibliothquedesSciencesetdesBeaux-Arts, were-


48/240

24

Before1789

63. Ibid., March1759, p. 197.

64. Ibid., p. 198.

65. Annelittraire, 1760,IV. 313.

66. Ibid., IV. 323.

67. Ibid., 1763, II. 297.

member, hadfoundHumesportraitofJamesIItotallyfalse. TheMmoiresdeTrvoux, ontheotherhand, didnotfinditsufficiently

false,thatistosay, sufficientlytrue:WemustnotexpectMr.

Humetobestrictlyimpartialinhistreatmentofthisreign:heistoobiasedagainsttheperson, the court, andthereligionofJamesII, aswellasagainstFrance, LouisXIV, andallformsofzeal, topre-

venthispenfromleaving tracesofhisprejudicesinthishistory.63

Humesoccasionallapseswereseenasfaultsonlyinsomeabsolutesense;onthisquestionthejournal concluded:Inany case, amongProtestanthistorianswhohavedealtwithEnglishhistoryofthelast

century, Mr. Hume is still the least biased against the RomanChurch, andtheleastprejudicedinfavouroftheProtestantsects;forthishedeservesdue credit.64

The same aspects of the Stuarts pleased Voltaires enemyFrron in the Anne littraire. He points out first ofall that Humedisplays none of the odious prejudices common to English au-thors, which even French historians show at times.65 He notes withparticular approval Humes treatment ofCharles Is trial and exe-

cution: I would have to copy out several entire pages to present toyour humanity and sense ofoutrage the horrifying scene in whichthis king was judged, condemned, and executed by his own sub-jects.66 All the horrors surrounding the monster republicanCromwell, the regicide fanaticism ofthe hated Puritans, are evoked

in this ancien-rgime Frenchmans review. Later, while examiningthe Tudors, Frron shows the same highly favourable attitude to theScottish historians impartiality. He underlines the fact that Hume,

for example, stoutly defends Cardinal Wolsey . . .against the attacksofProtestant writers who have sullied his memory.67 On the ques-tion of Henry VIIIs divorce he is happy to point out also thatHume pertinently justifies the Popes inflexible resistance to the


49/240

25


68. Ibid., II. 301.

69.Ib

id.,

II. 302

3.70. Ibid., 1760, IV. 313.

71. Ibid., 1763, III. 35.

English kings imperious and threatening solicitations.68 Alongthe same lines, Humes impartiality is contrasted with Burnets biason the question of the suppression ofmonasteries:

DoctorBurnet complacentlyrelatesalltheinfamiesthemonkswereaccusedofinthereportspreparedbythe commissionersHenryVIIIsenttoallthereligioushousestomakeinquiriesregarding the con-ductandmoralsofthenunsandfriars. Mr. Hume, wiserandmorecircumspectinhisjudgements, doesnotrelymuchontheaccuracyofthesereports;everon guardagainstthepartisanspiritthatdic-tatedthem, heacknowledgesthatintimesoffaction, especiallyofthereligiousvariety, littletruthistobeexpectedfromeventhemost

ostensiblyauthentictestimony. . . . HerefusesaswelltoimputetotheCatholicreligionabusesthattheChurchinfactcondemns, suchasexposing falserelics, andthepiousimposturesemployedinsomeplacesbythemonkstoincreasethedevotionandconsequentlythecontri-butionsofthepeople.Suchfooleries, hewrites, astheyaretobefoundinallagesandnations,andeventookplaceduringthemostrefinedperiodsofan-tiquity,formnoparticularorviolentreproachtotheCatholicreligion. Itmustbeadmitted, Monsieur, thatnothing resembleslesstheordi-naryrantingsofProtestantwritersthandoessuchlanguage.69

Frron too admits that Hume experienced difficulty occa-sionally in stripping himselfentirely ofEnglish ideas when speak-ing about religion; he states, however, that it would be ridiculousand unjust to judge the Scot according to the principles received

among us.70 Hume is occasionally wrong, but he is wrong with sin-

cerity: It can be seen that he seeks the truth in a sincere manneran

di

fh

e someti

mes dri

Bongie David Hume Prophet of the Counter-Revolution

Documents

Transcript of Bongie David Hume Prophet of the Counter-Revolution