|
The disappointment felt by
Hume on account of the reception of the two first volumes of his
Treatise of Human Nature did not daunt him or abate his literary
activity. He prepared his third volume, Of Morals, which was published
in 1740. Thereafter, he carried through the preparation of the Essays,
presenting his theory in more popular form, and including literary and
political essays along with philosophical. These he published in 1742.
He sought, however, some
wider range of effort, on which he might concentrate ; and he found it
in History, to which he forthwith devoted himself with the greatest
ardour. In this department of research, he shewed his breadth of
interest, his profound reflection on social and political problems, and
his acuteness on economic questions—the last being so marked that
Macaulay has said of him that he was ' undoubtedly one of the most
profound political economists of his time.' *
Hume's merits as a
philosopher were, indeed, to some extent a disadvantage to him as a
historian. Philosophic interests were not allowed to abate carefulness
in research, but these induced him to enter into general problems more
than was always advantageous to the narrative, or demanded by the
historic spirit. He seems to have been conscious of this danger, for he
remarks upon it, as one of the things clear to him, that the sceptical
form of his philosophic inquiries must not be allowed to influence his
historical writing. When full of delight over the completion of the
first volume of his History (1754), he writes to a friend who ' had
entertained apprehensions of his discretion,' explaining that he had
written for the people, and he is at pains to say that he had ' thought
that scepticism was not in its place in an historical production'
(Burton's Life, I., 397). If the admission is not altogether favourable
to his philosophy, it does honour to the historian. Even with his best
endeavour, however, he did not escape from a tendency to undervalue the
earnest convictions of religious men, and, at times, to disparage the
rights of the people—a tendency resulting partly from sceptical, partly
from political bias. It must, at the same time, be admitted that his
advantages were considerable from being a philosopher first and a
historian afterwards. Without losing sight of the demand for clearness,
brightness, and vivacity of style, he never failed to consider
deliberately the political and social problems which were being worked
out in history. His treatment of these has such value that, even when
granting that the large mass of historical material brought within reach
since his day requires large modification of his views, his glowing, and
often eloquent, pages may be read with advantage, as supplying a
practical embodiment of political philosophy. So well recognised was
this that Hume won distinction as ' the philosophic historian.'
In another sense, these
volumes of history shew that he was, at times, far from being
philosophic. When dealing with the principles involved in a great
national movement, his writing is always suggestive; but, when passing
judgment on men and measures, he appears often as the partisan. He felt
keenly and wrote strongly, and was not infrequently disposed to give way
to the bias which swayed him as a politician. This appears chiefly in
his relation to political parties, often indicated in the History, as it
is avowed in his private correspondence. The facts are now placed in
stronger light by the Letters to William Strahan, for publication of
which we are indebted to Lord Rosebery and to Dr Birkbeck Hill, an
editor at once competent and unwearied. This volume of Letters is now an
essential supplement to Burton's Life, and is specially important as
bearing on the History. Hume cherished a strong antagonism to the Whigs,
and found occasion for expressing his enmity with a modicum of reserve.
That his party bias influenced him in his History admits of no question.
He is himself conscious of it. Burton admits the consequent
inconsistencies (I., 405); and though Macaulay goes too far in his
condemnation of alleged ' sophistry,' he has ample warrant for his
charge of partisanship (Edinburgh Review, xlvii., p. 359). What the
philosopher's attitude should be, Hume clearly indicated in his
Political Discourse on The Protestant Succession, when he said,—' It
belongs to a philosopher alone, who is of neither party, to put all the
circumstances in the scale, and assign to each of them its proper poise
and influence' (Political Discourses [1752], p. 270). It is not easy to
be quite philosophic and also resolute in political action. His own
representation of his attitude is this,— ' With regard to politics and
the character of princes and great men, I think I am very moderate. My
views of things are more conformable to Whig principles; my
representations oi persons to Tory prejudices. Nothing can so much prove
that men commonly regard more persons than things, as to find that I am
commonly numbered among the Tories' (Burton, II., n). When the keenness
of Hume's antagonism to the leaders of the Commons in the time of
Charles I. is considered, this admission must be remembered, that they
were ' a set of men of the most uncommon capacity and the largest views'
(History, vol. vi., p. 184, ed. 1813). In writing to his publisher, he
says, ' I think I have kept clear of party in my History' (Letters to
Strahan, p. 32). There is, however, reason to sympathise with Macaulay's
criticism of the History {Edinburgh Review, vol. Ixvii.),—'Though a
great work, drawn by a master hand, it has all the lights Tory, and all
the shades Whig.'
Granting that serious
deductions are to be made from its claim to authority, his History is '
a great work,' possessing high value for present-day readers, equally on
account of its vivid descriptions of grand events and of its philosophic
insight. His devotion to historical research is beyond all praise. He
searches unweariedly through books, parliamentary reports, and other
sources of information. He corresponds with specialists on questions of
perplexity, as, for example, when seeking to ascertain the value of
'subsidies' at different periods in our Parliamentary history. And he
persists, with surprising constancy and care, in the revision of
successive editions of his writings; so that it is not without solid
foundation that he keeps repeating his claims to confidence and honour.
'I certainly deserve the approbation of the public from my care and
disinterestedness, however deficient in other particulars' (Letters to
Strahan, p. 1). His election to the office of Librarian in the
Advocates' Library, Edinburgh, had this special attraction for him, that
it gave him unrestricted 'command of a large library,' — a storehouse of
materials for the historian. At the same time, this election had a
transitory interest which he keenly relished; he was brimful of delight
because he had triumphed over the social forces in the city, opposed to
him avowedly on account of his sceptical philosophy.
His ideal of history was
lofty, and was kept well in view, even though occasionally beclouded by
political bias. ' History, the great mistress of wisdom, furnishes
examples of all kinds; and every prudential, as well as moral precept,
may be authorised by those events, which her enlarged mirror is able to
present to us' (History, chap, lix., vol. vii., p. 138, ed. 1813). The
philosopher and historian are at one in such an utterance. Along with it
may be quoted a passage from the introduction to his Treatise,—' However
other nations may rival us in poetry, and excel us in some other
agreeable arts, the improvements in reason and philosophy can only be
owing to a land of toleration and of liberty.' He felt proud in being
one of a group of Scotchmen who had devoted themselves to history,—' I
believe this is the historical age, and this the historical nation'
(Letters to Strahan, p. 155).
For his first effort,
Hume selected the Stuart Period, including in his first volume the
reigns of James and Charles I. His attraction to the period was found in
its comparative nearness to his own time, and in the wealth of material
which lay ready to hand. Subsidiary was the pride in Scotland's honour
in giving a monarch to England, and the vital concern which Scotland
felt in the progress of the United Kingdom. The selection nevertheless
involved the historian in special difficulties, special to the times as
involving the perplexing occurrences which led up to the Revolution,
special to the writer on account of religious questions being so deeply
involved in the conflict between the Commons and the Crown. Hume faced
his difficulties with philosophic deliberation, if also with admixture
of keen personal feeling. When the first volume appeared in 1754, it
raised a storm of criticism, which the philosopher braved with some
sense of irritation. When the second volume appeared in 1756, including
the period from the death of Charles I. to the Revolution, it was
received with much more favour. These two volumes gave him celebrity,
far beyond anything achieved by his philosophic works ; from their
appearance he ranked as a great public man, who did honour to his
country, and who had written with a power and vividness of description
which went to the heart of the people, and made references to his
writings familiar in the arena of Parliament, and in the private
correspondence of the leading politicians of the day. That Hume was a
man of strong political bias made the references the more numerous and
telling; and if he was rendered famous in his day, he suffered a penalty
attending on fame; he had to wince under an attack from Chatham,
delivered with force of eloquence in the House of Lords.
After the storm of
criticism had ceased, it appeared that the second volume had been the
more popular. Hume's own judgment was at variance with the award of his
critics. ' I must own that in my private judgment the first volume of my
History is by far the best; the subject was more noble, and admitted
both of greater ornaments of eloquence and nicer distinctions of
reasoning. However, if the public is so capricious as to prefer the
second, I am very well pleased, and hope the prepossession in my favour
will operate backwards and remove even the prejudices formerly
contracted' (Letters to Strahan, p. 4). The adverse judgment pronounced
on the first volume concentrated mainly on the defence of Charles
against the demands of the people. His defence of the kingly prerogative
was the more resented that it was manifestly at variance with many of
his avowed political maxims. Even after all has been said as to his
reasonings, his moral sentiment, and his eloquence, it must be granted
that his sympathy with Charles as a brave man, sorely driven and tried,
carried him to an altitude of antagonism to popular rights at variance
with his deeper and life-long convictions. Burton, who shews the utmost
favour for Hume, admits that his published opinions were strangely at
variance with much of the writing in the first volume of the History. '
In his philosophical examination of the principles of government,
written in times of hot party feeling, he had discarded the theories of
arbitrary prerogative and divine right with bold and calm disdain.'
(Life of Hume, I., 402). The current of his thought went strongly
against regal domination; his sympathy was avowedly with ' the
sentiments of liberty, honour, equity, and valour' (History, I., 178,
ed. 1821). He granted as to the leaders of the Commons, that ' these
generous patriots,' ' animated with a warm regard to liberty,' aimed
only at ' reducing the prerogative within more reasonable compass'
(History, VI., p. 184, ed. 1863). In view of these declarations, we
cannot wonder at Jeffrey's criticism —' that he should have sided with
the Tudors and the Stuarts against the people seems quite inconsistent
with the great traits of his character' (Edinburgh Review, xii., 276).
The explanation is not
found in any change of opinion, or in any conclusion slowly reached
after deliberate criticism, or in finer appreciation of the difficulties
belonging to the period of political development in our rational
history, or in blindness to the merits of the popular leaders, or to the
demerits of the kings. The key seems to be found in certain outstanding
characteristics of the philosophic historian; first, the excess of
philosophic indifference, or ' capdid indifference,' which he specially
commends and reckons as rare (see History, vol. vi., p. 12); second, in
his enmity against ' zealots,' political and religious; and, further
(perhaps most of all), in his dread of outbursts of excited feeling
among the populace,—' the enthusiastic fire which afterwards set the
whole nation in combustion ' {History, vol. vi.,71269, e(3. 1813). These
seem to me the causes, the force of which can be allowed without
approval of their influence on the History. The result was a singular
blending of antipathy and sympathy towards the Puritans. It was occasion
of intense annoyance to Hume to find that ' the enquiries and debates
concerning tonnage and poundage went hand in hand with theological or
metaphysical controversies,' touching ' subjects where it is not
allowable for human nature to expect any positive truth or certainty.'
It is easy to imagine the intense wrath of Hume against 'the puritanical
sectaries.' There must have been much show of spirit when he was dealing
with such subjects, inducing temporary forgetfulness of lofty
prerogative, and of the forces of the Court of High Commission and the
Star Chamber. His antipathy flashes out with fury against Cromwell, from
his first appearance in the House of Commons. Oliver Cromwell,
'complaining of one who, he was told, preached flat popery,' receives
from Hume this slighting remark — 'It is amusing to observe the first
words of this fanatical hypocrite correspond so exactly to his
character' (History, VI., 248). The age which has gained possession of
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches is incapable of accepting the
word ' hypocrite' as applicable to the hero of the great struggle of the
Puritans; and this 'young man of no account in the nation' afterwards
wins from Hume the acknowledgment of a 'rough but dexterous hand,' and
of 'the unparalleled greatness which he afterwards attained' (History,
VII., 97)— a leader in an age 'with awful, august, heroic thoughts in
its heart, and at last with steel sword in its hand,' (Carlyle's
Cromwell, intro., vol. i., p. 68).
The first volume of the
History called forth an anonymous volume—Letters on Mr Hume's History of
Great Britain—published in Edinburgh in 1756, and generally attributed
to Daniel Macqueen, D.D. The volume is devoted to a criticism of Hume's
treatment of religion. These letters arose out of a discussion of the
merits of the History at a social gathering. Their criticism is directed
mainly against two passages, in which Hume dwells on ' two species of
religion — the superstitious and the fanatical.' The former is
illustrated in the Romish Church, the latter in the Reformed. The author
proposes ' candid and calm debate,' and proceeds to set forth his
complaint against 'the author's indecent excursions on the subject of
religion, the genius of the Protestant faith, and the characters of the
first reformers' (p. 4). He vindicates 'the right of private judgment in
all matters of religion,' with the rejection of ' splendour and
glittering pomp of worship,' and claims for the reformed faith
deliverance of men from the 'delusion of an over-heated imagination.'
This formal criticism was in harmony with a very wide expression of
dissatisfaction. Its prevalence affected the mind of Hume, and in course
of his corrections, and the adjustment of the volume to its place in a
more extended plan, his references to religion are modified, and the
more offensive passages concerning the reformers and their beliefs
disappear. In a letter to Dr Clephane he says— ' I am convinced that
whatever I have said of religion should have received more softenings.
There is no passage in the History which strikes in the least at
Revelation. But as I run over all the sects successively, and speak of
each with some disregard, the reader, putting the whole together,
concludes that I am of no sect, which to him will appear the same thing
as the being of no religion ' (Burton's Life, II., p. 10). Burton,
remarking on his 'consciousness that some apology was called for,' gives
the ' draft of a preface' to his second volume, the substance of which
was ultimately inserted as a note towards the end of that volume. In
this he says—' It ought to be no matter of offence that in this volume,
as well as in the foregoing, the mischief which arose from the abuses of
religion are so often mentioned, while so little in comparison is said
of the salutary consequences which result from true and genuine piety.'
In a few carefully chosen paragraphs he explains and vindicates 'the
free and impartial manner in which he has treated religious controversy'
(Burton, II., p. n).
When Hume escapes from
direct contact with those whom he regarded as ' enraged and fanatical
reformers,' and contemplates the progress of civil and religious
liberty, his judgment and better feeling come out in a different phase.
Then he acknowledges that 'the precious spark of liberty had been
kindled, and was preserved by the Puritans alone.' ' It is to them that
the English owe the whole freedom of their constitution.' These
utterances must be kept before us when we form our judgment of his
account of the reign of Charles I. Throughout both volumes on the Stuart
dynasty there runs a strong bias in favour of the monarchs with whom the
people were at variance. While he allows that ' the views of the popular
leaders were more judicious and profound ' than those of the Court
favourites, he seems willing to defer to the lofty admonition of a king
who claims to be superior 'by nature,' and takes such a view of popular
rights as to be disposed to write in terms such as these—' To be
sacrificed to the interest, policy, and ambition of the great is so much
the common lot of the people that they may appear unreasonable who would
pretend to complain of it' (History, chap, li., vol. vi., 215-217, ed.
1813, referring to the discontent which prevailed at the assembling of
Charles' third Parliament). When the complications thicken, and Charles,
after the rupture with the Parliament, is encountering evil days, and at
length is a captive, and the army is dominant over Parliament, Hume's
horror is such that he finds it a hard task ' to put all the
circumstances in the scale, and assign to each of them its proper poise
and influence.' The wrong-doings of Charles are forgotten, and his woes
make powerful appeal to the feelings of the historian—with the terrible
scenes vividly present to his imagination, and his feelings roused to
passionate sympathy, he is by many subtle influences drawn to the
position of a partisan without being able to maintain the critical
spirit for which he was distinguished. He was not abandoning the popular
cause and assuming the responsibility of the vindicator of kingly
oppression ; but he was ready to argue that ' it is seldom that the
people gain anything by revolutions in Government' (chap, lix., vol.
vii., 107, ed. 1813); and to maintain that ' Government is instituted in
order to restrain the fury and injustice of the people; and being always
founded on opinion, not on force, it is dangerous to weaken, by these
speculations, the reverence which the multitude owe to authority, and to
instruct them beforehand that the case can ever happen, when they may be
freed from their duty of allegiance ' (vii., 136). When these springs of
feeling have been traced and noted, we have the secret of Hume's
treatment of the Stuart dynasty. Allowing for the immense difference
which separates dethronement from execution; and granting that Hume has
reason for his strong condemnation of the latter, we are still surprised
to find what we should hardly have expected from ' the philosophic
historian,' a fear of open discussion, and apprehension of the results
if the people are allowed to pass from leading strings. After
considering the sad issue of the conflict between the royal prerogative
and the liberty of the people, and specially of Parliament, he is
prepared to admit that one is ' at a loss to determine what conduct in
the king's circumstances could have maintained the authority of the
crown, and preserved the peace of the nation ' (vii., p. 135).
But, apart from his
opinions on the subjects named, the historic spirit and power of the
author are fitted to awaken high admiration. His appreciation of
Charles' fidelity to his friends and of his acuteness in carrying out
negotiations with the Parliamentary leaders; his description of the
king's interview with his family, and of his noble and courageous
bearing in meeting a violent death, are outstanding examples of high
excellence in historic writing.
His scheme advanced to
more extended proportions as his interest developed. He passed back to
include the Tudors, publishing in 1759, two volumes on The History of
England under the House of Tudor. Thereafter he contemplated a complete
history, the earliest period coming last in the order of treatment. The
result was The History of England from the invasion of Julius Ccesar to
the accession of Henry VII., in two volumes, published in 1761. These
separate works were subsequently revised and combined, presenting Hume's
History of England as we are now familiar with it in the eight volume
editions.
The work of composition,
revision, and reconstruction was carried out with the utmost care and
with unceasing interest. The conditions of work are full of interest
now. He was constantly negotiating for ' franks' under which he could
convey manuscript without charge ; and when he had a new volume or a
large mass of revised material, he announces by post to his publisher in
London that ' it will be put into the stage coach in two white iron
boxes,' or will be put into ' the fly' on a given date, and may be
looked for ' about three weeks hence.' On the first negotiation for
appearance of the History, Hamilton, the Edinburgh publisher, writes to
Strahan, the London publisher, ' we have been at due pains to inform
ourselves of the merit of the work, and are well satisfied on that head
that it is the pettiest thing that ever was attempted in the English
History ' (Letters to Strahan, p. 3). After its value had been tested by
the sale of successive editions, Strahan urges the extension of the
History. Writing in r77r, Strahan says—' If you write another volume,
which the best judges of writing are daily enquiring after, you may
demand what you please. It shall be granted' (Letters to Strahan, p.
r98). Again in 1772 Strahan writes suggesting motives for the
continuation of the History, 'in which if you will make some progress,
however trifling, I will venture to say you will find your immediate
account in it '(16., p. 243). And once more, in August 1766,
Strahan writes—' Your
History sells better of late years than before; for the late edition
will be gone some time before this can be finished. In short, I see
clearly your reputation is gradually rising in the public esteem' (P,
340). |
