are to be found in these "Essays." In literary form their merit is great; but it is greater as regards their substance. They are weighted with economic wisdom, with happy and suggestive thoughts on questions of Government; and on the relations of party to party their political sagacity is great. If the "Wealth of Nations" was the chief contribution to the economic literature of England of the eighteenth century, these "Essays" prepared the way for it; and Smith's debt to Hume was both direct and indirect.KNIGHT, WILLIAM, 1886, Hume (Philosophical Classics), p. 36.

HISTORY OF ENGLAND

1754-62

Hume has out-done himself in this new History, in shewing his contempt of Religion. This is one of those proof charges which Arbuthnot speaks of in his treatise of political lying, to try how much the publick will bear. If his history be well received, I shall conclude that there is even an end of all pretence to Religion.WARBURTON, WILLIAM, 1759, Letters from a Late Eminent Prelate, Mar. 3, p. 282.

In 1752, The Faculty of Advocates chose me their librarian, an office for which I received little or no emolument, but which gave me the command of a large library. I then formed the plan of writing the "History of England;" but being frightened with the notion of continuing a narrative through a period of seventeen hundred years, I commenced with the accession of the House of Stuart, an epoch when, I thought, the misrepresentations of faction began chiefly to take place. I was, I own, sanguine in my expectations of the success of this work. I thought that I was the only historian, that had at once neglected present power, interest and authority, and the cry of popular prejudices; and, as the subject was suited to every capacity, I expected proportional applause. But miserable was my disappointment: I was assailed by one cry of reproach, disapprobation, and even detestation; English, Scotch, and Irish, Whig and Tory, churchman and secretary, freethinker and religionist, patriot and courtier, united in their rage against a man, who had presumed to shed a generous tear for the fate of Charles I. and the Earl of Strafford; and after the first ebullitions of their fury was over, what was still more mortifying, the

Mr.

book seemed to sink into oblivion. Millar told me, that in a twelvemonth he sold only forty-five copies of it. Iscarcely, indeed, heard of one man in the three kingdoms, considerable for rank or letters, that could endure the book. I must only except the primate of England, Dr. Herring, and the primate of Ireland, Dr. Stone, which seem two odd exceptions. These dignified prelates separately sent me messages not to be discouraged. HUME, DAVID, 1776, My Own Life, p. 17.

The "History" of Mr. Hume is indeed. very far from being laudable. It is a mere apology for prerogative from beginning to end and, tho' the best apology which hath been offered, is yet very weak; which shews the cause must be desperate when even so great an advocate utterly fails in its defence. At the same time that his political principles led him to exalt the prerogative, his philosophic opinions forced him to depress the church: while every body knows that no church, no king. Hence his work is one chaos of heterogeneous axioms, and misrepresented events. PINKERTON, JOHN (ROBERT HERON), 1785, Letters of Literature, p. 366.

It is surprising, on examining any particular point, how superficial Hume is, and how many particulars are omitted that would have made his book much more entertaining; but perhaps we have no right to expect this in a general history.-MALONE, EDMOND, 1787, Maloniana, ed. Prior, p. 370.

For a judicious choice of materials, and a happy disposition of them, together with perspicuity of style in recording them, this writer was hardly ever exceeded; especially in the latter part of his work, which is by far the most elaborate. The earlier part of his history is too superficial. -PRIESTLY, JOSEPH, 1788, Lectures on History, Lecture xxvii, p. 176.

The perfect composition, the nervous language, the well-turned periods of Dr. Robertson, inflamed me to the ambitious hope that I might one day tread in his footsteps: the calm philosophy, the careless inimitable beauties of his friend and rival, often forced me to close the volume with a mixed sensation of delight and despair.-GIBBON, EDWARD, 1793, Autobiography, ch. xii.

The history of England was investigated

by Hume, not with the eyes of a patriot but of a philosopher; and from each author whom he consulted, selecting alternately the choicest diction, he constructed an artful narrative, in which strength, precision, elegance, and a copious simplicity are infinitely diversified; a narrative interspersed throughout with the most profound reflections; and, though partial, perhaps, to a particular system or party, enriched with the most philosophical views of the arguments and peculiar opinions of the times.-LAING, MALCOLM, 1800-4, History of Scotland, vol. IV, p. 391.

It is therefore in his "History of England," and principally in those parts of it which were the last composed, that we must look for that style of which the merit is universally confessed. Easy and natural as it appears to be, it was the cultivated fruit of long practice, and a sedulous attention to those models which he esteemed the best.-TYTLER, ALEXANDER FRASER, 1806-14, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Henry Home of Kames, vol. 1, p. 237.

His greatest work, and that which naturally claims most attention, was his "History of England," which, notwithstanding great defects, will probably be at last placed at the head of historical compositions. No other narrative seems to unite, in the same degree, the two qualities of being instructive and affecting. No historian approached him in the union of the talent of painting pathetic scenes with that of exhibiting comprehensive views of human affairs.-MACKINTOSH, SIR JAMES, 1811, Memoirs, ed. Mackintosh, vol. II, p. 168.

The great standards of historical composition which England produced during the eighteenth century are among the most important features of belles lettres. In this species of literature they have surpassed all other nations, if only in leading the way, and as historical models for foreign imitation. Unless I am mistaken, Hume ranks with the foremost in this department.. . His description of earlier times is very unsatisfactory: having no affection for them, he could not sufficiently realize them. SCHLEGEL, FREDERICK, 1815-59, Lectures on the History of Literature.

The name of Hume is far the more considerable which occurs in the period to

which we have alluded. But, though his thinking was English, his style was entirely French; and being naturally of a cold fancy, there is nothing of that eloquence or richness about him which characterizes the writings of Taylor, and Hooker, and Bacon, and continues, with less weight of matter, to please in those of Cowley and Clarendon. - JEFFREY, FRANCIS LORD, 1816, Swift, Edinburgh Review, vol. 27, p. 8.

Hume was not, indeed, learned and well-grounded enough for those writers and investigators of history who judged his works from the usual point of view, because he was not only negligent in the use of the sources of history, but also superficial.-SCHLOSSER, FRIEDRICH CHRISTOPH, 1823, History of the Eighteenth Century, tr. Davison.

The author, indeed, wanted that resolute spirit of industry and research, which alone can lead an historian to become thoroughly acquainted with the valuable writers of the middle ages.- DIBDIN, THOMAS FROGNALL, 1824, The Library Companion, p. 235, note.

Hume often puts the names of the monkish writers in his margin; but I fear all he knew of them was through the media of other writers. He has some mistakes which could not have occurred had he really consulted the originals. Hume is certainly an admirable writer his style bold, and his reflections shrewd and uncommon; but his religious and political notions have too often warped his judgment.-FARMER, RICHARD, 1827, Letter to a Friend on the Study of English History, Goodhugh's Library Manual, p. 43.

Hume is an accomplished advocate. Without positively asserting much more than he can prove, he gives prominence to all the circumstances which support his case; he glides lightly over those which are unfavourable to it; his own witnesses are applauded and encouraged; the statements which seem to throw discredit on them are controverted; the contradictions into which they fall are explained away; a clear and connected abstract of their evidence is given. Every thing that is offered on the other side is scrutinized with the utmost severity; every suspicious circumstance is a ground for comment and invective; what cannot be denied is

extenuated, or passed by without notice; concessions even are sometimes made; but this insidious candour only increases the effect of the vast mass of sophistry. MACAULAY, THOMAS BABINGTON, 1828, History, Edinburgh Review, Critical and Miscellaneous Essays.

In Hume's narrative the earlier portions were the last composed. To go backwards is scarce less difficult in writing than in walking; and it is no small proof of his merit and ability as an historian, to have overcome that difficulty of his composition, and left it hardly perceptible to a common reader. STANHOPE, PHILIP HENRY (LORD MAHON), 1836-54, History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, vol. XI, p. 304.

His readiness to rest satisfied with whatever first offered itself, provided it suited his present purpose, without either scrutinizing its internal evidence, or verifying it by reference to earlier and better authority, is forced upon our notice in his account of the battle of Shrewsbury. -TYLER, J. ENDELL, 1838, Henry of Monmouth, or Memoirs of the Life and Character of Henry V., vol. 1, p. 158.

As to his methodicalness, no man ever had a larger view than Hume; he always knows where to begin and end. In his history he frequently rises, though a cold man naturally, into a kind of epic height as he proceeds. His description of the Commonwealth, for example, where all is delineated as with a crayon; one sees there his large mind, moreover, not without its harmonies.-CARLYLE, THOMAS, 1838, Lectures on the History of Literature, p. 183.

And now, when we enter upon the reign of William, we have no longer the assistance of the philosophic Hume. We have no longer within our reach those penetrating observations, those careless and inimitable beauties, which were so justly the delight of Gibbon, and, with whatever prejudices they may have been accompanied, and, however suspicious may be those representations which they sometimes enforce and adorn, still render the loss of his pages a subject of the greatest regret, and leave a void which it is impossible adequately to supply.-SMYTH, WILLIAM, 1840, Lectures on Modern History, Lecture xxii.

A man of his exceedingly inquiring and

unrestrained mind, living in the midst of the eighteenth century, might have been expected to have espoused what is called the popular side in the great questions of English history, the side, in later language, of the movement. Yet we know that Hume's learning is the other way. Accidental causes may perhaps have contributed to this; the prejudice of an ingenious mind against the opinions which he found most prevalent around him; the resistance of a restless mind to the powers that be, as natural as implicit acquiescence in them is to an indolent mind. But the main cause apparently is to be sought in his abhorrence of puritanism, alike repugnant to him in its good and its evil. His subtle and active mind could not bear its narrowness and bigotry, his careless and epicurean temper had no sympathy with its earnestness and devotion. The popular cause in our great civil contests was in his eyes the cause of fanaticism: and where he saw fanaticism he saw that from which his whole nature recoiled, as the greatest of all conceivable evils.ARNOLD, THOMAS, 1842, Introductory Lectures on Modern History, Lecture v.

Considered as calm and philosophic narratives, the histories of Hume and Robertson will remain as standard models for every future age. every future age. The just and profound reflections of the former, the inimitable clearness and impartiality with which he has summed up the arguments on both sides, on the most momentous questions which have agitated England, as well as the general simplicity, uniform clearness and occasional pathos, of this story, must forever command the admiration of mankind. mankind. In vain we are told that he is often inaccurate, sometimes partial; in vain are successive attacks published on detached parts of his narrative, by party zeal or antiquarian research, his reputation is undiminished; successive editions issuing from the press attest the continued sale of his work; and it continues its majestic course through the sea of time, like a mighty threedecker, which never even condescends to notice the javelins darted at its sides from the hostile canoes which from time to time seek to impede its progress.-ALISON, SIR ARCHIBALD, 1844, Michelet's France, Foreign and Colonial Review; Essays, vol. III, p. 419.

No one can be surprised if in so short a time alloted to the whole work, far more attention was given to the composition of the narrative than to the preparation of the materials. It was altogether impossible that, in so short a period, the duty of the historian should be diligently performed. The execution of the work answers to the mode of its performance. But if the "History" be not diligently prepared, is it faithfully written? There are numberless proofs of the contrary; but we have the most express evidence in the author's own statement to prove this position.-BROUGHAM, HENRY LORD, 1845-6, Lives of Men of Letters of the Time of George III.

Is it possible that this false pleader, this avowed traducer, this narrator of a garbled story, can be the first of British historians? That a writer so unreliable can have won the attention and applause of the best minds of his own and all succeeding ages? That Mackintosh and Brougham and Romilly can have united to place him where he now stands, first among his rivals; while the honest intellect of the Anglo-Saxons of every land cherishes as a priceless treasure this work, in which there is so much that is false and so much that is unworthy? There can only be applied to this singular problem in literature the simplest solution. What we admire in Hume's History is the display of intellectual power. We read it, not so much for information, as for an agreeable intellectual exercise. In this view it was written, in this it is read. We admire its subtile disputations, its artful array of facts, the genius which shines in its false narrative, and illuminates its unsound disputations. The consciousness that its narrative is unsound heightens the interest of the tale.-LAWRENCE, EUGENE, 1855, The Lives of the British Historians, vol. II, p. 209.

David Hume was not a philosophic historian, for many of his inaccuracies might have been avoided, had he been willing to sacrifice indolence to duty, and encounter the labor of research; he was not a philosophic historian, because his prejudices sometimes made him an eulogist, when he should have been an impartial judge. No man will ever form a correct opinion of any monarch of the house of Stuart from his pages. Hume has no sympathy with

the deep-seated love of liberty and sense of justice that glowed in the bosoms of those who opposed the arbitrary claim of prerogative in his favorite kings. Poorer stuff than the Stuarts to make Kings of, never lived in England, and yet no one would learn it from Hume.-HAWKS, FRANCIS L., 1856, History of North Carolina, vol. 1, p. 59.

His "History," notwithstanding some defects which the progress of time and of knowledge is every year making more considerable, or at least enabling us better to perceive, and some others which probably would have been much the same at whatever time the work had been written, has still merits of so high a kind as a literary performance that it must ever retain its place among our few classical works in this department, of which it is as yet perhaps the greatest. In narrative clearness, grace, and spirit, at least, it is not excelled, scarcely equalled, by any other completed historical work in the language.-CRAIK, GEORGE L., 1861, A Compendious History of English Literature and of the English Language, vol. II, p. 356.

For ease, beauty, and picturesque power of style, there was then nothing like it in the range of English historical literature: and for these qualities it yet holds an honoured place on our book-shelves. Yet the day of Hume as an authority on English history has long gone by. The light of modern research has detected countless flaws and distortions in the great book, which was carefully, even painfully, revised as to its style, but which was formed in great part of a mass of statements often gathered from very doubtful sources, and heaped together, almost unsifted and untried. He wrote exquisitely; but he sometimes spent the beauty of his style upon mere chaff and saw-dust. Much the same thing it was, as if a jeweller should frame a costly casket and grace it with every ornament of art, that its rich beauty might at last enshrine a few worthless pebbles or beads of coloured glass.-COLLIER, WILLIAM FRANCIS, 1861, A History of English Literature, pp. 326, 327.

Happily, the influence of Hume's calumnies has long been an expiring influence. But one of their sources is likely to be perennial. It was not mere Jacobitism which made David Hume distort so

perseveringly the career and character of Walter Ralegh. Fire and water are not more antipathetic than were the natures of Ralegh and of Hume. Amongst men of genius, it would be hard to find in more salient contrast breadth and narrowness. -EDWARDS, EDWARD, 1868, The Life of Sir Walter Ralegh, vol. 1, p. 721.

It

David Hume was, like Machiavelli, a man of genius. His mind was one of great power and originality. He was a most acute and even subtle reasoner. has been said that the object of his reasonings was not to attain truth, but to show that it was unattainable. I am inclined to think that his frequent failures in attaining truth are rather attributable to a bad habit he had acquired, through indolence, of carelessness or indifference about the accuracy of his facts.-BISSET, ANDREW, 1871, Essays on Historical Truth, p. 138.

The rapidity with which his history was executed, at a time when but little aid was to be derived from the labours of any predecessors in the same field, shows, not, if fairly considered, that he did not devote himself to such diligent research as is the boast of some modern historians; but that, in fact, the means for such investigation were not at that time accessible. Original documents, where they were known to exist, were jealously guarded. And Hume had to trust to his innate sagacity to extract the truth from sources which to a less penetrating intellect would scarcely have conveyed any indication of information. Yet so great was his native shrewdness that, while drawing only from materials open to all, he threw a perfectly new light on many of the most important transactions and greatest characters in our annals, which since his time has been generally admitted to be the true one. YONGE, CHARLES DUKE, 1872, Three Centuries of English Literature, p. 121.

It still occupies a chief place among English histories, and rightly so, for it is based on the careful study of original sources, the materials are fully mastered and clearly developed, and due attention is paid to the lessons history teaches; persons and times are represented from an impartial point of view on the whole, and the style is fascinating throughout.SCHERR, J., 1874, A History of English Literature, tr. M. V., p. 139.

The "History" as a whole is of no

high authority. From first to last it is evidently the work of an essayist and "philosopher," who regarded truth as subordinate to effect, and looked to his own ends, personal and philosophical. To apologize for the misconduct of the Stuarts, to write down the British Constitution, as well as the Christian religion, or at least so much of both as were not then admired by the higher order of the state, were among the objects he sought to attain. JENKINS, O. L., 1876, The Student's Handbook of British and American Literature, p. 238.

He was a man of large reading and profound thought, who could see more clearly than others into the relations of causes and effects, and into the relative significance of the events he had to describe in their reference to events elsewhere; and he had a peculiar gift in the discrimination of the true from the imaginary or the false. There was a universal testimony to the superiority of Hume's work in the countless editions of "Hume and Smollett's History,"-the inferior author being trusted of necessity when the superior was not available.-BURTON, JOHN HILL, 1880, A History of the Reign of Queen Anne, vol. II, p. 323.

It is the unstudied grace of Hume's periods which renders him, in spite of his unfairness and defective erudition, in spite of his toryism and infidelity, the popular historian of England.-Mathews, WILLIAM, 1881, Literary Style, p. 8.

This

This work, written more than a hundred years ago, has enjoyed the rank of a classic in historical literature from the day of its completion to the present time. In point of clearness, elegance, and simplicity of style it has never been surpassed. peculiarity, however, united as it is with the calm and philosophical spirit with which the author contemplates the events he describes, has given the work a rank to which its strictly historical merits never would have entitled it. Indeed, Hume was not an historical investigator in any true sense of the term. He was under much greater obligations to some of his predecessors than he ever acknowledged. With some propriety it may, be said that Carte was the miner, while Hume was only the finisher of the materials brought together by his more industrious and thorough predecessor. An historical work