EARLY BIOGRAPHIES OF DAVID HUME "An Account of the Life and Writings of the Late David Hume, Esq." 1776 5/5/95 Copyright 1995, James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu). See end note for details on copyright and editing conventions. This is a working draft; please report errors.[1] Editor's note: This anonymous account of Hume's life first appeared in a British periodical publication in 1776 (yet to be discovered) and was reprinted later in both , and , November 27, 1777, Vol. 38 pp. 193-197. The flattering biography was written sometime after Hume's death, but before the close of the year 1776. The essay is the most detailed account of Hume to appear prior to the publication of Hume's . It begins with a discussion of the socio-economic conditions under which Hume was raised and how these impacted his choice of an occupation. The author defends both the style and content of the and discusses Hume's account of female chastity as an illustration. He describes Hume's as "certainly the greatest historical work of modern times." The author makes several mistakes of fact and chronology, such as stating Hume's birth year as 1712, and suggesting that Hume's library position commenced around 1742. Shortly after the appearance of the "Account" in , an anonymous author, under the pseudonym "Tobias Simple" attacked the "Account" in "Strictures on the Account of the Life and Writings of David Hume, Esq.", , December 25, 1777, Vol. 38, pp. 289-293 (see Hume Archives edition of the "Strictures"). The following is from the reprint of the "Account". * * * * David Hume, . THE lives of literary men seldom abound with incidents. That leisure, which is necessary for the acquisition of knowledge, excludes them in some measure from the busy world, and intense study seems generally to subdue in them the spirit of enterprize. Few men, even among the learned, had ever less of that spirit than the honest, easy, indolent,but philosophic Hume. His life, consequently, affords few of those occurrences which are commonly supposed to give interest to a biographical narration. But there is a pleasure in tracing the progress of genius, and observing its various obstructions and encouragements, in the road to fame, which has made the lives of authors, though less deversified by circumstances, more universally acceptable than those perhaps of any other class of men. No apology need therefore be made for an attempt to trace the progress of a writer unequalled in his age, or in his province, one of the most eminent and extensive in the empire of science. David Hume, so well known to the world of late, both as a philosopher and historian, was born about the year 1712, in that part of Scotland which lies between Edinburgh and Berwick. His father was a country gentleman, or laird, of good family, but small fortune, and David was unfortunately a younger son. In his early years, he was by no means distinguished as a scholar, or by any of those accomplishments which are supposed to qualify youth for the liberal professions; but as the pride of the Scottish gentry then prevented them from breeding any of their children to mechanical or mercantile employments; and as the church, in that country, can only be the object of the lower class of people, the best kirks affording no more than a decent maintenance, there was a necessity for every younger son of a genteel family being bred either a soldier, a lawyer, or a physician. -- David was destined for the bar; not so much as being adapted to his genius, as the line in which his relations could most effectually serve him. After passing through his academical courses at the university of Edinburgh, he therefore devoted himself to the study of the Scotch laws, in which he mad considerable progress; but whether from that natural modesty almost inseparably connected with great merit, a consciousness of his deficiency in elocution, the happy indolence of his temper, little fitted for the contentious bar, or any other secret cause, he never put on the gown, not even took the introductory steps necessary for that purpose. Other studies attracted him. The metaphysical writings of Locke and Berkeley had turned all inquisitive men towards intellectual objects. The human mind spent its force in contemplating itself; as if man had been born for thinking, not acting; as if ideas had, in fact, only been ; and that material world, as conjectured by the Bishop of Cloyne, but . Mr. Hume had early applied himself to metaphysical inquiries: he saw, or seemed to see, the defects of the former systems, and published, in 1739, the two first volumes of his , and the third the following year. This work, though no inferior to any thing of the moral or metaphysical kind in any language, was entirely overlooked, or decried at the time of its publication, except by a few liberal- minded men, who had courage to throw aside their popular and literary prejudices, and to follow sound reasoning without being afraid of any dangerous conclusion, or fatal discovery; of seeing errors unveiled, however sanctified by years, or supported by authorities: and the author made sensible, to the severe disappointment of his youthful hopes, that the taste for systematical writing was on the decline, divided his treatise into separate essays, and dissertations, which he published, with improvements, alterations, and additions, at different periods of his life. His enemies, however, or men desirous of raising a reputation by exposing the mistakes of a great genius, have levelled all their arguments against this juvenile production, though never dignified with the author's name; and Dr. Beattie, in particular, more than thirty years after the publication of that sceptical system, has been so successful as to obtain a pension by his ; in which he discovers all the violence of a a sectary, and all he illiberality of a pedant, and rather abuses than confutes Mr. Hume.[2] As the is now very scarce, some account of it may be agreeable to many readers. The author's purpose in that work, as he himself informs us, was "to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects." The ability with which he has executed his design, can only be fully discovered by an examination of the treatise itself; which, as a composition, is admirable. The first volume treats of the understanding, the second of the passions, the third of morals. Criticism and politics were still necessary to complete his plan, and would have been added systematically, if the success had, in any degree, been answerable to the merit of the work. He thus speaks of the sciences that he meant to examine: "The sole end of logic is to explain the principles and operations of our reasoning faculty, and the nature of our ideas: morals and criticism regard our tastes and sentiments; and politics consider men as united in society, and dependent on each other. In these four sciences, logic, morals, criticism, and politics, is comprehended almost every thing, which it can any way import us to be acquainted with, or which can tend either to the improvement or ornament of the human mind." So early, and when he was thought little able to give a new direction to science, had this great man digested that ingenious system of philosophy, which had changed metaphysics from a frivolous t an useful study; and give a stability to morals, criticism, and politics, unknown in former ages! -- But what is still more extraordinary, the stile and method of this first production are not less correct and happy, than those of his most admired performances, written after his taste and judgment were matured by years and experience. A single quotation will be sufficient to support this assertion, and also to exemplify his method of reasoning on moral subjects. Speaking of that modesty and chastity which belongs to women, "there are some philosophers," he observes, who attack the female virtues with great vehemence, and fancy they have gone very far in detecting popular errors, when they can shew, hat there is no foundation in nature for all that exterior modesty which we require in the expressions, dress, and behaviour of the fair sex." And he proceeds to examine the origin of such notions, and their connection with the interests of society. "Whoever considers," says he, "the length and feebleness of human infancy, with the concerns which both sexes naturally have for their offspring, will easily perceive that there must be an union of male and female for the education of the young, and that this union must be of considerable duration. But in order to induce the men to impose on themselves this restraint, and undergo cheerfully all the fatigues and expences to which it subjects them, they must believe that the children are their own, that their is not directed to a wrong object when they give a loose to love and tenderness. "Now," adds he, with equal justice and ingenuity, "if we examine the structures of the human body, we shall find that this security is very difficult to be attained on our part; and that since in the copulation of the sexes, he p