THE EARLY BRITISH REVIEWS OF HUME'S WRITINGS
                                  
                                  
                                  
Review of Hume's <Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul>
                                  
                                from
                                  
                     <The Gentleman's Magazine>
                                  
                            August 1784
                                  
                               5/1/95
                                  
                                  
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 review appeared anonymously in August 1784,
Volume 54 (Part 2), page 35 of <Gentleman's Magazine>. It was
included in the section titled "Impartial and Critical Review of New
Publications," and was followed by a review of George Horne's
anonymous <Letters on Infidelity>, a work which contains a lengthy
critique of Hume's <Dialogues>.
                                  
                              * * * *
                                  
                                  
          <Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle>
                                  
                            August 1784
                                  
                              Vol. 54
                                  
                               Part 2
                                  
{607}

<Essays on Suicide, and the Immortality of the Soul, ascribed to the
     late> David Hume, <Esq. Never before published. With Remarks,
     intended as an Antidote to the Poison contained in those
     Performances, by the Editor. To which are added, Two Letters on
     Suicide, from> Rousseau's Eloisa. 12<mo>.

     THESE Essays, it is well known, were printed and advertised by
Mr. Millar, with some others by Mr. Hume, near thirty years ago; but
before the day of publication, being intimidated by threats of
prosecution, the book-seller called in some copies that he had
dispersed, cancelled the two Essays, and (with difficulty) prevailed
on Mr. Hume to substitute some others less obnoxious. Some copies,
however, escaped this proscription, and have since been privately
sold at a large price. As needy authors evade the patent by writing,
or pretending to write, notes on the Bible, the present editor seems
to think himself safe from prosecution by supplying this code of
infidelity with what he calls "a comment," or "an antidote." A poor
evasion, and which, we apprehend, would no more justify the vender
of poison of any kind <in foro legis>, than <in foro conscientiae>;
as many, who swallow the poison, will not apply the antidote, even
were it much stronger than that here administered. And, by adding
Rousseau's Letters, the design is obvious. Sophistical and
fallacious as are the arguments, we will not, by retailing them, be
guilty of a practice that we condemn; but, as a much better antidote
than any here prescribed, will recommend the small tract reviewed in
our next article, which is supposed to be by the Dean of Canterbury.
     [1][COPYRIGHT: (c) 1995, James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu), all
rights reserved. Unaltered copies of this computer text file may be
freely distribute for personal and classroom use. Alterations to
this file are permitted only for purposes of computer printouts,
although altered computer text files may not circulate. Except to
cover nominal distribution costs, this file cannot be sold without
written permission from the copyright holder. This copyright notice
supersedes all previous notices on earlier versions of this text
file. When quoting from this text, please use the following
citation: <The Early British Reviews of Hume's Writings>, ed. James
Fieser (Internet Release, 1995).
     EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS: letters between slashes (e.g., H/UME\)
designate small capitalization. Letters within angled brackets
(e.g., <Hume>) designate italics. Note references are contained
within square brackets (e.g., [1]). Original pagination is contained
within curly brackets (e.g., {1}). Spelling and punctuation have not
been modernized. Printer's errors have been corrected without note.
Bracketed comments within the end notes are the editor's. This is a
working draft. Please report errors to James Fieser
(jfieser@utm.edu).]