EARLY BIOGRAPHIES OF DAVID HUME "Strictures on the 'Account Of The Life and Writings of the Late David Hume, Esq.'" from "Tobias Simple" 1777 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 pseudonymous essay is a critique of a 1776 essay titled "An Account of the Life and Writings of the late David Hume, Esq." (see Hume Archives edition of the latter). The critique appeared in , December 25, 1777, Vol. 38, pp. 289-292. The author opens attacking Pratt's (1777), and Hume's facetious dialogue with Charon reported by Smith in his . The author erroneously notes that the "Account" is based on Hume's , and then focuses his attack on the discussion of chastity from the (as appears on the "Account"). He lists eight skeptical "dogmas" found in Hume's writings, and concludes with a fictitious lecture Hume might have given his students if he obtained the chair of moral philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. The copy text upon which the text below is based is illegible at places; asterisks are inserted where letters or words cannot be deciphered. * * * * {289} S/TRICTURES\ D/AVID\ H/UME\, . DAVID HUME "Never were the pillars of orthodoxy so desperately shaken,as they are now by that event;" cries, with exultation and triumph, one of his disciples[2] -- "He has proved himself, in opposition to a contrary opinion, one of these rare characters -- an uniform philosopher.["] Pray Sir, let me ask this gentleman, What has orthodoxy, the (no doubt you mean?), , if you please, suffered by that event? Every good man, affected with religious principles, and from a humane concern for a fellow creature, and must have wished, that that philosopher had, in his last moments, expressed some concern for his future existence! he did it not: that he died firm to his own tenets, they are truly sorry for: but how the by that event, more than by the death of many a that hath lived and died so, in every age, they don't see. Your philosopher, if it will please you, shall rank in the first class of that sect. The famous , crying out at the name of , was careful to let it be know, that it was an involuntary exclamation. shut himself up with his old woman, in his last moments, giving orders, that no divine should be admitted to disturb him. The gay , whose exit our hero seems to have had in his eye, having cut his veins, and bound them up again, called his friends about him -- ", says the historian, ." Our philosopher, as firm as any of them, in his last moments, chearfully entertained his friends with a dialogue between himself and Charon, played a game at Whist, and read Tom Jones. NO Sir, all this is very well, and stands recorded on good evidence; and no one, I'm persuaded, will pretend to say, that our philosopher, before he made his exit, either called for the , was {290} heard to invoke the Deity, or to utter the shortest ejaculation for his soul. And pray what has orthodoxy, or the Christian religion suffered from all this? have you any grounds for the upon that event? It was the complaint of the of the last age, that men of genius were not at liberty to canvass with freedom points of religion: that they were obliged to write in fetters, and met with great discouragement in their attempts to investigate, with freedom, these points. How far they had reason for their complaints, may be judged from the writings of , and the noble author of the . It must be owned, indeed, that although these essays are neither remarkable for the spirit of moderation, nor for modesty, yet, simple as the appearance was, they thought themselves obliged, when writing against the religion of their country, to put on a lair out-side. Thus, although they soon unmasked themselves, they carried on the show, by affecting, on every occasion, the specious words of , and such like th**** in their mouths. This thin ****, it is true, imposed upon nobody, but in some readers, it was an acknowledgement from these gentlemen, that they thought themselves, at least, under an obligation to treat with decency and respect the established religion of their country; and they were sensible too, that it would very ill have become them, while they were declaiming against the intemperate zeal of the early professors of Christianity, for insulting the religion of Paganism, then the established religion, and in extolling the mild forbearance of the , their great hero, if they themselves had incurred the same censure. But times, it seems, are altered: the Free-thinkers of the present age seem to be insensible of the unbounded toleration, the perfect freedom which they now enjoy. This leads me to take notice of another abuse of this liberty, in a paper which, Mr. Printer, you have lately given to the public; to wit, "An account of the life and writings of the late David Hume, Esq;" than which, a more gross insult has not been offered, I wont say to religion **** (for, with the , religion, in every sense, is out of the question, but to the and common understanding of mankind. This piece, as it hath appeared first in the Annual Register, and lately in your Weekly Magazine, I mean to examine, and make some observes upon. It is proper to premise, that the writer of this paper, with respect to the life and writings of the philosopher, notwithstanding his inviting title, has given us only a bald repetition of a few of the anecdotes from Mr Hume's life, written by himself. Of the observations he makes on our author's metaphysical works, I mean only to take notice. This writer introduces his account with a high swoln panegyric on our author's first metaphysical production, -- "A work (says ) not inferior to any thing of the moral, or metaphysical kind in any language." And to justify this very decisive opinion, he is pleased to give us an abstract from our author, with respect to the of , and , and the necessary restraint they are laid under, in order to preserve their fidelity to their husbands, and to the marriage-bed. Mr Hume says, with truth, that "considering the length and feebleness of infancy, both parents must unite their care in the education of their young; therefore, , they must believe that the children are their own." He then proceeds to tell us what is equally true and well known, that "if we examine the structure 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, the principles of generation goes from the man to the woman, an error may take place on the side of the former, though it be utterly impossible on the side of the latter. In order therefore, to impose a due restraint on the female sex, we must attach a peculiar degree of shame to their infidelity above what arises merely from its injustice, and must bestow proportionable praise on their chastity: But, as human creatures, especially of the female kind are apt to overlook remote consequences while under the influence of any present temptation, it is necessary, besides the infamy attending such licences, that there should be some preceding backwardness or dread, which may prevent their first approaches, and give the female sex a repugnance to all expressions, and postures, and liberties, that have immediate relation to that enjoyment." -- "So much {291} good sense and sound reasoning (says our observator) was never delivered in so few words on the subject of by any writer ancient or modern." Indeed! "Yet, (proceeds he) this is an extract from the ," (Reader mark his modestly,) "whose confutation has been attempted, more than once, by mere ," (really!) "and childish declamation." Equally sensible and modest is this remark! It is scarce possible, indeed, to cram more and into fewer words. As for the sense and reasoning contained in the above extract from Mr Hume, it would have been truly absurd in any body to have pretended either to confute, or even to dispute; and I wish this writer had told us who had attempted to do it. As for ingenuity in the extract, or novelty, there is none. Is there an old woman that, without much knowledge of the , does not know, that although we can, with no certainty, determine the father, yet there can be no doubt as to the mother of the child? or is it a new discovery of Mr Hume, that in order to impose due restraint on the wise, to preserve inviolate the marriage-bed, it was necessary that, besides the shame, infamy, and even punishment annexed to her breach of fidelity, the utmost caution should be exerted to inculcate the seeds of modesty into the sex from the earliest infancy? Did Dr. Beattie get a pension for impudently attempting to confute this doctrine, not of Mr Hume, but established in every civilized nation so early as man could have any notion of society? No. But shall I tell this writer what detestable principles of Mr Hume, even subversive of his above doctrine, Dr. Beattie, and several others, have ,with mere common sense, taken upon them to dispute, and, strange as it is, even to confute. Mr Hume has told us, that , considered abstractly from its , is no virtue: That the principles of chastity respect generation only; it follows, then, that, in women past child-bearing, it is no virtue at all:[3] That adultery ,if frequently practised, would cease to be scandalous; and that, if secretly practised, would be thought no crime.[4] Blessed doctrine this, and tending much to reform the manners of the age! The consequences that may be drawn from these principles shall not be here stated. -- Was our philosopher a a man of gallantry? It is said that he affected the company of women, and the ladies, it is said, loaded him with their favours: For the honour of the , it is to be hoped that he had few pupils. To every virtuous woman such principles must have appeared shocking and detestable. This writer tells us, "That, in 1746, Mr Hume stood candidate for the chair of moral philosophy in the university of Edinburgh, then vacant; every one, says he, was convinced of Mr Hume's abilities; but the , having a right to object to one of the three candidates, they put their negative upon , whose sentiments were for their . As he was eminently qualified for this office, he could have been of more service to his country than in any other." Ye illiberal and narrow-minded men of the presbytery of Edinburgh, what hurt did you not do to your country, in depriving it of David Hume for professor of morality! what a blessed system of ethicks would he have instilled into our youth! To laugh were want of goodness, and of grace; And to be grave, exceeds all power of face. But let us collect some of the dogmas of our philosopher. 1. "The efficacy of causes (says he) is neither placed in causes themselves, nor in the Deity, but belongs entirely to the soul."[5] The obvious conclusion is, that there is . 2. That we have no good reason to think that the universe proceeds from a cause.[6] 3. That matter and motion may be the cause of thought.[7] 4. That the material world does not exist. -- Allow this to be called in question. What arguments have we to prove the being of God?[8] 5. That neither matter nor spirit exists -- Let us attend to our philosopher's principles of morality. {292} 6. That justice is not a natural virtue, but artificial and arbitrary.[9] 7.That all moral virtues ore of the same nature, i.e. arbitrary, and depending on the custom and institutions of men.[10] 8.That every action of man is necessary.[11] These are some of the principles, which Dr Beattie has most impudently taken upon him to censure; and, strange to tell, has, with mere common sense, brought the whole of our philosopher in ruins about his ears. Let us suppose, however, that our author had obtained the philosophic chair, he might, no doubt, from the above principles, **** [teach the following]: "Now, my students, having inculcated these principles, shake off the fetters of superstition, that is, religion, being convinced there is no first cause: is a mere bugbear, as I have demonstrated in a work which I mean at my death to bequeath to you.[12] If notwithstanding the liberal principles I have given you; if, in the practice of the many advantages my tenets must give you over the wives, the daughters, and fortunes of your weak fellow mortals; any of you, from the want of firmness of nerves, weakness of constitution, or from the troublesome intrusion of a certain faculty in the machine, not altogether subdued by my physics, called , shall find yourselves disturbed and haunted, there is an easy remedy; suicide is a cure for every disease: For be assured, The worst that can befal you, measur'd right, is a sound slumber and a long good night." Can it be said that this speech is not a fair induction from the above principles? I think it cannot. But it will be said, no doubt, that our philosopher was a man of virtue, and a very good member of society: abstracting from the immorality of writing and publishing such principles, I shall allow he was so: What follows? Only this, that his passions for inordinate pleasures luckily were none of the strongest; and that his constitution led him to study, entertaining his friends and the pleasures of the table. But with all that, can any excuse be made for his attempts to take from man, (that wild beast hurried away by passions) the curbs of , and ? What apology can his warmest admirers make for this? Let me oppose to the above dogmas, only one of the precepts of another , I mean, the divine Instituter of our religion; for, reader, I am not ashamed to own myself one of the people called Christians. This blessed person, whose wisdom came from heaven, knew how prone poor weak mortals were to be led astray by unguarded passions; and that the first inlet to carnal desires ought to be guarded against. Let not even your eye, says he, fix upon such objects as may, by degrees, hurry you on ; rather pull it out: For remember that God dwells not with impurity. , therefore, are the , for they . Before I conclude, I shall make one observation, which, I dare say, daily occurs to the experience of many others, that is, That the philosophy of our author seems to be very agreeable, and often in the mouths of many of the men of fashion of the age: That he was a very subtile and acute metaphysician, his works shew; yet, amidst all his pretended admirers, it is a certain fact, that no one of a hundred of these fine gentlemen understand him, of which the writer of the account of his life, &c. stands a lamentable proof. To conclude; may the of the present age ever rejoice in their liberty and freedom which they now enjoy; may they always thankfully cry out in the words of the historian; [13] At the same time, let these gentlemen learn to make a better use of that liberty, than . [NOTES] [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: , ed. James Fieser (Internet Release, 1995). EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS: letters between slashes (e.g., H/UME\) designate small capitalization. Letters within angled brackets (e.g., ) 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).] [2]. [3]. [4]. [5]. [6]. [7]. [8]. [9]. [10]. [11]. [12]. [13].