ТОП просматриваемых книг сайта:
David Hume. Mark G. Spencer
Читать онлайн.Название David Hume
Год выпуска 0
isbn 9780271068411
Автор произведения Mark G. Spencer
Жанр Философия
Издательство Ingram
In this volume, citations to Hume’s texts are provided parenthetically. Unless stated otherwise, citations give the titles (abbreviated as described in the list below) and page numbers of the edition cited. For example, E 563 refers to page 563 of Miller’s edition of Hume’s Essays. For citations to some of Hume’s texts, however, it is useful to provide more information than the page number of a particular edition. References to Hume’s History take the following form: title, volume, page. Thus, H 2:525 refers to volume 2, page 525, of Todd’s edition of Hume’s History. References to Hume’s Enquiries provide the title, section, and paragraph number of the Beauchamp edition, followed by the page number of the Selby-Bigge/Nidditch edition, where applicable. For example, EHU 12.4/150 refers to section 12, paragraph 4, in Beauchamp’s edition of the first Enquiry; page 150 in Selby/Nidditch. Similarly, references to Hume’s Treatise provide the title, book, part, section, and paragraph number in the Nortons’ edition, followed by the page number of the Selby-Bigge/Nidditch edition, so that T 1.3.4.2/82–83 refers to Treatise book 1, part 3, section 4, paragraph 2; pages 82 and 83 in Selby-Bigge/Nidditch.
List of Abbreviations
| E | Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, edited by E. F. Miller, rev. ed. (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1987). |
| EHU | An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, edited by T. L. Beauchamp (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000). |
| An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, in Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditch, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975). | |
| EPM | An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by Tom L. Beauchamp (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). |
| An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, in Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditch, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975). | |
| H | The History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688, edited by William B. Todd, 6 vols. (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1983). |
| L | The Letters of David Hume, edited by J. Y. T. Greig, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932). |
| NHR | The Natural History of Religion, in A Dissertation on the Passions and The Natural History of Religion, edited by Tom L. Beauchamp (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007). |
| NL | New Letters of David Hume, edited by R. Klibansky and E. C. Mossner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954). |
| T | A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000). |
| A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd rev. ed. P. H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). |
David Hume (1711–1776) appreciated the centrality of historical thinking and writing to the enlightened world within which he lived. As the aging scholar put it reflectively in 1770 in a letter to his London publisher, William Strahan, “I believe this is the historical Age and this the historical Nation” (L 2:230). By then, of course, Hume had done much to contribute to that state of affairs in Britain and beyond. All six volumes of his The History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688 (1754–62) had been published and were circulating far and wide throughout the British Atlantic world. Hume’s History would continue to attract large numbers of readers for the remainder of the author’s lifetime and remained a best seller well into the nineteenth century. Little wonder that the card for Hume in the catalogue of the British Library differentiated him then (as it still does) as “David Hume, the historian.” The records left by the earliest readers of Hume’s History—even its noisiest critics—provide telling evidence of how influential Hume’s account was and also of just how much history mattered to Hume and his contemporaries.
If we want to recapture the essence of Hume’s place in the eighteenth-century history of ideas, then surely his historical thinking and writing ought to inform our understandings to a significant degree. But modern scholars have been far less interested in Hume as historical thinker and writer than were Hume’s contemporaries. It is Hume the philosopher, and especially Hume the philosopher of book 1 of A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40), whom scholars of Hume and general readers alike now know best. The Treatise—the work that Hume lamented “fell dead-born from the press”—rose to become standard reading in undergraduate philosophy courses around the world, while the History had died a slow death by the early twentieth century, so that now few besides specialists know its contents well. The number of book-length studies on Hume as historian published in the past hundred years are few, and there have been even fewer attempts to consider Hume as historical thinker and writer in a broader sense than as a historian of England. The chapters that follow cannot hope to right this historiographical imbalance, but each is an outstanding contribution toward that end, and together they provide a solid foundation on which future work may build.
The aim, of course, should not be to replace a misguided concentration on only Hume’s philosophical writings with a misguided concentration on only the historical ones. Indeed, each of the chapters in this volume shows that the relationship between Hume’s “historical” works and his “philosophical” works is more intimate than scholars have often assumed. Gone for good are the days when one can offhandedly assert, as R. G. Collingwood once did, that Hume “deserted philosophical studies in favour of historical” ones. Taken together, though, the following chapters offer much greater insight than that.
Casting their individual beams of light on various nooks and crannies of Hume’s historical thought and writing, these chapters illuminate the whole in a way that would not be possible from the perspective of a single-authored study. Their transdisciplinary and international perspectives are complementary, while at the same time they complicate our understanding of Hume’s intentions, texts, and impact. The approaches to Hume in this volume vary, sometimes considerably. A number of chapters offer close readings of themes in Hume’s History of England. Others approach Hume the historical thinker and writer through his Essays Moral, Political, and Literary (in which many of the essays have historical leanings or are informed by historical dimensions), through his Natural History of Religion, or through the ecclesiastical history Hume contemplated but did not write. Clearly, none of those works was divorced from Hume’s broader and long-developing philosophical concerns as the chapters below so aptly demonstrate. Other contributors to this volume fill in essential parts of the context in which Hume’s historical thought developed or flesh out the reception his historical writings received. Others still tease out the historical features of Hume’s more seemingly philosophical writings, his Treatise of Human Nature, and his later recasting of that work in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748) and An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals (1751). In short, it is not just that it is wrongheaded to pigeonhole Hume as “philosopher” at one point in his literary career and as “historian” at another; history and philosophy are commensurate in Hume’s thought and works from the beginning to the end. Only by recognizing this can we begin to make sense of Hume’s canon as a whole. Only then are we able to see clearly his many contributions to fields we now recognize as the distinct disciplines of history, philosophy, political science, economics, literature, religious studies, and much else besides.
In chapter 1, “Hume and Ecclesiastical History: Aims and Contexts,” Roger L. Emerson asks why Hume “might have wanted to write an ecclesiastical history and what sort of a history he would have written had he done one.”