 | |  |
Hume's Revisions of the History
of England
by
Graeme Slater
"Hume (David), the Historian", is the entry under which Hume's works are catalogued in the British Library. The History of England appeared between 1754 and 1762, and it was this work, rather than the philosophical writings, which provided the foundation of Hume's reputation for the next century. In the first half of the nineteenth century the History was clearly a canonical text; thus the Quarterly Review 46 (1832) paid tribute to the inviolable status of the work. For the Quarterly, the History "has taken its place as the classical record, and can no more be supplanted by anything else on the same subject than Macbeth, or the Paradise Lost, or the Dunciad" (6). In the view of the Quarterly, the English polity and the History were interrelated, and a historiographical revolution which would displace Hume was inconceivable—inconceivable both in terms of the English political system and the economics of the market place: "To drive Hume out of the market is impossible. The nation is no more disposed to welcome a new history than a new constitution" (6). Up to, and perhaps even beyond, the publication
The History emerged in various stages. The first quarto volume of the History of Great Britain, covering the period 1603-1649, was published in 1754; this volume, dealing as it did with the most hotly disputed reigns of English history, provoked a great deal of controversy. A quarto volume on the reigns of the later Stuarts appeared at the end of 1756. Hume then proceeded to write the history of the Tudors, two quarto volumes on the period 1485-1603 being published in 1759. Also in 1759 appeared a revised edition of the Stuart volumes. Two quarto volumes covering the period from the Roman landings in England to the reigns of the Tudors were published in 1761.[1] A uniform quarto edition of the History of England came out in 1762; this was followed by octavo editions in 1763, 1767, 1770 and 1773.[2] Hume's final revisions were incorporated in the posthumous edition of 1778. Thereafter, until the end of the nineteenth century, the History was reprinted and reshaped according to the designs of numerous editors.[3]
The significance of Hume's revisions to the History has rarely been discussed
Hume's composition of the History has traditionally been associated with an image of sloth, with the historian "working" on his text in a relaxed, not to say casual, posture.[10] However, he did in fact continue to read and, within limits, research. Hume adds information on economic affairs to the medieval volumes; for example he gives two further sentences on the economic reasons for the end of the Viking incursions (compare 1762: 1.219 and 1773: 1:308), and adds short paragraphs on taxation and trade in the reigns of Henry III (1762: 2.59 and 1770: 2.241, 1773: 2.230-231), Edward I (1762: 2.124 and 1770: 2.340-341), Edward III (1762: 2.238 and 1770: 2.523-524) and Henry IV
Like the revised medieval volumes, the later editions of the Tudor sections of the History contain additional material on economic and social affairs. Thus Hume comes to note the first importation of certain vegetables (1759: 1.283 and 1770: 4.304-305; extended 1773: 4.274) and gives an expanded account of the economy and monopolistic practices in the reign of Henry VIII (1759: 1.286 and 1770: 4.309-310). He adds paragraphs on the lack of refinement in Tudor England (1759: 1.402 and 1770: 4.497), on interest, innovations, posts, export, agriculture and prices in the reign of Elizabeth (1759: 2.735 and 1770: 5.513-514), and on the significance of Burleigh's possession of expensive plate (1759: 2.735 and 1770: 5.517-518). As in the medieval volumes, there are few overtly political revisions; but Hume does explicate his use of the term "ancient constitution" (1759: 2.716 and 1762: 4.314-315 n), emphasises the power of the office of High Constable (1759: 2.719 and 1770: 5.484), and gives examples of the arbitrary imprisonment of individuals who had incurred the displeasure of privy counsellors and noblemen (1759: 2.724 and 1763: 5.485). It is in the Tudor volumes that Hume, perhaps especially in his revisions, is most prone to a smug approval of his own era: the apparent decrease in executions is indicative of "a great improvement in morals since the reign of Henry VIII. And this improvement has been chiefly owing to the encrease of industry and the arts . . ." (1778: 4.276; compare 1759: 1.284). Similarly Hume adds a celebratory gloss to his comments upon the increase in population and military force in England:
However, the Stuart volumes contain the highest proportion of Hume's later researches and qualifications. In the first version of the appendix to the reign of James I, Hume appears the diligent but baffled researcher: "I have not been able, by any inquiry, to learn the common price of butcher meat during the reign of James" (1754: 128). He then proceeds to offer his own speculations and calculations on the subject. In the 1762 edition he adds a footnote, later incorporated into the text: "The author has since discovered in Dr. Birch's Life of Prince Henry, that that prince made an allowance of near a groat a pound for all the beef and mutton used in his family. . . . This price agrees very well with the calculations here delivered" (1762: 5.120 n). The 1770 edition includes new information on trade and economic affairs culled from various sources, information which is placed in the appendix to the reign of James I and his account of England under the later Stuarts (compare 1754: 133 and 1770: 6.205-206; 1757: 449 and 1770: 8.346-347). Hume recalculates or revises figures earlier given in the History; for example, he reduces his estimate of the proportion of English shipping engaged in trade with America (1754: 135 and 1763: 6.128), reduces the figure given for the size of Cromwell's army at Worcester (1757: 29 and 1770: 7.209), alters his estimate of the number of major-generals during the Commonwealth (1757: 60 and 1770: 7.261) and revises downwards the number of deaths caused by the plague of 1665 (1757: 167 and 1773: 7.408). Further reading enables him gradually to expand his original note on the comparative lack of freedom in the England of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century (1754: 118-119); in 1762 he adds a reference to "a paper wrote by a patriot in 1627" (1762: 5.112 n to 110), in 1773 he quotes Malsherbe (1773: 6.571 note Q to 6.161), and finally the 1778 edition adds the authority of Machievelli (1778: 6.570 note Q to 6.161). In this instance further reading sustains the interpretations of earlier editions, but Hume is prepared to alter his initial statements in the light of new information: thus in a correction of a geographical error "Draiton in Cheshire" becomes "Draiton in Shropshire" (1754: 405 and 1759: 1.394). New publications can modify Hume's account of events. He takes some pleasure in noting the effects of the appearance of Sir John Dalrymple's Memoirs (1778: 8.43 fn.), but not all the new information he obtains bolsters his original interpretations. In his treatment of the controversy surrounding Charles and Glamorgan's commission he partially defers to the work of Birch (compare 1754: 413-414 n and 1759: 1.402-403 n), and most notably the Memoirs of James II force the modification of certain parts of the History (Hume described the Memoirs in December 1763 as a "great Treasure . . . of historical Knowledge"[11]). Thus to his account of Charles II's relation to Catholicism he adds "The Author confesses that the King's zeal for Popery went further than is here said; as appears
Hume can revise in the light of new information; but other revisions are the product of his own narrative repatternings. Thus the humiliation of Henry II in his anxiety to reconcile himself to Becket is given additional emphasis (1762: 1.290 and 1773: 1.412), and the note elaborating the chastity of Joan of Arc is omitted in the final edition (1762: 2.345 n and 1778: 3.156). Perhaps the most interesting of the revisions to the medieval volumes is that involving the siege of Harfleur in 1415. In all but the edition of 1778, the siege ends in a massacre. The French troops holding the town had promised to capitulate by a certain date if not relieved, but had delayed their surrender and "Henry, incensed at their breach of faith . . . took the town by storm, and put all the garrison to the sword; except some gentlemen, whom the victorious army, in hope of reaping profit by their ransom, were induced to spare" (1762: 2.307). In the revised version of the end of the siege it is implied that the governor surrendered, and there is no reference to any killing: "The day came, and there was no appearance of a French army to relieve [the governor]. Henry, taking possession of the town, placed a garrison in it, and expelled all the French inhabitants, with an intention of peopling it anew with English" (1778: 3.99).
The most noticeable narrative recastings of the Tudor volumes involve wholesale excisions of material dealing with events in early modern Europe. Hume's set-piece description of Julius II is eventually omitted: "Animated with an unextinguishable thirst of glory, inflexible in his schemes, undaunted in his enterprizes, indefatigable in his pursuits; magnanimous, imperious, domineering; his vast soul broke thro' all the fetters, which old age and a priestly character imposed upon it, and, during his pontificate, kept the world in perpetual agitation." (1759: 1.74; compare 1773: 3.415). There is a similar substantial reduction in the account of the defeat of Venice by the League of Cambrai and the aftermath of the defeat (compare 1759: 1.75-76
Hume's "withdrawal" from European history is the most noticeable aspect of the revisions of the Tudor volumes, but in the same volumes he does engage in some comparatively minor, but none the less interesting, reconsiderations. For example, he omits the reflections, present in the first Tudor edition, on the fortunes of Elizabeth Woodville, possibly unhappy with their sententious banality (1759: 1.14 and 1762: 3.314). One of the most curious revisions of the Tudor volumes is that which represents the execution of Mary Queen of Scots as tragic spectacle; to the account of the execution given in the first edition, Hume adds the reaction of the "audience". After beheading Mary, the executioner "instantly held [the head] up to the spectators. . . . The attention of all the other spectators was fixed on the melancholy scene before them; and zeal and flattery alike gave way to present pity and admiration for the expiring princess" (1762: 4.220; compare 1759: 2.662). Thus the execution of Mary comes to have affinities with the death of Charles I, as tragic spectacle.
Not all of Hume's revisions directly affect the main lines of his narrative; but some revisions which bear upon particular characters or subjects display in an interesting fashion the workings of his historical consciousness. The
Less obviously explicable is Hume's late decision to omit his crafted paradigm of Bristol as the loyal servant of his royal master (see Letters 2.329).
The marquess of Montrose, in the first edition of the History a superlatively heroic figure, is reduced somewhat in revision. "The most heroic valour" which he displayed at Philip-haugh becomes "great valour" (1754: 410 and 1770: 7.67). Hume reduces Montrose's "magnanimous disposition" into "daring character" (1757: 16 and 1778: 7.178), and omits from later editions the paragraph dealing with Montrose's "manly scorn and indifference" to the exultation of his enemies, and "the even tenor of his heroic mind", maintained even in the pathos of the "tenderness of his last adieu" to his children (see 1757: 18 and 1762: 6.18). Similarly Montrose's "truly heroic actions" become "great military actions" (1757: 20 and 1770: 7.194). Overall, Hume seems intent upon reducing the status of Montrose from that of a hero to that of a "great" man. By contrast, Monk is given a late prominence in the historical pantheon. In his final revisions Hume recasts his assessment of Monk's abilities (compare 1757: 130 and 1778: 7.351), and adds a substantial note giving an account of his life and actions, in which it is declared that the restorer of the Stuarts is the Briton "who, since the beginning of time, has rendered the most durable and most essential services to his native country" (1778: 7.468, n to 7.467). There is no single explanation for these various revisionary reassessments of characters in the History, but such revisions do indicate Hume's acute concern with the texture of his work.
Hume by no means accepted all the more minor criticisms levelled at his earlier volumes, but he obviously read and carefully considered the strictures of his reviewers, and could be receptive to detailed criticism. For example the Critical Review 2 (1756) had exploded Hume's discussion of the balance between naval forces and land fortifications (386-387), a discussion which was dropped from later editions (compare 1757: 67 and 1762: 6.88). Similarly the Monthly Review 12 (1755) had remarked the anachronistic nature of Hume's reference to the Prince of Wales in the context of the Gunpowder Plot (211), pointing out that the title of Prince of Wales was not bestowed upon the King's son until 1610—the criticism was met with an emendation (compare 1754: 22 and 1759: 1.21). Occasionally, too, the historian's own situation in history ironically forced him to modify his earlier narrative in response to events. Hume's original confidence in the maintenance
Having examined some of the revisions which are the product of Hume's research, detailed criticisms or comparatively minor narrative restructurings, I now wish to turn to the more "central" aspects of the revisions—Hume's reworkings of his attitudes to religion and to the Stuarts. Hume's own version of the reception of the first volume of the History presents him as the wronged and embattled author. Riding out, and ignoring, the storms of criticism, the author sees his History somehow gradually attain popularity. Hume, by his own account, in no way responds to hostile criticism, or allows his authorial integrity to be compromised: "But, notwithstanding this variety of winds and seasons, to which my writings had been exposed, they had still been making such advances, that the copy-money given me by the booksellers, much exceeded anything formerly known in England, I was become not only independent, but opulent."[13] Exposed to the wild forces of hostile criticism, the History strangely survives and prospers. However, an examination of the criticisms levelled at the first volumes of the History, and of the revisions, produces a more complex picture. Hume's navigational responses to criticism play an important part in the steering of the History through "winds and seasons" to ultimate success.
Flexman's account of the first volume of the History of Great Britain in the Monthly Review 12 (1755) recognised Hume's talents in "narration" and "delineation" but raised questions about his possession of "the more essential articles of IMPARTIALITY and CONSISTENCY" (207). For Flexman, the volume contained "strong indications of a direct opposition to the genuine maxims of our civil polity, as well as indecent reflections on the protestant religion" (207). Flexman cited various passages as examples of Hume's objectionable treatment of religion (207-208, 214-216, 223-235). In quoting Hume's character of James I, Flexman referred to "this delineator's artful disposition of lights and shades" (226) and directed his reader to alternative accounts of James (227 n). He also resisted Hume's attempts to clear Charles' name in the affair of Glamorgan's commission (222-223). Significantly, Flexman sensed a contradiction between Hume's assessment of Charles and the
By far the most thorough and detailed attack upon the first volume of the History was Daniel MacQueen's Letters on Mr. Hume's History of England (1756). The Letters were presented as originating out of a discussion between friends; the second friend, with whom MacQueen is clearly in agreement, particularly objects to Hume's "indecent excursions on the subject of religion, the genius of the Protestant faith, and the characters of the first reformers."[14] As in the Monthly, Hume is seen as having stepped beyond the acceptable bounds of gentlemanly behaviour through his treatment of religion (38). MacQueen also seized upon the passages in the History critical of Charles I, accumulating instances of apparently anti-Stuart rhetoric (229-248) to provide a list of points in the History at which Hume, ironically, "seems all awake to the noble sentiments of liberty and social rights" (236). Flexman, too, had hinted at a contradiction between Hume's account of the king's actions and his final assessment of Charles.
At first optimistic (Letters 1.189), Hume had received early criticism with some equanimity: "I observe that some of the weekly papers have been busy with me. I am as great an atheist as Bolingbroke; as great a Jacobite as Carte; I cannot write English &c." (Letters 1.214). He did not attribute the poor sale of the first volume in England to his treatment of religion, although writing to Millar in April 1755 he was at least prepared to consider it as a possibility: "I shall give no further Umbrage to the Godly: Tho' I am far from thinking, that my Liberties on that head have been the real Cause of checking the Sale of the first Volume" (Letters 1.218). However, by May Hume was self-pitying—"Surely, never was man so torne in Pieces by Calumny" (Letters 1.221)—but he still blamed the London booksellers rather than the unpopularity of some of his opinions: "The Freedoms with Religion ought [in Scotland] to have given more Displeasure; & the Cry of Jacobitism as much, notwithstanding what may be imagined" (Letters 1.222). Finally, writing to Clephane, probably in 1756, Hume seemed to recognise a degree of responsibility for the poor reception accorded the History. But in his own presentation he remained innocent of any malicious intent towards his readers, guilty merely of overestimating their powers of discrimination: "I am convinced that whatever I have said of religion should have received some more softenings. There is no passage in the History which strikes in the least
Hume retained a preference for the first volume over the second (Letters 1.240, 242), and continued to be surprised at the hostility aroused by the first volume (Letters 1.242).[15] However, the tone of the second volume of the History, published in 1756, was taken by some of Hume's critics as a vindication of their assault upon the first volume. Writing for the Monthly Review 16 (1757), Rose made a clear distinction between the first and second volumes of the History. In the second volume there were "none of the indecent excursions on the subject of religion" of the first volume (36), and Rose implied "prudential considerations" as the reason for Hume's apparent retreat (36). Although thinking well of the language and structure of the volume (49, 50), Rose called into question Hume's impartiality in his characters of Charles II and James II (43, 45), and indicted him for a general lack of impartiality (50). The lukewarm attitude of the History towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular, also continued to give concern (50). On the whole, however, the Monthly's review of the second volume was far more positive than its reaction to the first. The Critical Review 2 (1756) while criticising details, both historical and stylistic, of the second volume, was generally very favourable (385-404).
However much he might have enjoyed the warmer critical response to his second volume, Hume was clearly stung by the accusation, implicit in the Monthly, that he had revised his principles, or rather refrained from expressing them, in order to increase the sale of the History. This accusation was given its most explicit form in Brown's Estimate of the Manners and Principles of the Times (1757, 1758). In illustration of his contention that fashionable infidelity was based upon superficial thought, Brown produced an exaggerated but effective version of the reception of the first volume and Hume's reaction. Hume had written intent upon "Popularity and Gain":
Brown was intent upon submitting writers such as Hume to "Just Disgrace" as a partial substitute for the "condign Punishment" which was unfortunately not permitted by the "free and happy Constitution" (2.88), and Hume does indeed seem to have been wounded by the attack upon his authorial integrity in Brown's immensely popular tract.[17] In fact, the revisions to the History do involve Hume in a retreat from his initial stance in relation to revealed religion.[18] In response to the negative criticism of the first volume he consistently toned down the aggressive or ironic aspects of the History's treatment of Christianity.[19] At the beginning of the 1754 volume, Hume gives a brief account of the Reformation, as background to his version of the religious arguments in the reign of James I; this account was rendered superfluous by the subsequent publication of the Tudor volumes, but the tone of Hume's later and more extensive coverage of the religious upheavals of the sixteenth century is far more restrained than the sketch he first gives. In 1754 Hume is prepared to recognise only "two species of religion, the superstitious and the fanatical" (1754: 7), and holds both species, but particularly the latter, up to ridicule. To the partisans of the "fanatical" religion he attributes an "inflexible intrepidity, with which they braved dangers, torments, even death itself; while they preached the doctrine of peace, and carried the tumults of war, thro' every part of Christendom" (1754: 8). The "fanatics" of Protestantism are lunatics: "their inflamed imagination, unconfined by any forms of liturgy, had full liberty to pour out itself, in wild, unpremeditated addresses to the Divinity" (1754: 8). At the start of Elizabeth's reign, the returning English exiles imported a virulent and dangerous strain of religion into their own country (1754: 8). From the edition of 1759 onwards Hume omits these incautious remarks. It is noticeable that MacQueen had taken particular exception to page 8 of the 1754 edition (11-32, 201-227).
Similarly in the later editions of the History Hume modifies his persona of superior and amused observer surveying the foibles of religion. In the edition of 1754 he offers his readers some information on "the Roman catholic superstition, its genius and spirit" (1754: 25). With a calculated disingenuousness, Hume expects his History to outlive Christianity: "History addresses itself to a more distant posterity than will ever be reached by any local or
In the edition of 1754 Christianity seems a mass of indecipherable contradictions—"As far as any coherence can be traced among the systems of modern theology . . . (1754: 40). These contradictions are later reduced to a more manageable intellectual problem: "In tracing the coherence among the systems of modern theology . . ." (1759: 1.36). In the 1754 edition Hume's implied audience appears to be composed of the curious "philosophes" of a later and more enlightened age; thus Hume considers that "It may be proper for the information of posterity to observe" that to Charles I the sacraments of communion and baptism were invalid unless administered by a properly consecrated "presbyter" (1754: 453-454). Hume blandly makes Charles' apology: "If this prejudice of the King appear superstitious and contemptible to some philosophical minds, as certainly the question is very minute; it ought still to be considered, that he was supporting the religion, which, at his accession, he found, by law, established in his kingdoms" (1754: 454). Both Charles' apparently "contemptible" prejudice and Hume's calculatedly gratuitous apology are subsequently excised (see 1759: 1.442).
Hume's account of the progress of Scottish Calvinism is likewise toned down in subsequent volumes. In the edition of 1754 Calvinism is a violent and furious tide (1754: 60) and the Calvinist "leaders" merely signalise the absurdity of their followers; the preachers "did not, properly speaking, lead the multitude: They only ran before them, in all their fanatical extravagencies" (1754: 61). This section, prefacing the narrative of James I's dealings with the Scottish Church, became redundant once the Tudor volumes had been added to the History; but the tone of Hume's potted history of Calvinism
The small but consistent verbal alterations to the treatment of religion in the History are indicative of the studied and thoroughgoing nature of Hume's withdrawal from his initial stance. Unsurprisingly, MacQueen had objected to Hume's earlier lexicon (37-38). Thus "bigotry" is reduced to "spirit" or "zeal" (compare 1754: 94, 99 and 1759: 1.85, 90). "Fanaticism" becomes "zeal" (compare 1754: 75 and 1759: 1.66), and "fanatics" mere "enthusiasts" (compare 1754: 356, 382 and 1759: 1.345, 371). Likewise, "the Romish superstition" (1754: 222) becomes "the Romish worship" (1759: 1.213). In parallel to these "corrections" Hume consistently excises the adjectives or adverbs that might have given offence to readers of the first edition of the History. The "animosity of the doctrinal puritans" ceases to be "bigotted" (compare 1754: 193 and 1759: 1.182; 1754: 415 and 1759: 1.404). On occasion the modifying "enthusiastic" may be removed (compare 1754: 382 and 1759: 1.371). "Furious" and "fervour", with their implications of the violent irrationality of the proceedings of the "zealots", are also sometimes dropped from later editions (compare 1754: 394, 425 and 1759: 1.384, 414), and the "extravagencies and singularities" of religious spirit are reduced to less grotesque "singularities" (compare 1754: 213 and 1759: 1.203).
In addition, the more aggressive sallies of the 1754 volume against religion are usually withdrawn. Thus the comment that "of all European nations the British were at that time [1625], and till long after, sunk into the lowest and most odious bigotry" (1754: 150) is moderated to ". . . and till long after, the most under the influence of that religious spirit, which tends rather to inflame bigotry, than increase peace and mutual charity" (1759: 1.140). Of the controversy over the rival terms "Sabbath" and "Sunday", Hume had first remarked that, although "a difference about a few unmeaning syllables", it was worthy of the historian's attention as it involved the realities of "power and government" (1754: 151)—a deliberately patronising simplification subsequently omitted (1759: 1.140). Hume's revisions weaken his at first aggressively stated alliance of religious and political authoritarianism;
The ponderous efforts at anti-Christian irony dotted about the volume of 1754 are almost unreservedly retracted. In the first volume of the History, when discussing the controversies between James and the Scottish church, Hume seems to be offering his equally knowing reader entertainment of an almost titillating quality: "no sooner is the mode or the controversy past, than they are universally discovered to be so frivolous as not to be mentioned with dignity or even decency amidst the ordinary course of human transactions. On these occasions, history is sometimes constrained to depart a little from her native and accustomed gravity" (1754: 63). In Hume's account, the dispute which above all divided the two parties was that over the manner of receiving communion; James insisted that the communicants should kneel, while "The ministers strenuously maintained the privilege of reposing on their seats, during the performance of that sacred rite, and would by no means submit to the posture prescribed to them" (1754: 64). The jocular ambiguity of "seats", with the hints that the ministers are suffering from constipation and refusing medical advice ("strenuously", "the posture prescribed"), and the adjacent passages ridiculing the controversies, are excised in the edition of 1759, as Hume curtly notes "It will not be necessary to give a particular account of the ceremonies which the King was so intent to establish" (1759: 1.54). The irony directed at religion in the 1754 volume does not always take the form of such good-humoured contempt; but Hume is equally willing to retract his more stinging side-swipes at Christianity. Thus he first presents the Scots of 1643 as overjoyed at the prospect of "extending the kingdom of Christ" (1754: 366) by force of arms; in later editions the Scots welcome the less ironic prospect of "spreading their mode of religion" (1759: 1.356). The 1754 edition displays "spiritual pride" ironically, as "so essential to the saintly character" (1754: 425); in the 1759 edition Hume regards the same vice more earnestly, as "spiritual pride, to which a mistaken piety is so subject" (1759: 1.414). It is Hume's opinion, in the 1754 edition, that the presbyterian party in 1647 "would probably be more inoffensive" than the independent, and in the same edition he subjoins the sly observation "To which some will be inclined to add, however unjustly, that, having less of the saint in their composition, they naturally would not be so furious and mischievous"
If Hume's revised treatment of religion in the History manifests anything, other than a surprised and anxious reaction to hostile criticism, it is an increased emphasis upon the value of toleration. MacQueen had preceptively noted a contradiction between the aggressive tone of the 1754 volume and Hume's "pretension to the spirit of calm and candid inquiry" (39). As he withdraws his aggressive or ironic observations, Hume wishes to appear the proponent of toleration, a toleration—or tolerance—that should have implications for the reception of his History. In the revisions, Hume's understanding of his idiom is refined and developed. Thus in the course of various editions he gradually adds over a page on the history of the idea of religious toleration—or rather intolerance. In the 1762 edition Hume remarks that the concept of toleration was unknown to the puritans in the reign of James I; neither James nor the puritans accepted the legitimacy of separate churches (1762: 5.114). In 1770 Hume adds to this paragraph a reference to Bacon's essay "De unitate ecclesiae" and its assertion of the necessity of a "uniformity in religion" (1770: 6.185). He later adds a further paragraph (1773: 164-165) on the universal prevalence of religious persecution before the discovery of the paradox of persecution, namely that sects became stronger under repression. Hume is clearly making an implicit plea for toleration and tolerance in another addition made in 1763: "So violent was the bigotry of the times, that it was thought a sufficient reason for disqualifying any one from holding an office, that his wife, or relation, or companions, were papists, tho' he himself were a conformist" (1763: 6.158). "The times" of James I's reign should, Hume implies, stand in sharp contrast to the toleration of the age of George III. The increased concern with toleration that such revisions evince is mirrored by and embodied in the multitude of small verbal alterations, of which we have seen some specimens. The authorial intolerance of the edition of 1754 had itself encouraged an articulation of Christian sentiment and Hume, in accordance with his own tenets, replaces "persecuting" aggression by concessive mildness.
The second volume of the History of Great Britain, published in 1757, does adopt a far less aggressive posture vis-à-vis Christianity, and in later years Hume felt less obligation to tone down his presentation of religion in his narrative of the reigns of the later Stuarts; to a large extent, self-censorship had occurred before publication. There are a few points in the second volume where Hume does make post-publication concessions to the possible sensitivities of his readership; thus he eventually withdraws his ostentatious apology to his readers for employing the terms of devotion and theological dispute: "The corruptions of the best things produce the worst; and no wonder that the abuses of religion should of all others be the most odious and ridiculous: In order to mark the genius of the age, we are obliged sometimes in our narration to make use of the same cant and expression, which was then so prevalent" (1757: 20; omitted 1770: 7.194). Similarly
Hume's revisions do manifest an increasing sympathy for the earlier Stuarts, a sympathy which, as we have seen, Hume articulated even on his deathbed. In his account of the revisions in his autobiography he appears the proud and independent author, refusing to accede to Whig pressures: "though I had been taught by experience, that the Whig party were in possession of bestowing all places, both in the state and in literature, I was so little inclined to yield to their senseless clamour, that in above a hundred alterations, which farther study, reading or reflection engaged me to make in the reigns of the first two Stuarts, I have made all of them invariably to the Tory side" (My Own Life, 22-23). The majority of these "political" revisions are made in the early editions of the History. Hume seems to have been piqued by the charges of inconsistency levelled against him, in particular the observation that his "interpretation" of the reign of Charles I was not sustained by his "narrative." This charge, as we have seen, was made both in the Monthly and by MacQueen. Hume subsequently presents any such disparity as the result of his "infection" by prevailing prejudices rather than inconsistency.[20] Adjectives and adverbs that in the 1754 volume attribute culpability or negligence to James I and Charles I are consistently excised or altered and modifiers which place the rulers in a more sympathetic context
Gibbon noted that Hume had informed him that in revising the History he had "always laboured to reduce superlatives and soften positives".[21] That the revisions of the original descriptions of the actions of Charles and James are not merely an aspect of a general process of "softening" and "reduction" can be seen by comparing the pattern of adverbial and adjectival modifications affecting the parliamentary cause. The effect of these modifications is to display the anti-Stuart cause in a more unfavourable light. Thus in the first edition of the History the leaders of the commons "generously embraced the side of freedom" (1754: 147); later their magnanimity is replaced by temerity: "they boldly embraced the side of freedom" (1759: 1.137). Similarly, Hume initially sees the decision of the commons to sustain their popularity with force as informed by good sense; they "wisely decided to fortify themselves likeways with terrors" (1754: 256). "Wisely" is omitted from subsequent editions (see 1759: 1.245). Altering the light in which he invites his readers to regard the actions of parliament, Hume also attempts to modify the respect in which the parliamentary leaders are held. In his first edition
In an analogous way, Hume purges the History of several favourable references to the Dutch republic; the intimate sympathy between the Whigs and the republic involves Hume in a recision of his paean to the Dutch struggle for liberty. In the first edition Dutch liberty was a marvel, spreading itself over the world and defying nature itself (1754: 32); this historical miracle disappears from later editions (see 1759: 1.28). Similarly Hume omits a passage on the subversion of Dutch toleration (1754: 40 and 1773: 6.57), and one on the identity of interests between the republic and England, in which he had stated that despite trading rivalries the "illustrious commonwealth" was the nation's "best and firmest ally", an ally which had "supported [itself] with dignity and independence in all the transactions of Europe" and has "remained closely united with England, whenever that kingdom has acted in conformity with its own true interests" (compare 1754: 58 and 1759: 1.52). Even the conduct of the Dutch in battle comes to be seen in a less favourable light, "great skill and courage" (1757: 213) being reduced to "skill and courage" (1770: 7.510). Clearly, then, Hume's attitudes to the Whig shibboleths of parliamentary authority and the Dutch alliance, are considerably modified in the course of the various editions.[22]
In the first volume of the History of Great Britain Hume had, albeit rarely, allowed himself to slide into a Whig, or at least an anti-Stuart, register. As I have noted, such passages were collected and gleefully seized upon by MacQueen: "In almost all these passages the historian, it would appear, declares against the King's arbitrary principles and manner of government, and in favour of those who endeavoured to oppose them" (245). In the first edition such passages as MacQueen cites do appear as somewhat startling excrescences, and thereafter Hume labours to smooth away his "unfortunate" expressions. On occasion, he finds himself obliged to recast whole sentences, in order to purge them of elements of Whig polemic: "It may safely be affirmed, that, except a few prostituted courtiers or bigotted ecclesiastics, all men were highly discontented with this complication of grievances, under which the nation laboured" (1754: 163) becomes "It may safely be affirmed, that, except a few courtiers or ecclesiastics, all men were displeased with this high exertion of prerogative, and this new spirit of administration" (1759: 1.153). In 1627 the court of King's Bench refused to accept that bail could not be granted to a prisoner committed by the King or Council. Relating this
As he revises the History, Hume comes to place a greater emphasis upon the precedents by which James and Charles governed their actions. Precedent is increasingly deployed as an explanatory—or apologetic—mechanism in relation to the actions of the two rulers. In the edition of 1754, Hume occasionally treats with derision the claims of the Stuarts to be acting according to precedent. Charles, in 1626, was obliged to employ "the pretext of ancient precedents; tho' it must be confessed, the veil could not possibly be thinner and more transparent" (1754: 159); in later editions Hume accepts the validity of Charles' employment of "the pretence of antient precedents, which, considering the great authority commonly enjoyed by his predecessors, could not be wanting to him" (1759: 1.149). Hume's attention to the precedents for the actions of the Stuarts is seen clearly in the substantial expansion of his justification for James' actions in relation to tonnage and poundage (compare 1754: 35 and 1762: 5.33-34), and he similarly adds a paragraph supporting Charles' right by precedent to tonnage and poundage (compare 1754: 189 and 1762: 5.181). Charles' first imposition of ship-money is, in later editions of the History, related to a similar imposition in the reign of Elizabeth (compare 1754: 159 and 1759: 1.149), and the ecclesiastical policies of Elizabeth are adduced in a revision to provide a partial justification for those of Laud (compare 1754: 204 and 1759: 1.193). The later editions of the History cite the example of Henry VIII as precedent for Charles' levying of a General Loan (compare 1754: 160 and 1773: 6.225-226). As Hume revises, Charles thus comes to be seen as acting according to precedent, rather than according to the dictates of a deluded scheme of despotism. In the edition of 1754, Charles on his accession is presented as misguided: "however moderate his temper, the natural illusions of self-love, joined to his education under James, and to the flattery of courtiers and church-men, had represented his political tenets as certain and uncontroverted" (1754: 148). In subsequent editions Charles is "prepossessed" rather than under an "illusion", and sycophantic flattery is replaced by the lessons of recent history: "however moderate his temper, the natural and unavoidable prepossessions of self-love,
By adducing further precedents for the actions of Charles and James, Hume increases the reader's sense of the predicament in which the kings, particularly Charles, found themselves. Indeed, an important aspect of Hume's revisionary enterprise is his sympathetic contextualisation of the plight of Charles. Hume tends to shift the focus of his narrative away from the errors of Charles, and concentrates upon the inevitability of the train of events in which the unfortunate monarch finds himself involved. In the course of the revisions Charles comes consistently to appear the benevolent ruler, struggling with an intractable opposition—indeed an intractable fate. The main lines of this interpretation are, of course, present in the 1754 edition, but the revisions fill in this outline. References in the first edition to Charles' duplicity are eased out of the later editions of the History. Thus in the first edition Charles is seen as regarding his promises concerning the execution of the penal laws against Catholics as of little weight: "he was too apt, in imitation of his father, to consider these promises as temporary expedients, which after the dissolution of the parliament, he was not any farther to regard" (1754: 156). In succeeding editions Charles' apparent breach of promise largely derives from the failure of parliament itself to keep its side of an implicit contract: "he was apt, in imitation of his father, to imagine, that the parliament, when they failed of supplying his necessities, had, on their part, freed him from the obligation of a strict performance" (1759: 1.146). Charles' entering of a reservation in his council-book to the effect that his addressing his enemies as the parliament was not a recognition of their status, is initially criticised by Hume: ". . . tho' it had been much better, no doubt, had the King, in such delicate transactions, betwixt him and his people, kept at the widest difference from such refinements" (1754: 389). In the next edition Hume is slightly less critical of Charles (1759: 1.378), and eventually comes to reject entirely the charge against the king ". . . nor is any thing more common and familiar in all public transactions" (1770: 7:33). In a comparable manner, Hume had initially shown Charles as guilty of some acts of deplorable rashness. Thus Charles' disregard of the privileges of members of parliament in 1640 is condemned: "'Tis hard to say, whether the
Hume's revisions modulate his initial narrative of Charles' dealings with parliament. Charles, in the later editions of the History, appears to have substantial justification for his treatment of the parliamentary opposition. Thus Hume originally informs his readers that the foreign and domestic problems that faced England in 1628 "were ascribed solely to Charles' obstinacy, in adhering to the counsels of Buckingham" (1754: 167); in subsequent editions he makes clear the responsibility of the "refractory disposition of the two former parliaments" for at least some of the problems (see 1759: 1.157). When parliament in 1628 voted five subsidies to Charles, the king declared himself satisfied even with such an inadequate sum (1754: 171); Hume later enforces this gratitude with the addition of an example of Charles' sentimental benevolence: "and even tears of affection started in his eye, when he was informed of this concession" (1759: 1.161). Hume increasingly develops an emphasis upon the "natural" aspects of Charles' hostile reaction to his parliaments. In the final revisions of the History, a comment is added on the remonstrance of the commons to the king in 1628: "And as it was the first return, which he met with for his late beneficial concessions, and for his sacrifices of prerogative, nothing could be more the object of just and natural indignation" (1778: 6.259). The final edition also contains a new paragraph sympathetically elaborating the reasons for Charles' reluctance to allow the commons a long session in 1640, in which the reader, through Charles, is invited to see the commons as an ill-mannered and possibly malicious acquaintance: "After the past experience of their ill-humour, and of their encroaching disposition, he thought that he could not, in prudence, trust them with a long session, till he had seen some better proofs of their good intentions" (1778: 6.345). The revisions present Charles as responding to parliamentary provocation (compare 1754: 242 and 1759: 1.233). In the first edition Charles' fear of the commons is derived in part from his inability to understand the constitution, as one who "dreaded, above all things, the house of commons, and who never sufficiently respected the constitution" (1754: 247). Charles' fear has a more rational justification in later editions, in which he is a man who "dreaded above all things, the house of commons, and who expected no supply from them on any reasonable terms" (1759: 1.237). As
At times, indeed, the effect of the revisions is to show Charles struggling against his fate, the accidental temporal conjuncture in which he finds himself. In Hume's original version of Charles' plight in 1639, the monarch is responsible for his own predicament: "Charles, by his precipitations and oversights, had brought himself to such a situation, that, whichever side he embraced, his errors must be dangerous" (1754: 234). In the equivalent passage in the 1770 edition, Charles is portrayed as the unfortunate victim of an accident: "Charles had fallen into such a situation . . ." (1770: 6.378). Charles becomes, largely through the revisions, the victim of circumstance. Desperate for money in 1640, he sells a quantity of pepper at a discount for ready money: "Such were the shifts, to which Charles was reduced" (1754: 246). In subsequent editions Hume mentions an additional scheme of the government for raising cash, and replaces "shifts" with "extremities" (1759: 1.236), eliminating the hint of guile attached to the king in the first edition. Similarly, Hume was at first critical of the king's lack of preparation for the war with the Scots in 1640: "yet was there no provision made nor resolution taken against such an exigency" (1754: 247). However, he again comes to efface criticism of Charles, directing the reader's attention to the constraints by which the king is bound: "yet such was the king's situation, that no provision could be made, nor was even any resolution taken against such an exigency" (1759: 1.237). The revisions draw attention to the efforts of Charles to support the honour of the English nation and thus enhance the image of the monarch. Focusing upon both the restrictions imposed upon Charles and his attempts to cope with these restrictions, Hume adds a paragraph on the king's successful despatch of an expedition against Salee, vindicating English honour, which was "the utmost that could be expected from a prince, who had no army nor revenue, and who had not been able, without employing the most difficult and even dangerous expedients, to equip a fleet, and thereby provide in some degree for the reputation and safety of his kingdom" (1759: 202). Eventually, in the final revisions of the History, even Hampden's counsel in 1637 gives a reasoned account of the patriotic justification for Charles' levying of ship-money, although he defends his client on the grounds that such justifications are "reasons of state, not topics of law" (1778: 6.316). In a similar way, Hume in his first edition had provided the royalists with only a tepid excuse for Charles' arbitrary attempts to raise money: "His error was, perhaps, excusable, if, esteeming a formidable navy a great security to the nation, he was not sensible, that, to preserve the harmony of the government, contributed still more to public security, as well as happiness" (1754: 309)—in subsequent editions this passage is omitted, as too critical of Charles, and it is replaced in the edition of 1773 by a passage of abundant praise for the king: "A sure proof, that he had formed no system for enslaving his people is, that the chief object of his government has been to raise a naval, not a military force; a project useful,
In order to add to the pathos of the situation of Charles, Hume, in the process of revision, places additional emphasis upon the king's isolation and his humanity. Charles in 1629 was unwilling to sacrifice his allies in the hierarchy to the commons (1754: 194), an example of loyalty which is developed in later editions (1759: 1.183). Charles' loneliness in his confrontation with his enemies is emphasised by Hume's additions to his final characterisation of the king: "Exposed to the assaults of furious, implacable and bigotted factions" (1754: 469) becomes "Exposed, without revenue, without arms, to the assaults . . ." (1759: 1.457). Hume's plaintive additions emphasise the nakedness of Charles in the face of his enemies, and increase the sympathy of the reader for the ill-fated monarch. Among the final additions to the History is a passage at the end of the work which states parliament's responsibility for the upheavals and dissensions in the reigns of both Charles I and Charles II. The various parliaments, in their unwillingness to grant the monarch sufficient revenue, displayed a lamentable lack of historical and political awareness: "these assemblies, unacquainted with public business, and often actuated by faction and fanaticism, could never be made sensible, but too late and by fatal experience, of the incessant change of times and situations" (compare 1757: 446 and 1778: 8.325). Had the various parliaments granted adequate revenues to their rulers "all the disorders in both reigns might easily have been prevented, and probably all reasonable concessions to liberty might peaceably have been obtained from both monarchs" (1778: 8.325). The general tendency of the revisions is undoubtedly to enforce the culpability of the parliaments and the innocence of the early Stuarts, and in particular of Charles.
The overall effect of the revisions upon the narrative of the struggle between crown and parliament, then, is clear; however, individual revisions do not invariably entail a more negative presentation of the cause of parliament. Thus Hume rephrases his account of the commons' reaction to the news of the Irish rebellion to remove the implication that the house found the revolt "acceptable" (compare 1754: 303 and 1759: 1.292), and he seems to have felt that he had overwritten his accounts of the "merciless rhetoric" in which the Grand Remonstrance was composed, and omitted a few lines from later editions of the History (compare 1754: 306 and 1759: 1.295); similarly he omits some phrases from his paralleling of the trials of Strafford and Laud, phrases which emphasise the injustice of the proceedings in both cases (compare 1754: 393 and 1759: 1.383). In later editions Hume no longer regards parliament's unilateral assumption of the military force of the kingdom as "the most precipitant and most enormous [usurpation], of which there is any instance in the English history" (compare 1754: 329 and 1762: 5.322) and he introduces a note of caution in his reference to the plans of the commons to
Hume felt the need for far fewer "political" revisions of the 1757 volume of the History of Great Britain; doubtless he had incorporated in that volume many lessons learnt from the reception accorded the 1754 volume. However, he does make some significant alterations in his presentation of some major figures and events of the period. He adds a paragraph on Cromwell's "vein of frolic and pleasantry" (1757:75 and 1778: 7.265-266) and becomes implicitly less critical of the sale of Dunkirk in 1662 (1757: 153 and 1778: 7.385). Several comments unfavourable to Charles II are omitted from later editions, for example the statement that he was "too much a slave to pleasure ever to defend himself against its present allurements" (1757: 204 and 1770: 7.496). Hume does occasionally introduce material unfavourable to Charles II, for example the paragraph on the king's embarrassment in the presence of Ormonde (1754: 340 and 1778: 8.162), but the overall trend of the revisions is clear. Likewise, Hume makes few revisions to his account of James II; but those that he does make are generally favourable to the monarch. Initially James, in honouring Jeffreys, appeared to approve of the judge's savage treatment of the rebels: "No body could then doubt but the King intended to rule more by fear than love, and that he was not averse to the cruelties, which had been practised" (1757: 389). This passage is omitted in the edition of 1770, to be replaced in 1773 by a more favourable interpretation of James' attitude: "It is pretended, however, with some appearance of authority, that the King was displeased with these cruelties, and put a stop to them by orders, as soon as proper information of them was conveyed to him" (1773: 8.234).
Of course, as a self-conscious "man of letters" Hume was not concerned simply with revisions of patterns of narrative and character. His concern for "style" in his revisions manifests itself in a careful attention to the texture of the History, a desire for the most perfect edition. His concern for the language of his History, and in particular his desire to avoid Scotticisms, is evident from his correspondence (for example Letters 1.233, 236, 243), and in particular the almost cringing tone of his letters to Mallet thanking him for the detection of Scotticisms (Letters 1.369, 386). The thousands of revisions which Hume's fear of "incorrectness", in particular Scotticisms, involve him are ironically symbolised by the way in which the adjective "Scotch" becomes "Scots" in 1763, and is finally established as "Scottish" in 1770.[23] Acutely aware of his provincial and provisional status in the English community of letters, Hume strove for a perfect "correctness" of register. There was a sense in which his audience was foreign, and all Hume's efforts to attain "perfection" only emphasised his marginal position: "I am as aware of correctness
The revisions, then, are the product of research and authorial assertion, but also of responses to criticism. They involve Hume in a retreat from his aggressive position on religion, and in a development of his sympathy for the Stuarts. Hume preferred to present himself revising the politics of the History, rather than altering his earlier presentation of religion. He had little to say in his correspondence about the "retrenchment" of his treatment of religion, casting himself rather as the fearlessly independent writer whose righteous anger against the politicians and hacks who criticised his History may indeed have led him into revisionary overreaction (see Letters 2.216). Such was a far more flattering self-image than that of the author who recast important sections of the first volume of his History in the face of sustained opposition. Even as he approached his death, Hume wished to appear sturdily independent in all his dealings with his critics and his History. Home reported Hume returning to "the design to ruin him as an author": "he recurred to a subject not unfrequent with him—that is, the design to ruin him as an author, by the people that were ministers, at the first publication of his history; and called themselves Whigs, who, he said, were determined not to suffer truth to be told in England."[25] However, as we have seen, Hume's defiance in the face of a ministerial conspiracy was not the only aspect of his revisions of the History; although it appears to have been an aspect which he "not infrequently" presented to his friends. The albeit rudimentary textual history of the History that has been presented in this study indicates some of the various ways in which an extremely influential work achieved its final, "authorised" state.
Notes
The peculiar order of composition of the History was seized upon by Hume's critics, for instance Richard Hurd: "having undertaken to conjure up the spirit of absolute power, [Hume] judged it necessary to the charm, to reverse the order of things, and to evoke this frightful spectre (as witches use to say their prayers) backwards" (Moral and Political Dialogues [London, 1761], "Postscript", quoted by Ernest Campbell Mossner, The Life of David Hume, 2nd ed. [1980] 302).
The editions of the History that I cite in this study are as follows: The History of Great Britain under the House of Stuart. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1754; London, 1757. The History of Great Britain under the House of Stuart. Revised ed. 2 vols. London, 1759. The History of England under the House of Tudor. 2 vols. London, 1759. The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Accession of Henry VII. 2 vols. London, 1762. The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1668. 6 vols. London, 1762. The History of England. 8 vols. London, 1763. The History of England. 8 vols. London, 1767. The History of England. 8 vols. London, 1770. The History of England. 8 vols. London, 1773. The History of England. 8 vols. London, 1778. When comparing editions I cite the date of the "original" edition (for example, 1762 in the case of the medieval volumes), and the date of the edition in which the relevant revision first appeared. Although the second volume of the History of Great Britain appeared at the end of 1756 I have referred to it throughout, in accordance with its title page, as the 1757 edition. Similarly, the medieval volumes were actually published in late 1761, but I cite them as the edition of 1762.
For an account of British editions of the History published in Hume's lifetime and posthumously see T. E. Jessop, A Bibliography of David Hume (1938) 28-32. No American edition of the History appeared in the eighteenth century; however, I have managed to trace thirty-one separate American editions published in the nineteenth century.
Hitherto the only study devoted to the revisions has been that of Ernest Campbell Mossner, "Was Hume a Tory Historian? Facts and Reconsiderations", JHI 2 (1941): 225-236. Mossner rejects the idea that Hume's revisions manifest Tory bias, and sees them as indicative of scepticism rather than dogmatism (233). Mossner's study, however, has several flaws. He draws his conclusions from a fairly small sample of revisions (148 variants), and his tabular analysis of the revisions is based on the rather simplistic categories of "Whig", "Tory" and "Neutral" (230). Mossner's terms suffer from an exclusive concentration upon the "politics", narrowly interpreted, of the History. Moreover, Mossner's bibliographical principles are themselves suspect, as the editions which are used for the purposes of collation are not in fact those cited in the "Table of Revisions" (230 n). Constant Noble Stockton, although employing a limited sample of the revisions, casts doubt on Mossner's findings in "Hume's Constitutional History," (Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1968) 244. Victor Wexler is aware of the significance of the revisions, and discusses aspects of them at various points in "David Hume: Historian" (Ph.D dissertation, Columbia Univ., 1971); he also deals briefly with examples of the process of revision in David Hume and the History of England (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1979) 15-17, and "David Hume's Discovery of a New scene of Historical Thought" (Eighteenth Century Studies 10 (1976-77): 192-194. Duncan Forbes' discussion of the revisions in Hume's Philosophical Politics (1975) 324-326 is brief but thoughtful. Forbes also confines himself to a consideration of the political import of Hume's recastings, and decides that "in the last resort Hume does not radically alter his main thesis in spite of all the changes" (325).
I was assisted in this laborious task by the eighteenth century annotator—apparently the Rev. Charles Godwyn, Fellow of Balliol (see G. Birkbeck Hill, ed., Letters of David Hume to William Strahan [London, 1888] 6)—who noted many of the revisions made by Hume in the 1754 and 1757 editions held by the Bodleian. However, Godwyn seems to have compared only the 1759 edition with the two earlier volumes—thus not taking account of later revisions—and even in this comparison is not fully comprehensive. Certain of Hume's contemporaries were as fascinated as the author himself by the process of revision; there are also interlinear and marginal annotations in a Dublin edition of 1755 held by the British Library (annotations which are not by Hume himself, pace Victor Wexler, "David Hume: Historian" 145 n), and the Analytical Review 1 (1788) notes the existence of a similar "critical edition", "a most curious collation of the last octavo edition of the History of England with the first in quarto" owned by a Mr. Herbert Croft (297 n.).
T. C. Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel enter a similar caveat on the limitations of statistics in the study of revisions in "Richardson's Revisions of Pamela", Studies in Bibliography 20 (1967): 62.
The implications of Hume's attitudes to revision and print have received comparatively little attention; but Elizabeth Eisenstein has remarked that Hume's attitudes exemplify the process by which, through print, "the transmission of written records no longer reinforced the sense that corruption was an inevitable consequence of any sequence over time" (The printing press as an agent of change: communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe [1979] 2.112).
John Hill Burton noted that Hume's "most brilliant passages are those which bear the least appearance of being amended" (The Life and Correspondence of David Hume, 2 vols. [Edinburgh, 1846] 2.80-81).
The origins of the anecdote of Hume's reluctance to walk across his study to check a reference are obscure, but see for example Ernest Campbell Mossner, "An Apology for David Hume, Historian", PMLA 56 (1941): 682, and Victor G. Wexler, David Hume and the "History of England" 37.
Pace Forbes, 324, and Mossner, "Was Hume a Tory Historian", 230 n, the editions of 1763 and 1767 are not identical.
For the difficulties encountered by the first volume of the History in the London publishing world, see Ernest Campbell Mossner and Harry Ransom, "Hume and the Conspiracy of the Booksellers", Univ. of Texas Studies in English 29 (1950), 162-182. For an account of the fate of the first volume in the context of the Scottish book trade see Warren Macdougall, "Copyright Legislation in the Court of Session, 1738-1749, and the Rise of the Scottish Book Trade" (Edinburgh Bibliographical Transactions V. Part 5:2-31) 27-29.
John Brown, An Estimate of the manners and Principles of the Times (London 1757, 1758) 1:57-58.
Mossner and Ransom, however, claim that the possibility that the sale of the first volume had been affected by its treatment of religion was "never taken seriously by Hume" (167).
Negative reviews and the initially poor sales of the History may not have been the only factors involved in Hume's recisions. See Mossner, Life, 341-354, for the moves against Hume in the General Assembly and the Committee of Overtures of the Church of Scotland in 1755 and 1756.
See Letters 2.216, and New Letters of David Hume, ed. R. Klibansky, E. C. Mossner (1954) 69-70.
A more immediate explanation for Hume's excision of his extravagant tributes to the Dutch republic might be the crisis of 1758, during which friction between England and the republic over the latter's status as neutral trading power nearly resulted in war.
Burton, 2.79-81, gives a list of some of the more common alterations made by Hume in his quest for correctness, and notes the contradiction between Hume's declared independence of interpretation and his obvious susceptibility to linguistic and stylistic criticisms (2.78-79). See also Thomas Ritchie, An Account of the Life and Writings of David Hume Esq. (London 1807) 351-368.
Ironically, Joseph Priestley used the History as a mine of linguistic error, citing dozens of Humean solecisms. Priestley apologised for having devoted such attention to Hume with reference to the historian's "great reputation" and refused to believe that "exactness in the punctillios of grammar was an object capable of giving [a man such as Hume] the least disturbance" (The Rudiments of English Grammar [London, 1768] xiii). For Hume and "Scots", "Scotch" and "Scottish", see Priestley, 79.
| | |