The Tyne-Wear Derby

[Monkeys Fist 38761]

Most sensible thing you've ever posted.

Still waiting for the beans.

 

 

 

 

" Fish is Innocent!!"

[Kevin 1]

IT’S INTERESTING to see how history is distorted in the act of grasping it: how it bends to fit the mind of the person who takes it in. You can investigate a historical epoch and watch as others, arriving at disparate conclusions, paint a portrait with a selection of colors chosen to fulfill their needs. A man is bound to feel that in the careless approach of others, he himself stands accused: is he not guilty of the same crime, of distorting history to his own ends, lacking merely the person with sufficient subtlety to call him to account?

 

Joachim Fest said that the political maturity of the German people came only after the loss of their inner, spiritually romantic “interior"– the relic of feudalism that had not yet given way. This world of glorious Heroes and Grand Gestures which Wagner seeked to portray in music, and which Hitler forged a connection to largely through Wagner’s operas, apparently watching Siegfried 30 or more times. Ah, Heroic artwork.

 

One of the main differences between the lingering feudalistic mindset of Germany and the individualist mindset which was rising in the West, was the relationship to authority. In the West, it was gradually being understood that self-interest could be reliably deferred to when dealing with one’s superiors– and even the concept of a superior, of someone placed above oneself in the natural order, was becoming incomprehensible. In Germany, respect for authority still had it’s unquestioning, deferential, semi-religious quality. Hitler’s image was crafted to act as a catch-all for stray deference: an intellectual, a man of letters, a soldier, a man furiously dedicated to his country, pick which aspect of him you want to respect, but by all means pay respect.

 

Fest concludes his Opus with the observation that the Germans finally matured politically when they lost the belief in glorious past ages and future utopias. He said: “They ceased to believe in a past that did not exist.” That line stuck out at me: ceased to believe in a past that did not exist.

 

The Great Trek is a series of documentaries about the destruction of the former Prussian territories, Silesia and the Sudetenland. As I have read many books written by Prussian refugees, I am always interested to hear the tone in which they air out their sense of remiss at their hard turn of fate: most commonly I find a wistful, remembrance-filled resignation adopted in old age, which overlays and betrays the powerful resentment and grievance of their youthful years. It is like a coat of white paint on the walls of a room that was formerly orange. As an old person, I presume it’s easy to make peace, with the grave in front of you; for young people, it’s clearly very hard not to fight, when a fight presents itself.

 

In my research into this topic I twice came across the figure of an august old Dame, describing with nostalgia the landscapes of Prussia and lamenting the loss of the beaches, fields, and the uniqueness of that place which – I imagine – speaks to former inhabitants in language inviolate, untranslatable to foreign ears.

In these two particular cases, the women were both advocating the reacquisition of these territories and resettlement of refugees there. Although unlike Derbyshire, I would never advise these people how to feel, I do have doubts as to the final reality of their vision of Prussia Regained. What kind of future do they want to find out there?

 

I tend to the view that a person who does not live in memories and scrap-books is more alive than he that does, and as person who lives in the present, one often sees this adage confirmed in the contrast between memory and reality: “You can never go home again”. So I tend more to sympathize with the view of one Sudeten-German who was glad that his home town, Duppau, had actually been deserted: this freed him from the pain of having to see it become czech. This point of view tends to the opinion that memories are sweetest preserved in all the irreality of a remembrance: the nearer you come to them, the more you seek to find the reality behind them, the more they fall apart and become dirt. To put it another way, the past could have no sweeter distillation than the way we drape it and frame it in our own minds– subtracting the ambiguity, the negative feelings, the less-than-extraordinary character which, we would be forced to admit, characterizes 90% of our time on this planet. Shakespeare made King Henry say these words:

 

If all the year were playing holidays,

To sport would be as tedious as to work;

But when they seldom come, they wish’d for come,

And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.

 

____ _____

 

The reality of history seems to depend on three factors: texture, emotion, and atavism. The more of these three a historical passage has for the reader, the more profound the resonance and the more significant the history is to it’s reader.

 

Texture.

The ancient world is less accessible for us not knowing how to visualize it’s objects. What did a book look like to the Greeks? A vase? A jar? Yes, you can find some images. What percentage of books looked like that, what percentage of vases, jars, urns? What did the people dress like? Insofar as the description of events is concrete and occurs in the physical world, the process of building a mental model in which first to ‘view’ the actual events described in history, is extremely problematic. All of us have some vague knowledge of the scenery of ancient Greece and Rome– very recent developments now allow these visions to become quite accurate. But this world never impressed itself on your senses, it never grasped you, housed you, as an environment, and neither has a similar environment done so. The powerfully visual element of human experience is utterly lacking, and we are invited to use imagination to body forth pictures of Alcibiades and Plato: well, fine, but vivifying a dead world with pictures from your own fancy doesn’t square very well with the truth. People have to do this, otherwise they find it difficult to maintain interest in a mental model that they cannot “see” in some sense. Yet a texture spun out of your own mind cannot forever grasp your fascination as a source of knowledge: and this factor alone corrupts to some extent the study of history as periods become farther removed in time. The false texture imported from the present makes the mental models ever more implausible.

 

Emotion.

Would the two Prussian ladies want to live alone in Prussia? What made their childhoods so special to them? Very probably it was the presence of now dead family members. Other human beings form the framework in which we experience any large emotional reality. So to imagine that a place has importance without the network of family and friends who surrounded you during your life in that place is misleading. Were it not for Mother and Father, the house would have no special memories. The presence of other people and shared experience gives the basis of emotion to a place or a historical event. The past is less interesting because the farther back one goes, the less people one knows. This is probably why nationalists usually manage to know the history of their country and not that of others: the ability to achieve an emotional importance through kinship gives this history it’s interest. If your dad says English history is important, and you love him, English history becomes important to you.

 

Atavism.

History provides an opportunity for analogous personalities to seek one another’s remains and works. Most especially, the “rarer” personalities can seek one another out: people of rare mental gifts can find solace in the writing of people with similar gifts. People with a certain propensity can find others of similar propensity. One of the strange historical links, which in it’s crass obviousness almost makes one embarrassed to be human, is the fact of Caesar visiting Alexander’s grave and weeping, Napoleon visiting Caesar’s grave, and Hitler visiting Napoleon’s grave.

A more obvious atavism could not exist, than that which is demonstrated here.

 

Notice I did not say that these factors drive historical interest. A good deal of fantasy also motivates interest in history: the handsomeness of the Middle Ages suggest themselves to many a mind for simply aesthetic reasons. I said that these three factors make history real: whether it is the history of your immediate family or the history of your nation, or the history of some ancient dynasty: these things breathe sufficient life into what is dead, to create a mental model that in itself could be viewed as a source of unique experience. Perhaps you felt yourself to be the reincarnation of Henry V: nevertheless the texturelessness of your mental model and it’s failure to stir unique emotions caused by human contact, will ultimately cause it to be discarded as an insufficient source of experience.

 

____ _____

 

In what sense is history knowable? What analysis can dissect the portions of human experience transmittable in text– from that part which inevitably is lost? Surely, not all information about our experiences is capable of being conveyed: a large part of this information is unknowable even to the doer, and has been called subconscious. What will ultimately be transmitted in text would not be a very high percentage of the theoretical whole.

 

I see three substrata that divide history, beginning from your own life’s experience in memories and stretching back to ancient history.

 

Personal.

This is the most complete sense of an experience, and encompasses all of what a person knows about his own experiences. We could add the excitement of anticipation and fantasy before the experience, the full experience itself, and the cold-blooded analysis that takes place after the experience: thus giving us more information than the person actually possessed at any one given time. In all likelihood an undistorted delineation of the anticipation of the experience was lost one week after the experience, and an honest sense of the experience was lost several months later: merely “summarized” for significance, which then becomes it’s defining characteristic: even though this was not the essential character of the experience as it was actually perceived. Most of the personal component is lost to history. Poetry is a chance for the personal component to live on in a very haphazardly altered state. Anyone who truly “feels” a poet may have breathed some of the same air as he did: at any rate, this is a poeticized and emotional connection which fails the criteria for scientific inquiry.

 

Epochal/Factual/Memetic.

This can be gained from a look at the material and spiritual facts of the era, and is one of the most productive areas of history where real knowledge can be gained. It is especially good for literary, highly abstract societies which make use of print: they inevitably betray a lot of their nature in their writings, much more than the mute testimony of rune-stones, spear-tips and Stelae. This is good for forming generalizations about life in this or that time period. Ultimately, it is unsatisfying because it lacks reality, no amount of epochal knowledge can create a compelling model in the personal dimension. This is also an important strata for atavism because one can see how different qualities of one people are brought forth more strongly in one period than another. Atavism however necessarily would require the preservation of the Personal substrata, in the simplified virtuous forms exemplified by Plutarch’s Lives.

 

Racial and Human.

Not alot of Englishmen retire to the mountains to sip tea and practice calligraphy and meditation. Not alot of Chinamen turn into swashbuckling adventurers. When a Chinamen looks inside himself, he probably finds less swashbuckling and more landlubbing, tea-sipping kind of passivity. Even the filth of the English nation, i.e. Sting, has to go halfway across the world to drink magic potions in a midnight ceremony with an Incan tribe (I read his memoir, Broken Music, to foster conversation with a would-be girlfriend–and I will never forgive myself!). In this way the reality of a mental model of a historical period would have to be cross-checked against known facts: the Afrocentric historical hypothe-shizzle has a few centuries of empirical data going against the assertion that Africans once had high culture: we could say with historical evidence that high culture is against their nature. More conclusive of course are the proofs from IQ testing and statistics, which provide a higher resolution to historical sociological analysis.

 

Likewise, any culture introduced amongst Anglo-Saxons will probably be dynamic by virtue of their dynamism. A culture introduced or developed amongst Chinese will be stable, well-maintained, and perhaps ultimately stagnate for lack of dynamism. In this way a racial component has to be fed into the mental model of a historical epoch.

 

Lastly, when reasoning to determine the plausibility of certain psychological situations, one can defer to the human element: as much as to say, human beings are this way. This is based on self-knowledge and a cynical, i.e. self-interested view of human nature. For example, an adulatory sonnet addressed to a woman is mating behavior: behind it stands the motivation to an sexual act. Were someone to propose that adulatory poetry addressed to not-yet-won women lacked this dimension and ultimate motivation, they would be proposing a non-cynical view of human nature. That is to say, they would be alleging that secondary drives take priority over primary ones: that the desire to honor and praise, relatively poorly developed in man, at some point came to dominate the reproductive drive, which is the equivalent of a psychological miracle. A poem of this kind stands for 50 midnight visits never consummated, and we don’t know how much poetry never saw paper because the poet actually got what he wanted and was prevented from sublimely striving: how much beautiful verse ended in the graveyard of an embrace, divine numbers silenced with a moan and a sigh. Jesus Christ! It’s three o’clock in the morning!

 

___ ____

 

I had long wanted to post an introduction to and synopsis of Friedrich Nietzsche’s On The Use And Abuse of History For Everyday Life, which is my favorite work of his.

 

In it he delineates three kinds of history: Monumental History, Antiquarian History, and Critical History.

 

Monumental history is history fueled by a positive valuation. Critical history is history fueled by a negative valuation. Antiquarian history is objective history fueled by no evaluation, the simple act of collecting facts.

 

Monumental history exists to give children a positive image of their ancestors and inspire men to historic action: it is demonstrable that many of histories greatest actors really were fixated on achieving a high place in history: Nelson, Hitler, Caesar. The particular psychological striving that animated these men is a result of Monumental History. I recommend that Monumental history be promulgated amongst young people to inculcate ambition, pride and self-sacrifice.

 

Antiquarian history is good history: really, it is real history: a sober reporting of facts. Value-judgments are abstained from as far as is possible.

 

Critical history is negative history, which calls into question the worth attributed to any specific period. We know it primarily as the demolition of our own Monumental History through the emphasis on the fact that the benefit’s of our history were once not shared with foreigners: The British Empire is a Bad Thing. This is why our history is “bad”: because we weren’t working in the interests of foreign peoples (yet). Children who grow up indoctrinated in this way are perhaps strangely poisoned: they don’t believe in the worth of the community that spawned them, it seems their path out of nihilism will be a particularly difficult one.

 

But critical history is particularly useful to those who have ingested too much Monumental History: and you can ingest too much of it! Believing too firmly in heroes and grand acts, a grand gesture as justification of one’s worth, and the need to give one’s all in an enormous struggle– that is a way of thinking I invite everyone to try out for themselves with all the seriousness they can muster. It does not lead to stability and self-acceptance. Take it too seriously, and the pantheon of representative symbols on which it is based, and you will suffer as a result. Critical history frees one from this burden by promoting a neutral or even negative evaluation.

 

__ ___

 

Half a year ago I went to a big castle built on a hill, where there is a statue of a man on a horse. The castle was actually no longer there, just some ruins. But there are three enormous men, one of them riding a horse, wearing a spiked helmet. My friend climbed up behind the horse and found a case of empty beer bottles– apparently teenagers had been fun-in-nating back there. So I started a conversation with the man on the horse:

 

PF: Please come to life. I want to see the glory of your Empire.

 

Man: I can’t.

 

PF: Please become real, show me the glory of past ages. I have read so much about it and I want to live it now!

 

Man: I can’t.

 

PF: Is this what history will forever be to me– a symbol of life, which when I pick it up and shake it, reveals itself as just dead symbols? Will there forever be this contrast between the lifeless thing and the idea it is meant to represent?

 

Man: Yes.

 

PF: And whenever I imagine it, it will be fueled with childish fantasy and dreams or have no life at all? It will never spring to life, even if I reconstruct every detail, the breathe of life will still be wanting?

 

Man: Yes.

 

PF: Hey Horse! Can you say something more than this dumb guy riding you, he just says three words!!

 

Horse: Yes, PF, I’ve been listening and I’m afraid you’re correct. History can’t give the satisfaction you seem to be looking for. I’m afraid I’m just a piece of tin, symbol of long dead greatness.

 

PF: Fuck you, you looked so imposing. [starts crying]

 

Horse: Yes, but really I’m just tin.

 

PF: That’s fine… can I publish what you said on my blog?

 

Horse: Well, what kind of blog is it?

 

PF: It’s a kind of anti-immigrant, pro-horse type of blog.

 

Horse: In that case, you may do so, and with my blessing, my son.

 

So that ends my study of history. I’m no longer interested in sorting out the past. It was very very very long in coming, but I’m well certain of it.

 

For all I know, my audience here may have consisted of three people, and even that’s a generous estimation given that I counted myself twice, having once dressed up in a costume to be unrecognizable while visiting my own blog entries. Please don’t understand this as a general recommendation, or as the advocacy of any idea, it’s just my personal resignation from being an amateur historian. I can’t stand to see another pretend person vying for pretend power with another pretend person; I can’t stand to see pretend people getting married, betraying each other to their enemies, signing contracts, raising livestock, practicing indoor sports: If I see one more pretend person, I’m going to flip out and imagine myself doing something theoretically terrible to them.

 

I imagine that’s the beginning of the end of my contributions to this blog, since I don’t know how observations outside of history can contribute to WN, and I don’t want to focus on hard-scrabble politics of the Anglosphere. I’ll stay around though, here and there, I may write a monthly article for MR patterned after the popular woman’s magazine Good Housekeeping, with ideas for recipes and arts-and-crafts projects. In the first episode, should it materialize, we’ll find out how to bake a lovely cinnamon apple tort just in time for autumn– mmm, delicious!

 

In 1580, French writer Michel Montaigne created a literary genre with the publication of his Essais. Montaigne’s work is a collection of over 100 musings on a variety of subjects, including “Of Idleness”, “Of Liars”, “Of Fear”, “Of Friendship”, and “Of Cannibals”. After Montaigne, hundreds of collections of essays appeared by noted writers such as Francis Bacon, John Dryden, Alexander Pope, Joseph Addison, and Samuel Johnson. Although some writers published formal essays that might be better termed “treatises”, the quintessential essay was informal, personal and, above all, entertaining. In 1741 Hume published his Essays, Moral and Political in which he consciously followed the tried and true model of informal essay writing. Part of Hume’s motivation for producing a collection of informal essays stems from the poor public reception of his more formally written Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740). In his essay “Of Essay Writing”, Hume expresses his hope that his own collection of essays would be of interest both to learned people and conversational people. In the opening section of his first Enquiry (1748, first titled Philosophical Essays), Hume argues that essays are a good forum for discussing common life philosophy – in contrast to abstract philosophy. From 1741 until his death, Hume continually added to his collection of essays, which, from various editions, totaled 47 different compositions. As time when on, Hume’s essay writing became more formal, both in style and content, and Hume even removed some of the earlier essays that he thought were too frivolous. The subjects of Hume’s essays are as diverse as those by Montaigne or Addison. However, the bulk of Hume’s essays fall into one of three distinct subject groups: aesthetic theory, political theory, and economic theory.

Table of Contents

 

1. Hume’s Place in Early Aesthetic, Political, and Economic Theory

2. Summary of the Essays

3. Overview of the Early Responses

 

1. Hume’s Place in Early Aesthetic, Political, and Economic Theory

 

To better understand Hume’s contributions to aesthetic, political, and economic theory, it is helpful to examine the context in which Hume developed his views. Concerning aesthetic theory, several of Hume’s essays discuss issues such as taste, cultural refinement, oratorical eloquence, essay writing, and aesthetic pleasure derived from artistic depictions of tragedy. During the 18th century, most of these issues were addressed in books on rhetoric, which laid out the principles of good writing and good speaking. Hume’s principal contribution in this arena concerns his theory of taste. In 18th century discussions, the term “taste” referred to a mental faculty that enables people to appreciate and critically judge aesthetic objects. Theorists on this topic described both the instinctive mental mechanisms of this faculty, and how we refine our judgments of taste through experience. The expression “delicacy of taste”, which Hume often uses, refers to a refinement of this faculty, which gives a person a greater and more subtle range of experiences. In An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1725), Francis Hutcheson described the taste mechanism as an internal sense of beauty that produces pleasure when we are presented with objects “in which there is uniformity amidst variety.” For Hutcheson, this includes objects in nature, artistic representations, and even mathematical theorems.

 

Hume’s essay “Of the Standard of Taste” appeared in 1757. Although paralleling Hutcheson’s account, Hume parts company with Hutcheson in two important ways. First, Hume does not discuss the psychological details of the taste mechanism, and Hume even leaves it open as to whether the sense of taste is an internal or external sense. Second, unlike Hutcheson who offers a criterion of beauty, namely, form of purposeness, Hume does not specify any criterion. Shortly after the appearance of Hume’s essay, Alexander Gerard published his Essay on Taste (1759). In this work Gerard presents a detailed account of the different kinds of internal senses, and also distinguishes between several types of taste senses. At the close of the century, in his Essays on the Nature and Principles of Taste (1790), Archibald Alison developed an even more detailed psychological account of the various mental mechanisms involved in taste. Hume’s theory stands in contrast to both Gerard’s and Allison’s insofar as Hume minimises reliance on psychological faculties and mechanisms.

 

As to political theory, Hume’s essays on this subject deal with popular political controversies of the time, particularly involving party disputes between Whigs and Tories. The Whig and Tory parties of England date from 1679 when the House of Commons tried to exclude the Roman Catholic duke of York (later James II) from succeeding to throne, currently held by the duke’s older brother Charles II. Charles supported his younger brother as successor, which ultimately required Charles to dissolve Parliament in 1681. During this time, Scottish Presbyterian rebels formed the Whig party in opposition to Charles. The Tory party, by contrast, emerged as a party that gave loyal support to the King. In 1685, Charles died and his brother succeeded to the throne as James II. After advocating several pro-Catholic policies, the Whig party instigated James’s overthrow in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In later years the Whigs justified the revolution by appealing to Locke’s theory that people can remove political authorities when those authorities fail to protect the rights of the people. Accordingly, the newly empowered Whig party supported constitutional government. Their Tory counterparts ultimately accepted much of the Whig’s constitutionalist position and, after 1714, the Tories declined as a political force.

 

In Hume’s political essays, two consistent themes emerge. First, in securing peace, a monarchy with strong authority is probably better than a pure republic. Consequently, Hume sides with the Tories, given their traditional support of the monarchy. Except in extreme cases, Hume opposes the Lockean argument offered by Whigs that justifies overthrowing political authorities. Hume does note, though, that monarchies and republics each have their strong points. Monarchies encourage the arts, and republics encourage science and trade. Hume also appreciates the mixed form of government within Great Britain, which fosters liberty of the press. The second theme in Hume’s political essays is that revolutions and civil wars principally arise from zealousness within party factions. Political moderation, he argues, is the best antidote to potentially ruinous party conflict.

 

Turning finally to economic theory, in ancient and medieval writings, economics was not an isolated discipline, but part of a larger moral, religious, and political quest to optimally organise society. For example, in Book I of the Politics, Aristotle discusses the art of acquiring wealth, which he argues is a necessary part of households; and households, for Aristotle, comprise the state. Views about economics changed during the Renaissance when individual autonomous states actively sought to increase their wealth. The mercantile system emerged based on the concept of the “balance of trade”, the view that a country increases its wealth by increasing the quantity of gold and silver in that country. Three means were commonly employed to this end: (1) capture gold, silver and raw material from other countries through colonisation; (2) discourage imports through tariffs and monopolies, which keeps acquired gold and silver within one’s country’s borders; and, (3) increase exports, which brings in money from outside countries. In Great Britain, mercantile policies were instituted through the Navigation Acts, which prohibited trade between British colonies and foreign countries. These protectionist laws ultimately led to the American revolution.

 

During the late 17th through mid 18th centuries, several writers chiselled away at the central doctrines of mercantilism. The most notable of these were a group of French economists known as physiocrats — a term which means rule of nature as opposed to human rule. In opposition to mercantilists who held that wealth was gold, the physiocrats argued that all economic production was based on sound agriculture. Also, contrary to the mercantilists’ protectionist policies, the physiocrats believed that a country’s economy would naturally and automatically attain optimal results when people do not interfere with its operation. This is the basis of the term laissez-faire, which means “let it be”. This aspect of the physiocrats directly influenced Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations (1776). A leading proponent of the physiocrat school was Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) who was minister of finance in France from 1774-1776, during which time he unsuccessfully tried to institute physiocratic reforms. Hume and Turgot were friends and the two frequently corresponded on economic issues in the late 1760s.

 

In 1752, Hume published a series of economic essays in his Political Discourses, which, like the writing of the physiocrats, makes a decisive turn away from mercantilist theory. The most famous of Hume’s anti-mercantilist arguments is now called Hume’s gold-flow theory. Contrary to mercantilists who advocated locking up money in one’s home country, Hume argued that increased money in one country automatically disperses to other countries. Suppose, for example, that Great Britain receives an influx of new money. This new money will drive up prices of labour and domestic products in Great Britain. Products in foreign countries, then, will be cheaper than in Great Britain; Britain, then, will import these products, thereby sending new money to foreign countries. Hume compares this reshuffling of wealth to the level of fluids in interconnected chambers: if I add fluid to one chamber, then, under the weight of gravity, this will disperse to the others until the level is the same in all chambers. A similar phenomenon will occur if we lose money in our home country by purchasing imports from foreign countries. As the quantity of money decreases in our home country, this will drive down the prices of labour and domestic products. Our products, then, will be cheaper than foreign products, and we will gain money through exports. On the fluid analogy, by removing fluid from one chamber, more fluid is drawn in from surrounding chambers.

 

In 1755 a posthumously published work appeared by Irishman Richard Cantillion (1680-1734), titled Essai sur la Nature du Commerce. Though explained less precisely, Cantillion offered a gold-flow theory similar to Hume’s. In fact, some of Cantillions observations were so similar to Hume’s that, in a review of Cantillion’s work – apparently unaware of Cantillion’s death date – William Kenrick writes that Cantillon frequently “quotes Mr. Hume in justification of his own sentiments; but does not appear always to comprehend the arguments, or see clearly into the design of that masterly writer.” Although Adam Smith cites Cantillion in the Wealth of Nations (1776), Cantillion’s work was largely forgotten until the late 19th century. Consequently it is Hume’s name that is associated with the gold-flow theory.

2. Summary of the Essays

 

The chronology behind Hume’s collected essays is complex and only a general outline can be given here. The essays were published in different volumes during a period of over 35 years. The original sources of the published essays are these:

 

* Essays, Moral and Political (abbr. EMP)

o Vol. 1 first edition (1741)

o Vol. 1 second edition (1742)

o Vol. 2 first edition (1742)

o Combined third edition (1748)

o Combined fourth edition (1753, in Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects)

* Political Discourses (abbr. PD) First edition (1752)

o Second edition (1752)

o Second edition (1753, in Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects)

o Third edition (1754)

o Third edition (1754, in Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects)

* Four Dissertations (abbr. FD)

o Only edition (1757)

* Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary (abbr. EMPL; in Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects)

o Eight editions: 1758, 1760, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1770, 1772, 1777

 

In 1758 Hume compiled his essays into a two-part collection titled Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary. Part I includes the essays from Essays, Moral and Political, plus two essays from Four Dissertations. The contents of this part largely covers political and aesthetic issues. Part II includes the essays from Political Discourses, most of which develop economic themes. The total two-part collection appeared within a larger collection of Hume’s writings titled Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. Below is a brief description of the content and bibliographical history of the Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary.

Part 1

 

1. Of the Delicacy of Taste and Passion. This first appeared as essay 1 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume distinguishes between (1) delicacy of passion, which makes people sensitive to life’s joys and sorrows, and (2) delicacy of taste, which makes people sensitive to the arts. Hume argues that delicacy of taste helps improve delicacy of passion.2. Of the Liberty of the Press. This first appeared as essay 2 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume argues that the liberty of the press in Great Britain owes to its mixed form of government “which is neither wholly monarchical, nor wholly republican.”

 

3. That Politics may be reduced to a Science. This first appeared as essay 4 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume argues that there is a real difference between different forms of government and that “an hereditary prince, a nobility without vassals, and a people voting by their representatives, form the best MONARCHY, ARISTOCRACY and DEMOCRACY.” Hume discourages political zeal and recommends moderation when a constitution is fundamentally good.

 

4. Of the First Principles of Government. This first appeared as essay 5 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume argues that governments are founded primarily on (1) opinion concerning public interest, and (2) opinion concerning rights to power and property. Other foundational principles are self-interest concerning rewards, fear of a tyrant’s fury, and affection for a sovereign’s wisdom and virtue.

 

5. Of the Origin of Government. This first appeared as essay 5 in EMPL (1777). In this essay Hume argues that the aim of all government is to maintain justice. We recognise the need for justice in securing peace, but human weakness keeps us from always acting justly. We thus institute a government and invent the duty of obedience. Although such authority is essential to society, it is always balanced against liberty.

 

6. Of the Independency of Parliament. This first appeared as essay 8 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume argues that party loyalty makes people despise their adversaries. Accordingly, government powers should be divided with checks on each other. Hume notes that the British Parliament has an imbalance of checks, since the House of Lords requires support from the King to be effective. However, the House of Commons does not exploit that weakness since “such an usurpation would be contrary to the interest of the majority of its members.”

 

7. Whether the British Government inclines more to Absolute Monarchy, or to a Republic. This first appeared as essay 9 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume argues that the British government is moving more towards absolute monarchy. Although absolute tyranny is bad, a republic is worse since factions will divide it and civil war will result. “This may teach us the lesson of moderation in all our political controversies.”

 

8. Of Parties in General. This first appeared as essay 10 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume condemns the institution of political parties since “factions subvert government [and] render laws impotent”. Factions are either (1) personal, based on friendship and mere party loyalty, or (2) real, based on genuine differences of interest, principle, or affection.

 

9. Of the Parties of Great Britain. This first appeared as essay 11 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume argues that the two main party orientations in Great Britain are the court party and country party, divided both in principle and in interest. According to Hume, established clergy side with the court party, and dissenting clergy with the country; the Round-heads sided with the country, the Cavalier with the court. Tories and Whigs are harder to classify, especially since the revolution.

 

10. Of Superstition and Enthusiasm. This first appeared as essay 12 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741). In this essay Hume argues that superstition and enthusiasm (fanaticism) are the main sources of false religion. He defends the views that (1) superstition gives rise to priests and ceremonies, but enthusiasm does not; (2) enthusiastic religions are more violent than superstitious ones; and, (3) “superstition is an enemy to civil liberty, and enthusiasm a friend to it.”

 

11. Of the Dignity or Meanness of Human Nature. This first appeared as essay 14 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741) under the title “Of the Dignity of Human Nature” and renamed in EMPL (1770). In this essay Hume argues that we are more inclined towards morality if we hold an optimistic view of human nature rather than a pessimistic one. He believes that many discussions of human nature err by drawing faulty comparisons between humans and other species above or below us. Hume criticises those who hold that all human actions are selfish.

 

12. Of Civil Liberty. This first appeared as essay 15 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741) under the title “Of Liberty and Despotism” and renamed in EMPL Part 1 (1758). In this essay Hume argues that arts and sciences flourish under absolute governments, but commerce flourishes more in free governments. Although all forms of government have recently improved, Hume believes that monarchies have improved the most. Free governments tend to degenerate because of excessive debts and taxes.

 

13. Of Eloquence. This first appeared as essay 2 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742). In this essay Hume argues that ancient societies were superior to modern societies in oratorical eloquence. Hume refutes commonly offered reasons to explain the difference, such as the simplicity of ancient laws, modern disdain for rhetorical tricks, and the severity of ancient crimes. Hume concludes that modern orators should not mimic the ancient rhetorical style, but stress philosophical argument as they do. However, some modern style may be corrected.

 

14. Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences. This first appeared as essay 5 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742). In this essay Hume argues that the rise of arts and sciences is not a matter of chance but of definitive causes. Hume observes four causes. First, arts and sciences first arise only in free governments. Second, politeness and learning spread through international commerce. Third, once established, a republic is most favourable to sciences, and a civilised monarchy most favourable to arts. Fourth, when arts and sciences decline in a country, they seldom revive in that same country.

 

15. The Epicurean. This first appeared as essay 6 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742). In this essay Hume poetically expresses the Epicurean view that human happiness is found in pleasure.

 

16. The Stoic. This first appeared as essay 7 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742). In this essay Hume starkly expresses the Stoic view of natural order and finding happiness through honest and hard work.

 

17. The Platonist. This first appeared as essay 8 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742). In this essay Hume expresses the Platonist view that happiness is found in the contemplation of the most perfect object.

 

18. The Sceptic. This first appeared as essay 9 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742). In this essay Hume expresses the Sceptical view that “no objects are, in themselves, desirable or odious, valuable or despicable; but that objects acquire these qualities from the particular character and constitution of the mind, which surveys them.” Philosophers assist in establishing a larger context within which we may survey things.

 

19. Of Polygamy and Divorces. This first appeared as essay 10 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742). In this essay Hume argues against both polygamy and divorce. Polygamy is bad since it undermines intimate friendship and promotes inequality and jealousy. Although voluntary divorce allows us to retain a sense of liberty, it is bad because of its affects on children, the “deadly hatred” that erupts at the prospect of separation, and the insecurity that it generates for each partner.

 

20. Of Simplicity and Refinement in Writing. This first appeared as essay 11 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742) under the title “Of Simplicity and Refinement” and renamed in EMP (1748). In this essay Hume argues that writing style should neither be too natural, as in common conversation, nor too refined or ornamented. He notes that writers have some latitude between these two extremes, and that no rule can establish the best middle ground.

 

21. Of National Characters. This first appeared as essay 24 in EMP (1748). In this essay Hume argues that the varying characteristics of people in different countries owe principally to “moral causes” such as governments, and very little to “physical causes” such as native food and climate. He argues against physical causes by illustrating that two specific societies in the same geographical conditions may have highly diverse characteristics. Also, two societies in vastly different geographical conditions may have similar characteristics. In the 1753 edition, Hume included a controversial note arguing that blacks are inferior to whites.

 

22. Of Tragedy. This first appeared as dissertation 3 in FD (1757), and later included as essay 25 of EMPL Part 1 (1758). In this essay Hume discusses the psychological reasons why we feel pleasure when observing artistic depictions of tragic events. Hume argues that “the energy of expression, the power of numbers, and the charm of imitation” convey the sense of pleasure. Hume particularly stresses the technical artistry involved when an artistic work imitates the original.

 

23. Of the Standard of Taste. This first appeared as dissertation 4 in FD (1757), and later included as essay 26 of EMPL Part 1 (1758). In this essay Hume argues that there is a uniform sense of artistic judgment in human nature, similar to our uniform sense of moral judgment. Specific objects consistently trigger feelings of beauty within us, as our human nature dictates. Just as we can refine our external senses such as our palate, we can also refine our sense of artistic beauty and thus cultivate a delicacy of taste. In spite of this uniform standard of taste, two factors create some difference in our judgments: “the one is the different humours of particular men; the other, the particular manners and opinions of our age and country.”

Part 2

 

1. Of Commerce. This first appeared as essay 1 in PD (1752). This essay is an introduction to the essays that follow. Hume argues that a country’s happiness and military strength both depend on strong industry. In time of peace excess workers can produce luxuries and improve the arts, and thus increase a country’s happiness. In time of war, excess workers can serve in the military. Hume argues further that foreign trade also increases happiness and strengthens the military. Foreign trade acquaints people with the pleasures of foreign luxuries and thus raises the quality of life. Foreign trade also increases industry, which strengthens the labour pool for possible use in the military. 2. Of Refinement in the Arts. This first appeared as essay 2 in PD (1752) under the title “Of Luxury” and renamed in EMPL Part 2 (1760). In this essay Hume argues that private and public happiness increases with the growth of cultural refinement in the arts and sciences. Hume also notes that when people are lazy and indifferent to other people, then luxury is harmful to political society.3. Of Money. This first appeared as essay 3 in PD (1752). In this essay Hume argues that the wealth of a country consists of its labour and commodities, not in the quantity of its gold or silver. For Hume, an increase or decrease of money in a country does not increase or decrease the country’s wealth. As the quantity of money increases or decreases, the prices of both labour and products increase and decrease proportionally. However, Hume argues that the overall economy suffers when prices increase because of an increase in money; for, when prices are higher, domestic industries cannot compete with cheaper foreign labour and products. For this reason, Hume sees a danger in paper credit; for, when banks issue credit, this increases the quantity of money in a country, which in turn raises prices, which in turn again makes domestic products less competitive.

 

4. Of Interest. This first appeared as essay 4 in PD (1752). In this essay Hume argues against the mercantilist view that an increase of money in a country will result in lower interest. Hume notes again that increased money will only result in higher labour and commodity prices. For Hume, interest rates change based on three factors: the demand for borrowing, the amount of money brought together to supply borrowers, and the high or low profits arising from commerce.

 

5. Of the Balance of Trade. This first appeared as essay 5 in PD (1752). In this essay Hume argues against the mercantilist fear of losing gold through buying foreign imports. Instead, he proposes what is now known as Hume’s gold-flow theory: the balance of trade between countries will ultimately attain equilibrium, and that a country cannot permanently lose its wealth by purchasing too many foreign imports. Hume’s reasoning is that, if a country loses money, then prices will drop within that country; this, in turn will make the country’s exports more competitive and enable it to bring in new money from foreign countries. This is similar to how fluids in interconnected chambers will always remain at the same level: when fluid is removed from one chamber, it will draw on the fluids in other chambers. For Hume, if we “suppose four-fifths of all the money in Great Britain to be annihilated in one night,” then prices would drop, exports would increase, and new money for their purchase would enter the country.

 

6. Of the Jealousy of Trade. This first appeared as essay 6 in EMPL (1760). In this essay Hume argues against the mercantilist fear that national wealth is hurt when foreign neighbours prosper. For Hume, a nation will typically prosper only when its neighbouring countries do too. For, a nation’s export industry will decline unless its foreign neighbour has enough money to purchase the exports.

 

7. Of the Balance of Power. This first appeared as essay 6 in PD (1752). In this essay Hume argues that the notion of a balance of power among foreign governments is not a modern invention but practised in ancient times.

 

8. Of Taxes. This first appeared as essay 7 in PD (1752). In this essay Hume argues that, to an extent, workers can cover increased taxes by increasing their labour, rather than by receiving an increase to their wages. This is parallel to situations in which workers in some countries increase their labour to overcome natural disadvantages such as harsh climate. Hume argues that it is best to tax luxury items, rather than necessities, since the purchase of luxuries is to some extent voluntary.

 

9. Of Public Credit. This first appeared as essay 8 in PD (1752). In this essay Hume describes several unfavourable economic consequences of Britain’s national debt, and he warns of a forthcoming national bankruptcy. The worse consequence is that perhaps at some time the interests of millions of creditors may be sacrificed for the benefit of a smaller number of debtors. But even if disaster strikes, Hume argues that people will forget this tragedy and once again engage in risky credit practices.

 

10. Of some Remarkable Customs. This first appeared as essay 9 in PD (1752). In this essay Hume discusses three peculiar political practices. First, as a rule, legislators must be free to discuss and prose any law, without fear of punishment. However, in ancient Athens, the judiciary could punish legislators if the judiciary determined that the enacted law was unjust. Second, as a rule, a government cannot have two legislative bodies with equal power, with no checks on each other. However, Roman legislature had two legislative bodies of this sort. Third, as a rule, laws enacted by a magistrate are friendlier to liberty than laws enacted through violence. However, an exception to this is the Royally-backed practice in Great Britain of forcefully conscripting sailors; more liberty would in fact result from a violent usurpation of this law.

 

11. Of the Populousness of Ancient Nations. This first appeared as essay 10 in PD (1752) and is the longest of Hume’s essays. Contrary to the views of Isaac Vossius, Montesquieu and others, Hume argues that the world is more populated in modern times than it was in ancient. Hume argues that the widespread practice of slavery in the ancient world curbed population growth. Wars were frequent and especially devastating to population. Agriculture in the ancient world was primitive and could not support a great population. Hume examines the population numbers given by various ancient historians and argues that some especially high figures are inaccurate exaggerations.

 

12. Of the Original Contract. This first appeared as essay 25 in EMP (1748) and was moved to EMPL Part 2 (1758). In this essay Hume discusses the philosophical differences between the Tory and Whig parties as concerns the origin of government. Hume briefly notes and agrees with the Tory argument for political authority from divine right. Against the Whig argument for political authority from the original contract, Hume argues that when we examine revolutions that establish governments, we find violence, and not contractual agreement. In fact, people are in least agreement when forming of new governments. Hume also argues that moral duties are either natural (based on instinct) or artificial (based on the necessities of society). Political allegiance is artificial and ultimately based on “the general interests or necessities of society”.

 

13. Of Passive Obedience. This first appeared as essay 26 in EMP (1748) and moved to EMPL Part 2 (1758). In this essay Hume discusses the practical differences between the Tory and Whig parties as concerns the doctrine of passive obedience, that is, the unlawfulness of armed uprising against the King’s authority. Contrary to the Tories, Hume argues that resistance is justified in extraordinary emergencies “when the public is in the highest danger, from violence and tyranny”. However, Hume opposes the Whig view that resistance is justified as a check to the power given to the sovereign in the British constitution.

 

14. Of the Coalition of Parties. This first appeared as essay 14 in EMPL (1760). In this essay Hume discusses the historical issues that led to the differences between the Whig and Tory parties, particularly at the outbreak of the British civil war. Hume argues that the popular party’s position was better founded than the Royalist party’s position, but that the Royalist position had law on its side. Hume argues that political moderation is now required to bring coalition to the Whig and Tory parties.

 

15. Of the Protestant Succession. This first appeared as essay 11 in PD (1752). In 1701 the English Parliament passed the Act of Settlement, which prevented the continuation of the Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty in the line of royal succession, and established instead the Protestant Hanover dynasty. The Act specified that the monarch must belong to the Anglican Church. In this essay Hume lists the advantages and disadvantages of the shift to the Protestant monarchy that must have weighed in the minds of the Parliamentarians prior to the Act. Hume concludes that, on balance, the best choice was that in favour of the Protestant Hanover dynasty. This essay was originally intended for inclusion in the 1748 edition of Essays, Moral and Political, but was suppressed at the judgment of his friend Charles Erskine. The essay was especially controversial in view of recent political events. In 1745 Scottish Jacobites launched a rebellion hoping to restore the Stuart family by supporting the Young Pretender, Charles Edward Stuart. The rebellion failed, and several Scottish Jacobites were imprisoned or executed.

 

16. Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth. This first appeared as essay 12 in PD (1752). In this essay Hume presents his conception of the most ideal plan of government, modelled after the Dutch government. Hume divides the country into 100 counties, and each county into 100 parishes. People in each parish elect a representative for their county. These representatives then elect magistrates and senators from their county to be the whole executive power of the commonwealth in the capital. The senators elect magistrates to cover specific tasks, such as councils of religion and learning, of trade, and of laws. Hume describes voting procedures and re-election policies. Military service is voluntary and all crimes are tried in the county by magistrates and a jury. Hume describes policies that ensure that party factions do not disrupt unity.

Removed Essays

 

1. Of Essay Writing. This first appeared as essay 1 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742) and was removed in EMP (1748). In a letter to Charles Erskine (February 13, 1748) Hume writes that he removed this and the next two essays for being “frivolous & finical”. In this essay Hume argues that the intellectual world of people is divided between those of learning and those of conversation. Hume expresses hope that his Essays will help bridge the gap.2. Of Moral Prejudices. This first appeared as essay 3 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742) and was removed in EMP (1748). In this essay Hume argues against those that ridicule accepted moral and social standards. Hume advises “not to depart too far from the receiv’d Maxims of Conduct and Behaviour, by a refin’d Search after Happiness or Perfection.”

 

3. Of the Middle Station of Life. This first appeared as essay 4 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742) and was removed in EMP (1748). In this essay Hume argues that the best position in life is a middle rank, since the rich are too immersed in pleasure and the poor struggle for necessities. The middle position provides the best opportunity to acquire virtue, wisdom, and happiness.

 

4. Of Impudence and Modesty. This first appeared as essay 3 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741) and was removed in EMPL (1764). In this essay Hume argues that, although impudence is a vice, it often has the effects of being a virtue insofar as it increases one’s prosperity. Unlike other vices, which are easy to acquire, true impudence is hard to acquire.

 

5. Of Love and Marriage. This first appeared as essay 6 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741) and was removed in EMPL (1764). Hume notes in a letter to Adam Smith (September 24, 1752) his desire to remove this and the next essay in the 1753 edition for being “too frivolous for the rest”; however, Hume’s bookseller, Andrew Millar, protested. In this essay Hume points out the fundamental source of tension in marriage: desire for security vs. desire for immediate pleasure. Hume makes his point by extending Aristophanes’ allegory in Plato’s Symposium.

 

6. Of the Study of History. This first appeared as essay 7 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741) and was removed in EMPL (1764). In this essay Hume explains some advantages of studying history. It offers entertainment by transporting us to a remote age; it makes us sophisticated; it extends our limited experience to all past ages. Also, the historian invariably emphasises virtue and denounces vice.

 

7. Of Avarice. This first appeared as essay 13 in EMP (Vol. 1, 1741) and was removed in EMPL (1770). In this essay Hume argues that, although writers commonly exaggerate depictions of vices in people, avarice is a vice that is difficult to exaggerate. Avarice seems to be restricted to old men with cold tempers. Because this vice is difficult to reverse, Hume thinks that it is best criticised through satire, rather than serious admonishing.

 

8. A Character of Sir Robert Walpole. This first appeared as essay 12 in EMP (Vol. 2, 1742); in EMP (1748) the essay was moved to a note in “That Politics may be reduced to a Science”, and in EMPL (1770) this note was entirely removed. In this essay Hume argues that most depictions of Prime Minister Robert Walpole are biased; accordingly, Hume presents a balanced list of his virtues and vices. He concludes noting, “As I am a man, I love him; as I am a scholar, I hate him; as I am a Briton, I calmly wish his fall.”

3. Overview of the Early Responses

 

Hume began composing his first essays around 1739 and sent several essays to Henry Home Lord Kames for comments. The first volume of Hume’s Essays, Moral and Political appeared in 1741, and Hume notes in his autobiography that “the work was favourably received, and soon made me entirely forget my former disappointment”(that is, the failure of the Treatise). Shortly after Volume 1 appeared, an unidentified respondent sent Hume a list of 29 remarks on various essays in the volume. Hume incorporated the bulk of the recommendations into later editions of his Essays. Previously overlooked by Hume scholars, a transcription of the manuscript appears in print here for the first time. In 1742 Robert Walpole resigned as British Prime Minister, and Hume’s essay “A Character of Sir Robert Walpole” was reprinted in various British newspapers. In one of these papers the editor posed several questions that Hume’s essay did not address. Hume responded in the Scots Magazine with answers to these questions. In a letter to Henry Home around this time, Hume notes the success of his Essays:

 

The Essays are all sold in London; as I am inform’d by two Letters from English Gentlemen of my Acquaintaince. There is a Demand for them; & as one of them tells me, Innys the great Bookseller in Paul’s Church Yard wonders there is not a new Edition, for that he cannot find Copies for his Customers. I am also told that Dr Butler has every where recommended them. So that I hope they will have some Success. [Hume to Kames, June 13, 1742]In 1748 Hume published the third edition of his Essays; he comments in a letter on his reasons for discarding some of the earlier essays:

 

You must know, that Andrew Millar is printing a new Edition of certain Essays, that have been ascrib’d to me; and as I threw out some, that seem’d frivolous & finical, I was resolv’d to supply their Place by others, that shou’d be more instructive. [Hume to Charles Erskine, February 13, 1748]It appears that for almost 10 years no responses to Hume’s Essays were published. Around 1750 Hume became more generally known, largely from controversy surrounding “Of Miracles” in his Philosophical Essays (1748). Perhaps because of this fame, Hume’s Essays received more critical attention. In 1751 John Brown criticised a minor point in Hume’s essay “Of the Dignity or Meanness of Human Nature”. The next year, in preparing a new edition of the Essays, Hume wrote to Adam Smith soliciting comments. Also that year, Hume’s Political Discourses appeared, which he describes in his autobiography as “the only work of mine that was successful on the first publication. It was well received abroad and at home.” The work was favourably reviewed in the Monthly Review (1752), and several essays in that work quickly became the subject of discussion. Hume’s essay “Of the Populousness of Ancient Nations” drew much attention for its view that the ancient world was less populated than the modern world. In 1753 Hume’s friend Robert Wallace argued for the opposite view, and presented a 150 page critique of Hume’s argument. Marquis de Mirabeau also criticised Hume’s position (1755). Adam Ferguson discussed a minor point in the essay (1767), and Marquis de Chastellux defended Hume’s position against Wallace (1772). Although agreeing with Hume’s conclusion, Thomas Malthus criticised Hume’s method of analysing the issue (1798).

 

Several writers discussed Hume’s economic essays in detail, especially Hume’s essays “Of Money” and “Of the Balance of Trade”. In 1750 Hume received a long critical letter on manuscripts of these essays from James Oswald of Dunnikier. Published responses were by Robert Wallace (1758), James Steuart-Denham (1767), Josiah Tucker (1774), and Adam Smith (1776). Discussions on Hume’s economic theories continued in the early 19th century by John Weatley (1803, 1807), David Ricardo (1815), and Dugald Stewart (1855). Hume’s essay “Of National Characters” also drew attention. Hume’s attack on the clergy in that essay was criticised by Alexander Gerard (1760), Robert Wallace, and John Ogilvie (1783). James Beattie (1770) and François Xavier Swediauer (1786) attacked Hume’s statement in that essay about the inferiority of Blacks. William Godwin (1793) drew heavily on Hume’s examples in “Of National Characters”.

 

In 1757 Hume’s Four Dissertations appeared, which contained two essays on aesthetic theory. In the reviews of this work, the aesthetic essays were favourably received. For example, the Literary Magazine says concerning “Of Tragedy” that “What the author adds from himself is very beautiful” and that “Mr. Hume’s fourth essay concerning the standard of taste, is very elegant and entertaining” (1757, Vol. 2). Richard Hurd responded to “Of Tragedy” in 1757, although the definitive critique of that essay appeared twenty years later in George Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776). Dugald Stewart also discussed the essay (1810). Alexander Gerard (1780) critically discussed Hume’s essay “Of the Standard of Taste”.

 

By the middle of the 19th century, writers in aesthetic, political, and economic theory no longer drew from Hume as they did earlier. From then on, discussions of Hume’s views principally appeared in historical surveys, such as those by Leslie Stephen (1876) and John Kells Ingram (1888).

 

 

Most sensible thing you've ever posted.

Still waiting for the beans.

 

 

 

 

" Fish is Innocent!!"

 

I agree.

[JaMoUsE 0]

any1 pm me this pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee?

[Guest Tuco Ramirez]

some cumt pm me pls

[manc-mag 1]

get it tel't tbh, Fist you cryptic bastard.

[harrynufc 0]

Can some1 pm me it too. Please dont rely on others pming me, if you have it just pm me. In return i am offering magic beans

 

Happy anniversary monkey dude

[Guest]

Pm, now!!!!!!!!

[BiscuitXXI 0]

PM also please.

 

Ta.

[Guest]

PM also please.

 

Ta.

 

 

Who the fuck... the all come out of the woodwork when there's gossip in the air

[charvski 0]

pm me too please

[ohhh_yeah 2767]

pm please and thank you...

[Gemmill 34461]

Aye I'll have a PM ta.

[Wavey Davey 0]

Can someone PM me please?

[JawD 31]

I heard something very interesting today about sunderland- the town not the team.

I can't post it as it's not public yet, but it's a prime example of the size of chip they carry on both shoulders, even to the highest levels of local government.

Anybody interested PM me ( however, it's my wedding anniversary tonight, so I'll pass it on to the first person, then they'll have to pass it on after that. )

 

Aye PM me please. Always interested in this kinda thing

[shackbleep 0]

Aye I'll have a PM ta.

 

Delete some of your PMs, daft lad...

[Ugly Mackems 133]

Someone please PM me this startling news.

 

On The Buses (rtg) are saying that the only transport to Newcastle will be via the official free buses. Tickets will be issued either on route or at the stadium in an effort to keep folk off the metro/train.

 

We'll likely do the same if there nasty little scheme is successful.

[trophyshy 6434]

Intriguing, PM please.

[JawD 31]

Got PM, thanks all.

[Wavey Davey 0]

Oh Dear.

[Howmanheyman 26830]

A PM would be appreciated.

[Howmanheyman 26830]

........sometime before I log off, like.

[Howmanheyman 26830]

Got it, cheers, Hog.

[Howmanheyman 26830]

 

Fucking mackems, man!

 

Let's hope the prophicies come true and we have fuck all to do with them again.

[Howmanheyman 26830]

........You also realise any mackems reading this are going to be clawing their faces off wanting to know Fists info.

[ChezGiven 0]

Go on then