UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Failing to throw his mind back into the past : the reception of David Hume’s History of England in early… Miles, David 1999

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1999-0566.pdf [ 2.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089164.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089164-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089164-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089164-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089164-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089164-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089164-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089164-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089164.ris

Full Text

F A I L I N G TO T H R O W HIS M I N D B A C K INTO T H E PAST T H E R E C E P T I O N OF D A V I D H U M E ' S HISTORY OF ENGLAND I N E A R L Y N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y BRITISH H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y by D A V I D MILES B.Sc, Cornell University, 1984 J.D., Boston University, 1989 A THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF ARTS in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of History) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A August 1999 © David Henry Miles, 1999 in presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Vl\ S The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT From narrow partisan attacks on his political and religious views to more so-phisticated discussions of his mode of historical writing, British writers in the first half of the nineteenth-century responded in various ways to David Hume's History of Eng-land. The response to Hume's history represented both continuity and change. Nine-teenth-century writers introduced a new dimension to the discourse on Hume's history while continuing the political and religious controversies that began with the publica-tion of Hume's work in 1754. Nineteenth-century Whigs continued to question Hume's account of the political struggle in England during the seventeenth century while maintaining that Hume was a mere royal apologist. Critics of Hume's religious views persisted in reproaching Hume for his impiety and continued to object to his alleged unfair treatment of relig-ious groups in history. Nineteenth-century criticism of Hume's history added attacks on Hume's historical method and his narrative style to these political and religious challenges. Hume's historical method was criticized for being ahistorical and anachro-nistic; Hume was cited for writing "conjectural" rather than "authentic" history. Hume's narrative style was reproached for lacking vividness and for being too remote and distant. This paper investigates the meanings of these various criticisms and ar-gues that they represented a new mode of historical consciousness that emerged at the beginning of the nineteenth-century. Hume's history was an important influence on the thinking of British writers in the first half of the nineteenth-century. This paper contends that an examination of the response to Hume's history provides an important way of understanding the historical consciousness of that period. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i T A B L E OF CONTENTS i i i INTRODUCTION 1 I. T H E EIGHTEENTH C E N T U R Y RESPONSE 5 II. CONTINUITY A N D C H A N G E : FOX, JEFFREY, M A C K I N T O S H 7 III. T H E APPRENTICE A T L I N C O L N C A T H E D R A L : M A C A U L A Y 19 IV. T H E WHIG PROFESSOR: W I L L I A M S M Y T H 27 V. T H E IMPORTANCE OF REVELATION: SIR FRANCES P A L G R A V E 31 VI. T H O M A S C A R L Y L E A N D J O H N STUART M I L L 32 C O N C L U S I O N 39 ENDNOTES 43 BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 iii 1 INTRODUCTION David Hume's History of England1 was first published in 1754. U p until the pub-lication of Thomas Macaulay's history in 1848 it was the most widely read and influential history of England. For almost 100 years Hume's history informed and dominated the debate over England's past. In his book A Liberal Descent, J. W. Burrow wrote that: Hume was a felt presence for every subsequent historian of Eng-land and of seventeenth-century England in particular up to and including Macaulay. He was important both in what they ab-sorbed and what they consciously and strenuously rejected.2 This paper identifies and reviews the variety of critical responses to Hume's history in early nineteenth-century Britain. Responses to Hume's history not only re-veal specific political and religious concerns, they also provide a way of observing an emerging historical consciousness - one that attempted to combine advances in rational or philosophical insight with more authentic and lively historical descriptions. Discus-sion of Hume's history served as a point of departure for writers to define and articulate their own historical vision. This paper argues that these views represented a new his-torical sensibility that reflected a desire to replace Hume's vision wi th a one more v iv id , particularistic and authentic. Nineteenth-century criticism of Hume represented a continuation of political and religious controversies inspired by Hume's work. Nineteenth-century Whigs, for ex-ample, inherited a tradition of challenging Hume's political interpretations. From the time of its publication in the eighteenth century, Whigs identified Hume's history as a threat to their understanding of a proud and continuous heritage of constitutional lib-erty. Nineteenth century Whigs thought that an understanding of history mattered in 2 contemporary political debate. They continued to maintain that Hume's defense of the Stuarts and his attack on the Parliamentary rebels of the seventeenth century consti-tuted historical heresy and a threat to their political values. Nineteenth century writers also continued the attack on Hume's account of re-ligion that had begun in the eighteenth century. Add ing to criticism of Hume's impiety and his unfair judgements of Protestants and Catholics, nineteenth-century writers cen-sored Hume for failing to try to understand and appreciate the role that religion played in individual and collective life. More interesting, perhaps, is the emergence in the nineteenth-century of new historiographical critiques that challenged both Hume's method of understanding the past and the narrative style which he used to depict it. The more sophisticated critiques of Hume combined political and religious disagreements with a broader and deeper historiographical challenge to Hume's work. Early nineteenth-century writers identified Hume wi th the relatively new cate-gory of "philosophical historian."* Hume was credited with going beyond mere chronicle or political narrative and expanding the horizons of historical discourse. Even his harshest critics such as Macaulay and John Stuart M i l l conceded that Hume's efforts reflected a new design that attempted to incorporate a deeper and broader comprehen-sion of historical data. Instead of focusing exclusively on the acts of kings and their close associates or merely examining formal changes in the English constitution, Hume was looking at sociological and economic forces that influenced political events. * Nineteenth-century writers discussed in this paper did not use the term "philosophical historian" to mean "philosopher of history" in the modern Hegelian sense. The term "philosophical historian" merely referred to the use of reason and philosophical insight in the writing of history. 3 However, characterizing Hume as a philosophical historian also served as a point of departure for new critiques of Hume that were emerging in the first half of the nineteenth-century. Critics first expressed the concern that Hume misused reason to distort or obscure the historical record. Instead of dealing with evidence in a disinter-ested and impartial manner, Hume was alleged to have employed his reasoning skills to engage in "advocacy history". Further criticism of Hume's history went on to challenge Hume's method of un-derstanding the past and his narrative style. Hume's historical method was depicted as too rational, as "conjectural history" rather than "authentic history." Critics thought that Hume relied too much on his own intellectual insight rather than paying attention to the historical record. This criticism led to the charge that Hume's historical descrip-tions were ahistorical and anachronistic. They did not use the phrase, but we w i l l consistently see nineteenth-century critics accuse Hume of the fallacy of presentism. Hume was seen to impose his own eighteenth-century views on historical subjects. Critics of Hume's narrative found it too cold and aloof. Early nineteenth century writers expressed a desire for a more v iv id and intimate history. This desire reflected the wish for both a more edifying and entertaining historical account that would be able to capture the reader's imagination. Macaulay and M i l l pointed to the examples of historical novels, historical dramas, and memoirs as genres that historians should emu-late to create more dramatic and interesting histories. Providing particularistic detail and evoking the emotions and thoughts of historical subjects, creating a narrative that suggested the immediacy of history, were considered essential to eliciting sympathy 4 and identification from the reader. Hume's historical descriptions were characterized as too distant and remote to evoke sympathy and identification. Admirat ion for fictional representations of the past did not mean that nineteenth-century critics of Hume were wil l ing to sacrifice the truth. In fact, it should be pointed out that criticism of Hume's narrative was linked to the criticism of his method of studying the past. The call for a compelling narrative was accompanied by a demand that historians vigorously inspect original documents. Hume was consistently re-proached for relying on previous compilers rather than inspecting original sources. The absence of original research prevented Hume from getting a feel for the past and l im-ited his historical imagination. This in turn undermined his ability to create more v iv id historical descriptions. Political, religious, methodological, and aesthetic criticisms represent the four main features of British writers' responses to Hume's history in the first half of the nineteenth century. In practice, of course, the four types of criticisms do not appear as separate and distinct. For example, the nineteenth-century criticism of Hume's relig-ious views were, as I have already suggested, increasingly connected with a methodological challenge. In another example, we wi l l see that Macaulay's call for a "new history", reflected a political, methodological and an aesthetic challenge to Hume's history. Instead of being autonomous, this paper w i l l show the four criticisms of Hume's history were, on many occasions, closely related and often exercised recipro-cal effects on one another.t t It is important to note that while the four criticisms were related and reciprocal they were not necessar-ily determinate. For example, aesthetic agreement did not mean political agreement. It is one of the curious elements of this story that Walter Scott, a leading Tory partisan and founder of The Quarterly Re-5 I. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY RESPONSE The eighteenth century response to Hume's history introduced political and re-ligious themes that we w i l l encounter again the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1756, the Reverend Daniel MacQueen published his Letters on Mr. Hume's His-tory. MacQueen credited Hume with a lively genius and thought the history was animated and entertaining. MacQueen, however, took issue wi th Hume's lack of relig-ious piety and the consequent misrepresentation of Protestantism in history. Shall I speak of impiety covered with a thin veil? of an attempt, a weak and foolish one indeed, to resolve all piety into superstition or enthusiasm, that its may be thus exposed to reproach and ridi-cule.3 MacQueen noted that Hume labeled as "superstitious" actions and beliefs con-nected with Catholicism; "enthusiasm" or "fanaticism" were the terms employed by Hume to describe the ideas and behavior of the Protestant reformers. MacQueen, a de-vout Protestant, d id not object to Hume's use of the term superstition to describe Catholic activities. In fact, he went one step further than Hume and argued that the term enthusiasm also applied to the Roman church. For example, MacQueen cited the Spanish inquisition as evidence of excessive zealousness. O n the other hand, Mac-Queen rejected Hume's use of the term fanaticism to describe Protestant reformers. Where Hume merely saw irrational belief and behavior, MacQueen observed admirable and courageous piety and resolve.4 O n the political crisis of the seventeenth-century, MacQueen wrote that Hume's account tended to favor royal prerogative in general and the Stuarts in particular. view, was cited by Whig and Radical political opponents as a writer whose aesthetic sensibilities were worthy of admiration and emulation. However, MacQueen, unlike many nineteenth-century writers, observed Hume's efforts to provide a balanced picture. MacQueen, for example, found in Hume some evidence of sympathy for liberty, constitutional continuity, and criticism of the Stuarts. Mac-Queen's own political sympathies were clearly Whig and he therefore remained dissatisfied wi th Hume's political account. The whole history of England demonstrates that it was never an absolute, but mixed monarchy; and that the royal authority was indeed more or less limited; but still limited in all ages. It follows, therefore, that the principles of arbitrary government, which were openly espoused and put in practice by Charles and his father, were perfectly inconsistent with the English constitution, and with its most sacred and fundamental laws. Nay, this writer upon some occasions seems inclined to allow that they were so: at other times he endeavors to spread a thick mist over the subject.5 In 1778, Joseph Towers published his observations on Mr. Hume's History of Eng-land covering the same political and religious topics and sharing similar views as MacQueen. Towers noted that Hume was less motivated by any royalist sympathies than by a desire to play the devil's advocate. For Towers, Hume's contrarian disposi-tion led to a Stuart apology rather than a royalist defense. When Mr. Hume comes down to a lower period, to the history of the princes of the house of Tudor, he is not equally chargeable with extenuating their tyranny. On the contrary, his representa-tion of it is, in some respects, much exaggerated; his design in which manifestly was, to make their conduct serve as a apology for the princes of the House of Stuart.6 Towers insisted that constitutional precedent was on the side of the Parliamen-tary rebels. He rejected Hume's effort to characterize the Tudors as absolute rulers, while maintaining that during the Tudor period "the people thought they had rights and privileges by the ancient constitution." 7 Therefore, for Towers, Parliamentary op-ponents of Charles I were fighting to protect pre-existing rights while the Stuarts were trying to introduce a new form of despotism. Towers and MacQueen introduced the important political and religious themes that we w i l l encounter in the nineteenth-century. It is important to note that although they both commented favorably on Hume's literary talent and his speculative insight,, neither engaged in a fundamental assessment of Hume's historical method or narrative style. II. C O N T I N U I T Y A N D C H A N G E : F O X , JEFFREY, M A C K I N T O S H The common denominator for Whig historiography was the belief that Hume's account of the seventeenth-century was seriously flawed by a tendency to defend royal prerogative at the expense of the public interest and constitutional liberties. In addition to a political critique of Hume, we see emerging in the writings of Jeffrey and Mackin-tosh a broader historiographical challenge against Hume's history that included a methodological and an aesthetic critique. In retirement, the Whig politician and statesman Charles Fox embarked on vari-ous literary pursuits, including a history of England. Hume's history was a significant point of departure for Fox. In Fox, we see a narrowly expressed Whig critique of Hume. Fox also represents the first of many writers we w i l l consider who explicitly attacked Hume on his perceived failings, but failed to sufficiently give Hume credit for his im-portant contributions to their own thinking. 8 8 Lord Holland, who took responsibility for compiling and finishing Fox's work wrote in the introduction that Fox was motivated to write a history in part to refute Hume. According to his first crude conceptions of the work, it would, as far as I recollect have begun at the Revolution; but he altered his mind, after a careful perusal of the latter part of Hume's history. A n apprehension of the false impressions which that great histo-rian's partiality, might have left on the mind of his readers, induced him to go back to the accession of King James the Second, and even to prefix an Introductory Chapter, on the character and leading events, of the time proceeding.9 Holland's introduction also contained letters written by Fox which further re-vealed Fox's response to Hume's history. For example, in a correspondence wi th Malcolm Laing, an author of a history of Scotland, Fox identified Hume's royalist sym-pathies and expressed disappointment that Hume, the philosopher, would subscribe to such a position. In general, I think you treat him (Hume) too tenderly. He was an excellent man, and of great powers of mind, but his partiality to kings and princes is intolerable. Nay, it is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous, and is more like the foolish admiration which women and children sometimes have for kings, than the opinion right or wrong, of a philosopher.10 Holland also included a recollection of a conversation he had with Fox regarding Hume's mode of writ ing history. According to Holland, Fox conceived that his job as historian required the "telling the story of those times in simple and forcible language." Fox has considered including in his history an historiographical discussion on the views and sources of other writers of the same period. Fox decided against this inquiry be-cause he could not reconcile his role as storyteller with a more analytical approach. In speaking of the writers of the period, he lamented that he had not devised a method of interweaving any account of them or their works, much less any criticism on their style, into his His-tory. On my suggesting the example of Hume and Voltaire, who had discussed such topics at some length, either at the end of each reign, or in a separate chapter, he observed, with much commen-dation of their execution of it, that such a contrivance might be a good mode of writing critical essays, but that it was, in his opin-ion, incompatible with the nature of his undertaking, which if it ceased to be a narrative, ceased to be a history.11 Fox's introductory chapter, the one that he wrote with Hume in mind covers the period from Henry VII to the accession of Charles II. Fox did not challenge Hume on the tyr-anny of the Tudors nor did he question Hume's claim that the first forty years of Stuart rule were characterized by prosperity and progress. In fact, much of Fox's account in the introduction reflects the influence of Hume. For example, Fox followed Hume's idea that a new plan of liberty was emerging in the first half of the seventeenth-century. Fox, like Hume, wrote that a newly ascendant middle class, the result of economic and sociological factors, was responsible for a new attitude towards the crown that took form in an increasing assertive House of Commons. Hume used this evidence to sug-gest a possible defense for the Stuarts. According to Hume, the Stuarts continued to exercise royal prerogative in the usual manner while it was the parliamentary opposi-tion that threatened the status quo. O n this last point, Fox disagreed wi th Hume. Fox defended what he saw as the popular opposition to royal authority. 1 2 The commencement of this period is marked by the exertions of the people, through their representations in the House of Com-mons, not only justifiable in their principle, but directed to the properest objects, and in a manner most judicious.13 Francis Jeffrey, the first editor of the Edinburgh Review and its most prolific con-tributor, welcomed Fox's history. If Hume's history was seen as providing intellectual ammunition for the oppressors of liberty, Fox's history was an antidote, "likely to put an end to a system of timidity so apt to graduate into servility." 1 4 10 Jeffrey continued: Hume was "chiefly responsible for the prevalence of this Epi-curean and ignoble strain of sentiment in this country." 1 5 Employing a utilitarian calculus, Jeffrey objected to Hume's preference for the one over the enjoyment of thou-sands. Jeffrey professed an admiration for Hume's philosophical thought and, like Fox, claimed to be all the more perplexed by Hume's royalist sympathies. Few things seem more unaccountable and indeed absurd than that Hume should have taken part with high church and high monarchy men ... But that he should have sided with the Tudors and the Stuarts against the people seems quite inconsistent with all the great traits of his character.16 If Jeffrey shared Fox's political repugnance to Hume, he disagreed with Fox re-garding the role of an historian. Despite his admiration for Fox's political objectives, he found Fox's history a disappointment. Jeffrey didn't reject the importance of narrative, but he critically noted that Fox limited his purview exclusively to political events. For Jeffrey, Hume was superior because he understood that politics could not be explained without a detailed examination of manners, literature and commerce. 1 7 Expressing an historicist sensibility, Jeffrey thought that Fox was unable to tell the story of a particular time because he was insensitive to the spirit of a particular time. According to Jeffrey, Fox did not provide intelligible motives; he did not assess causes or the character of the population. For Jeffrey, "merely to narrate the occurrence to which it gave life is to recite a history of action without intelligible motives and effects without assignable causes." 1 8 Even before Macaulay's call for a social history (to be discussed later) Jeffrey was calling for a historical discourse that would include manners, education, prevailing oc-cupations, religious tastes, distribution of wealth, and the state of prejudice and 11 opinion. Hume's various appendices represented an important start. Yet Jeffrey thought that the story had not yet been intelligibly told for want of some such analysis of "national feelings." 1 9 Jeffrey would have another opportunity to more fully critique the legacy of Hume's history and expand on his own conception of historical writing, when he re-viewed George Brodie's attack on Hume's history in 1824. 2 0 Like Fox's history, Jeffrey welcomed Brodie's history as a Whig corrective of many misrepresentations and errors of Hume. According to Jeffrey, Brodie served as a much called for "censor of Mr . Hume." Like John Stuart M i l l , who reviewed Brodie's history for Westminster Review, Jeffrey thought that Brodie, although incredibly scrupu-lous and thorough, was limited in imagination and literary craft 2 1 In his review of Brodie, Jeffrey repeated his assertions that Hume's history served as intellectual cover for the opponents of liberty. The true source of practical Toryism or in other words, of personal servility to the Government, is no doubt self-interest, or a strong desire for unearned emoluments and undeserved distinctions -but the great support of speculative servility and sincere Tory opinions - to which we are liberal enough to allow an actual exis-tence, has of late years been found chiefly in Hume's history.22 Jeffrey attributed Hume's success in creating an indelible impression on the reading public to Hume's remarkable literary talent. For Jeffrey, the specific positive qualities contained in Hume's history included "the excellence of the writing, the acuteness of the observations and the apparent fairness of the deductions." Jeffrey em-phasized that Hume's impact on public opinion should not be underestimated. We are aware that to many practical politicians it may appear fantastic and even ridiculous to ascribe such effects to a book -and especially to a book in four quarto volumes, published near seventy years ago: but when it is considered how universally, and at how early an age, it has been read, especially during the latter half of that period - how pleasant it is to be read, and how easy to understand and remember - how much clear, in short, and con-cise and comprehensive it is than any other history of equal extent - how reasonable and sagacious are the greatest part of the obser-vations it contains, - how plausible the most erroneous of its conclusions - our readers wi l l cease perhaps to wonder at the in-fluence we have ventured to ascribe to it...2 3 Jeffrey, in striking a balanced attitude, did observe that Hume, the person, was not without virtue. For example, Jeffrey allowed that Hume was not a mercenary, nor was he politically self-serving. Jeffrey also claimed to admire Hume's independence of mind. It was this same critical stance, this skepticism, that explained Hume's unex-pected political apology for the Stuarts. According to Jeffrey, Hume's Tory partialities were due to his profound antipathy toward religious enthusiasm and intolerance. Ac -cording to Jeffrey, Hume's critical stance towards the Puritans forced Hume to develop a historical scheme that opposed their politics. Echoing Towers, Jeffrey also wrote that Hume's intellectual independence was accompanied by contrarian impulse and an in-tellectual vanity. Since the Whig orthodoxy was the dominant belief system of his day, Hume was also motivated by the desire to overturn it not by any sincere and objective pursuit of the truth, but for personal and psychological reasons.2 4 We see every day, that the existence of the slightest controversy, an mclination towards the most paltry theory, makes the most honest and candid individuals incapable of seeing what is before them, or describing truly what they see.25 Jeffrey, therefore, rejected Hume's claims to impartiality and disinterest. Antici-pating Macaulay's characterization of Hume as mere advocate, Jeffrey suggested that, despite Hume's commitment to a rational method, he was incapable of overcoming his prejudices. Jeffrey blamed Hume's shortcoming on the power of prejudice, but he also 13 suggested another reason for Hume's lack of accuracy. In addition to vanity and a con-trarian impulse, Hume was too impatient, too indolent to critically examine sources impartially or to make the effort to uncover other competing sources. 2 6 In his review of Brodie's history, Jeffrey returned to the theme that credited Hume wi th expanding the discourse of historical writing. Hume may not have been sufficiently vigorous in his examination of sources, but in many ways, his mode of writ ing history represented a significant advance. Following the 'Scottish' conjectural or developmental scheme that Macaulay would further elaborate on, Jeffrey posited that as a society progressed a new type of historical consciousness emerged. Mere narrative was superceded by philosophical history. Where narrative history or Chronicle "merely provides a clear statement of facts, arranged in a lucid order, and interspersed perhaps with a few moral reflections or the most striking occurrences," the new type of history would expand historical dis-course, providing both opportunities and perils for the historian. 2 7 The other plan is far more comprehensive and ambitious - pro-fessing not only to make a selection of the facts most worthy to be recorded, by abridging some and dwelling at length on others, but is to pass an authoritative judgement on the wisdom or folly the merit or demerit of all the acts and actors with which it is conver-sant - to trace memorable events back to their causes, and forward to their consequences - to furnish in short not only a true account of the facts as they occurred, but a satisfactory theory of their con-nection and mutual dependence, and thus to teach to teach for more of their true character and value than was probably known to those who produced them.28 Jeffrey placed Hume's history in this new category of historical writing. Hume, according to Jeffrey, had tried to derive larger propositions from specific events. Hume tried to deduce patterns from discrete events in order to obtain larger lessons of policy 14 and morality. Jeffrey noted that this new mode of history was potentially more danger-ous to the reading public than the more modest and circumscribed political narratives. However superior in dignity and attractive this way of writing history may appear it is obvious that it is attended with infinitely greater hazards, both to the writer and the reader; affords scope and temptation to all kind of erroneous impressions.29 Jeffrey d id not deny that a narrative history may also contain errors, misrepre-sentations, and prejudice. However, he suggested that the stakes were greater wi th the new theoretical or philosophical history. It is one thing to distort the memory of a king; it is another to mislead the public regarding the broader theme of its constitutional in-heritance. In a poorly executed theoretical history the historian w i l l perhaps unconsciously, be careless and negligent in investigating the details which tend to discredit the theories to which he is par-tial, and collect with malicious industry all the scattered intimations which seem to support them. In this way he wil l often give what are truly exceptions to the general rule, as illustrations of its actual tendency; or misrepresent the whole scanty facts which the most anxious research could discover in favor of his conclusions, as instances taken carelessly and at random from an immediate multitude of still stronger examples.30 Since Hume came to the table with powerful prejudices, he was unable, accord-ing to Jeffrey, to effectively execute this new type of history. For Jeffrey, Hume was a cautionary tale of the dangers of philosophical history, not merely because of his preju-dices, but also because he engaged in "conjectural" rather than "authentic" history. According to Jeffrey, Hume consistently created fictional representations of the opin-ions of conflicting parties. The object of the author [Hume] being chiefly to give his readers a clear idea of the scenes he described he seems to have thought that the conduct of the actors would best be understood by ascribing to them views and motives which upon reflection appeared to him-self most natural in their situation.31 15 Jeffrey stated that this approach may have been both reasonable and effective. Furthermore, Hume's accounts were not without plausibility. But in imposing his own views, Hume "undoubtedly violated the truth of history - and exposed himself to the influence of the most delusive partialities." 3 2 Jeffrey found that this was the danger of a philosopher engaged in historical writing. Hume was merely repeating a method he had employed in his philosophical essays. "Such a hypothetical integration of the opinions likely to prevail in any par-ticular circumstances, seems at all times to have been a favorable exercise of his ingenuity." 3 3 Hume's characterization of conversations and his summary of the behavior of conflicting parties were mere conjectural views of the parties involved. For Jeffrey, this was not real history. A n inspection of sources, Jeffrey believed, would reveal huge dis-crepancies between Hume's account and the evidence. 3 4 Like Fox, Sir James Mackintosh was also an experienced Whig political states-man. Both were preoccupied with the merits and defects of the English constitution, as wel l as prominent characters and events in seventeenth-century English history. Mackintosh, however, was considered the far superior scholar and literary talent. Mackintosh's aesthetic and methodological critique was accompanied by a Whig political challenge. Mackintosh cited Hume's contrarianism and his sojourn in France as factors that made Hume insensitive to the unique and special qualities of English lib-erties: led him to prefer the faultless elegance of our neighbours to the unequal grandeur of English genius, and produced the singular phenomenon of a history of England adverse to our peculiar na-16 tional feelings, and calculated not so much to preserve the vigour, as to repress the excesses, of that love of liberty which distin-guishes the History of England, from that of other nations of Europe.35 In his Memoirs, Mackintosh expressed admiration for Hume's character. His temper was calm, not to say cold; but though none of his feelings were ardent he was free from the slightest tincture of ma-lignity or meanness; his conduct was uniformly excellent.36 Mackintosh's preliminary remarks on Hume's history were also full of praise. Mackintosh thought Hume's history was of significant merit and importance. His greatest work, and that which naturally claims most attention, was his History of England which notwithstanding great defects, wil l probably be at last placed at the head of historical composi-tions. No other narrative seems to unite, in the same degree, the two qualities of being instructive and affecting. No historian ap-proached him in the union of the talent of pamting pathetic scenes with that of exhibiting comprehensive views of human affairs. His practices in abstract speculation had strengthened, without biasing, his intellect; and that most subtle metaphysician of his age was, as an historian, the furthest from over-refined.37 What set Hume's history apart was not merely Hume's narrative, but Hume's capacity to combine narrative with penetrating insights. Hume was both philosopher and dramatist. Mackintosh also valued Hume's capacity to abridge his insights. The general observations seem always to be required by his sub-ject; the most profound ideas are clothed with a transparent simplicity; and when he exercises his power of compression, he attains his object without any departure from the inimitable ease and nature of his style.38 Elaborating on his comment that Hume's history contained great defects, Mack-intosh echoed Jeffrey's critique that Hume engaged in conjectural rather than authentic history. Hume relied too often on the work of previous compilers. He substituted per-spicacity for legwork. "It is not to be denied that he has sometimes trusted to his acuteness to supply the place of industry in the investigation of evidence." 3 9 17 Like Jeffrey, Mackintosh accused Hume of being too "rational." Instead of pay-ing attention to and trying to discover what historical actors really thought and did, Hume tended to substitute his own plausible or rational scenarios. According to Mackintosh, Hume's rationalism got in the way of good history. Hume failed to see the past for what it really was: He was too habitually a speculator, and too little of an antiquary, to have a great power of throwing back his mind into former ages, and of clothing his persons and events in their moral dress; his personages are too modern and argumentative - if we must not say too rational.40 Mackintosh further defined the desirable aims of the writing of history in a re-view of Simonde de Simondi's History of France.41 Mackintosh found Simondi's method superior to Hume because Simondi went to original sources and avoided relying on second hand compilers. As a result, Simondi's history was more accurate and authen-tic. Implicitly rebuking Hume, Mackintosh observed: The genius of history is nourished by the study of original narra-tors and by critical examination of the minute circumstances of facts. Ingenious speculation and ostentatious ornament are mis-erable substitutes for these historical virtues.42 To obtain the desired representation there must be original research. But these are only to be found in the dramatic narrative of the eye-witness or the contemporary, who had always seen the manners, which he paints and had generally felt some degree of the pas-sions which actuated his heroes.43 The last phrase is very important; Mackintosh identified the need to determine the mindset and context of historical thought and action. Hume was again criticized for being insufficiently attentive to historical detail. The "narrative of ancient events by a mere modern thinker must always be uninteresting because he never can paint, or even conceive, the feeling from which this events arose." 4 4 18 Mackintosh also had Hume in mind when he criticized the substitution of sec-ond-hand sources for original research. There are few countries in which the truth of history has suffered more than in England, from the indolence with which almost eve-ryone of our modern historians has taken the basis of his narrative from his predecessors. Mackintosh linked Hume's improper method to a shortcoming in narrative style. The use of original sources was seen as the foundation for creating a more particularis-tic and immediate source of history. Like good fiction, a v iv id history facilitated the moral aims of history. It is on the sympathy which History excites that it moral effect de-pends. The moral improvement to be derived from all narrative, whether it be historical or what is called fictitious is in proportion to the degree is which it exercises and thereby strengthens the so-cial feelings and moral principles of the readers.45 Here, Mackintosh's use of the term sympathy reflects less of an interest in what the twentieth-century historicist Herbert Butterfield called the "difference of the past," than in creating in the reader the capacity for empathy and identification. 4 6 Mackintosh sub-scribed to the idea that the use of original sources w i l l make the narrative more compelling and more morally uplifting. Hume's inability to throw his mind back into the past diminished the quality of his narrative. [The historian] can improve his readers only by mteresting them: and he can interest them only by that animated representation of men and actions which inspire feeling almost as strong as those which are excited by present realties. Delight and improvement must therefore be produced by the very same means; and if the history of former ages be delightful only when it has the pictur-esque particularity of original writers, it must depend also in it part on the study of the same writers for the attainment of its highest purposes.47 19 Despite his call for a history that would elicit sympathy and identification, Mackintosh was also sensitive to the idea that each historical era is different. He im-plicitly cautioned against a presentist fallacy. As long as the events reserve the color of the age in which they passed, the statesman is in no danger of being so misled by his-tory as to consider the precedents of a remote antiquity as to fit slavishly adopted in a totally dissimilar condition of society.48 Mackintosh argued against a modern speculator (Hume) who would impose his values and theories on the historical past. Historical facts were misinterpreted if used exclusively for present purposes. They are seen through a different medium; and being combined with modern passions and prejudices, are indeed no longer the same facts. From such materials the philosopher can form no true judgement of the spirit and character of former times. No inferences from them can afford a solid foundation for a theory of the nature and progress of society.49 III. T H E A P P R E N T I C E A T L I N C O L N C A T H E D R A L : M A C A U L A Y In Thomas Babington Macaulay's writings we see a political critique combined wi th a call for new, more imaginative and authentic history; in Macaulay's discussion of an ideal history we see a largely implicit rather than explicit critique of Hume's method and aesthetic. Politically, Macaulay argued that Hume was less pro-royalty than he was an apologist for the Stuarts. Macaulay, like Towers, took issue wi th Hume's efforts to equate Tudor policy with that of the Stuarts. Following Whig orthodoxy, Macaulay in-sisted that the Stuarts were intent on undermining England's pre-existing political liberties and privileges. Macaulay defended the activities of the Stuart opponents. 20 Macaulay maintained that current political liberties were the direct result of their ac-tivities. A t the age of fourteen, Macaulay had already expressed a written opinion of Hume's history. In a letter to his mother, Macaulay noted that England should be grate-ful to Hume for his history. Till the appearance of Hume's history it was her (England's) re-proach that the best account of her kingdom was written by a foreigner Rapin. 5 0 Macaulay commended Hume's elegance and expressed the conviction that Hume's history was superior in authenticity to the "Classical Models ." 5 1 Macaulay came from a strongly Evangelical family. In the same letter he force-fully criticized Hume for his stance on religion. Despite the history's virtues, the work was "disgraced by the utter want of religious principle." 5 2 Anticipating a theme we w i l l see expressed later by Palgrave, Carlyle and M i l l , Macaulay wrote that Hume's inability to appreciate a religious sensibility interfered wi th his ability to represent the past. This is a disadvantage, I think, not only because it tends to mis-represent those subjects in comparison of which history is unimportant, but as it takes away from the interest of the work ... Hume discards or omits everything about religion, except a very little which he distorts and misrepresents. I think that history should not only be pleasant and authentic as critics say, but that the historian should not be entirely cold and incredulous upon the most important topic in every point of view that ever occupied the attention of men.53 A t 14, Macaulay already thought Hume too skeptical and too cautious; Hume's cavalier attitude towards religious feeling precluded a truer and more authentic historical un-derstanding. It also rendered Hume's narrative less compelling. 21 In an essay on the poet John Mil ton for the Edinburgh Review, Macaulay attrib-uted Hume's Stuart apology to Hume's antipathy towards religion, specifically Hume's dislike of the Puritans. Macaulay used the term "advocate" to depict Hume's repre-sentation of events. Hume, from whose fascinating narrative the great mass of the reading public are still contented to take their opinions hated re-ligion so much, that he hated liberty for having been allied with religion and has pleaded the cause of tyranny with the dexterity of an advocate, while affecting the impartiality of a judge.54 Macaulay expressed amazement at Hume's attempted defense of Charles I. For Macaulay, character could not be separated from actions taken while governing. For ourselves, we own that we do not understand the common phrase a good man but a bad king ... We cannot, in estimating the character of an individual leave out of our consideration his con-duct in the most important of all human relations; and if, in that relation, we find him to have been selfish, cruel, and deceitful, we shall take the liberty to call him a bad man, in spite of his temper-ance at table, and all his regularity at chapel.55 Macaulay, like Towers, addressed Hume's contextual argument (i.e., that the Stuart's policies were no different in quality that their Tudor predecessors). "This point Hume has labored, with an art which is as discreditable in a historical work as it would be admirable in a forensic address." Macaulay argued that there were important differ-ences between the Tudor Regime and Charles'. The answer [to Hume] is short, clear and decisive. Charles had assented to the Petition of Right. He had renounced the oppres-sive powers said to have been exercised by his predecessors, and he had renounced them for money. He was not entitled to set up his antiquated claim against his own recent release.56 Writing thirty-two years after the Reign of Terror i n France Macaulay still af-firmed the necessity of violent upheaval in the seventeenth century. If Hume was going 22 to defend the Stuarts by contextualizing royal behaviour, Macaulay would return the favour in defense of revolution. We deplore the outrages which accompany revolutions. But the more violent the outrages, the more assured we feel that a revolu-tion was necessary. Macaulay added: The violence of these outrages will always be proportioned to the ferocity and ignorance of the people: and the ferocity and igno-rance of the people wil l be proportioned to the oppression and degradation under which they have been accustomed to live. Thus it was in our civil war. The rulers in the church and state reaped only that which they had sown ... If they were assailed with blind fury it was because they had executed an equally blind submission.57 The Mi l ton piece was published in 1825, three years later, in an article entitled "The Romance of History," Macaulay engaged in a sweeping historiographical essay. He pointed to recent innovations in the apprehension of the moral sciences as contrib-uting to modern historical discourse. The ancients were equal to the moderns in logic and imagination. However, modern political, economic, and legal thought surpassed the understanding of the classical period. The ancients could make particular observa-tion but they were incapable of making meaningful abstractions of generalizations. The fall of Rome made Europe less monolithic; it introduced diversity which made analysis by comparison possible. According to Macaulay, comparison was the prerequisite for a more analytical and speculative history. The modern historian was provided wi th a new perspective. 5 8 By observing the manners of surrounding nations, by studying their literature, by comparing it with that of his own country and of the ancient republics, he is enabled to correct those errors into which the most acute men must fall when they reason from a sin-gle species to a genus. He learns to distinguish what is local from what is universal; what is transitory from what is eternal; to dis-23 crirrvinate between exceptions and rules; to trace the operation of disturbing causes; to separate those general principles which are always true and everywhere applicable from the accidental cir-cumstances with which, in every community, they are blended, and with which, in an isolated community, they are confounded by the most philosophical mind. 5 9 Modern historians possessed new capabilities that made their histories "une-qualled in depth and precision of reason" in comparison to their ancient predecessors.6 0 Modern historians, however, had succumbed to many pitfalls in Macaulay's opinion. For example, Macaulay thought that modern historians were misled by reason itself. A commitment to a particular theory led an historian to try too hard, employing reason, to fit facts to theory. This procedure had blinded some modern historians to historical evidence; it lead them to stray from the truth. The best historians of later times have been seduced from truth, not by their imagination, but by their reason. They far excel their predecessors in the art of deducing general principles from facts. But unhappily they have fallen into the error of distorting factors to suite general principles. They arrive at a theory from looking at some of the phenomena, and the remaining phenomena they strain or curtail to suit the theory.61 Commitment to a pre-existing or too hastily developed theory led to selective interpretation, omissions and exclusions of competing views and contradictory evi-dence. This propensity for selective interpretation Macaulay characterized as advocacy history. Macaulay never showed how Hume was "seduced by reason" to take up the Stuart's cause. Nevertheless, Hume clearly represented an example of advocacy his-tory. Macaulay accused Hume of employing sophisticated reasoning to distort the historical record. Without positively asserting much more that he can prove, he gives prominence to all the circumstances which support his case; 24 he glides lightly over those which are unfavorable to it; his own witnesses are applauded and encouraged; the statements which seem to throw discredit on them are controverted, the contradic-tions into which they fell are explained away; a clear and connected abstract of their evidence is given. Everything that is offered on the other side is scrutinized with the utmost severity; every suspicious circumstance is a ground for comment and in-vective; what cannot be denied is extenuated, or passed by without notice; concessions even are sometimes made: but this in-sidious candour only increases the effect of the vast mass of sophistry.62 Advocacy history was like modern litigation to Macaulay. It may lead to the emergence of the truth, assuming there were always advocates on both sides of an is-sue, but it alienated the reading public. For example, Macaulay observed that Brodie's history — another example of advocacy history, may disprove Hume, but " i n the midst of these disputes, history proper, if we may use the term, is disappearing." 6 3 According to Macaulay, an ideal history would contain a commanding and dis-interested overview with an affecting narrative. Advocacy history left Macaulay cold, not only because it was inherently partial, but because too often the art of good story-telling was ignored.* While our historians are practicing all the arts of controversy, they miserably neglect the art of narrative, the art of interesting the af-fectations, and presenting pictures to the imagination.64 Macaulay cited for emulation historical novels, memoirs and biography. The novelist Sir Walter Scott was cited as a noteworthy example. These different genres provided superior narratives because they contained efforts to explore individual char-acter, emotions, motivations, and personality. 6 5 * It should be noted that Macaulay never explicitly claimed that Hume sacrificed narrative in writing "advocacy history". 25 In the case of biography and memoir, Macaulay contended that these examples proved that interesting reflections were not necessarily mutually exclusive wi th truth. Fiction d id not have to be the only venue for particularistic and imaginative writing. Macaulay advocated changing historical discourse in other areas as well . He wrote that the objective of history should be to capture "the vast and complex system of society, of the fine shades of national character, of the practical operation of government and laws." 6 6 Macaulay ambitiously called for a more inclusive social history. A n historian wishing "to understand the condition of mankind in former ages" must grapple with new horizons of information. The historian must learn to appreciate and understand the common man. He must see ordinary men as they appear in their ordinary busi-ness and in their ordinary pleasures. He must mingle in the crowds of the exchange and the coffee house. He must obtain admittance to the convivial table and the domestic hearth. He must bear with vulgar expressions. He must not shrink from ex-ploring even the retreats of misery."67 Macaulay's ideal required both a change in historical scope and aesthetic. Macaulay valued immediacy and v iv id detail. The historian should approach his sub-ject like an artist. The quote below expresses Macaulay's romantic ideal. Hume's history is implicitly found wanting. Men wil l not merely be described, but wil l be made intimately known to us. The changes of manner will be indicated, not merely by a few general phrases or a few extracts from statistical docu-ments, but by appropriate images presented in every line 6 8 Romantic history involved the use of images. Romantic history aspired to an in-timate connection to the past. Understanding in the Romantic mode required both a rational and emotional apprehension. History was not merely an analytical or specula-26 tive enterprise; it was an art form that should satisfy the intellect and inspire the imagi-nation. This was how history could meet its moral and pedagogical objectives. "Many truths, too would be learned, which can be learned in no other manner." 6 9 A t the end of his essay, Macaulay recounted the story of Lincoln Cathedral: a young apprentice, using materials discarded by the master, created a new work far sur-passing anything created previously by the master. Macaulay noted that Walter Scott had already used much material discarded by historians to enliven his historical ro-mances. Macaulay wrote (perhaps setting a standard in advance for his own history): "But a truly great historian would reclaim those materials which the novelist has ap-propriated." 7 0 Macaulay did not give Hume credit for meeting the criteria of greatness; Hume's history was too limited, it was incomplete. The history of the government, and the history of the people, would be exhibited in that mode which alone they can be exhib-ited justly, in inseparable conjunction and intermixture. We should not then have to look for the wars and votes of the Puri-tans in Clarendon, and for their phraseology in Old Mortality; for one half of King James in Hume and for the other half in the For-tunes of Nigel. 7 1 In 1849, James Moncreiff, a Whig lawyer and future Lord Advocate of Scotland, wri t ing for the Edinburgh Review, thought that Macaulay had succeeded in creating a more v iv id and realistic history. Reviewing Macaulay's The History of England From the Accession of James the Second, Moncreiff wrote: Even on the most beaten ground his power of picturesques de-scription brings out lights and shadows — views alike of distances and roadside flowers, never seen, or remarked or recollected be-fore.72 27 Macaulay's book was considered a success because it succeeded in combining the Whig political interpretation of history with a compelling narrative. After 100 years, Hume's dominant influence was over. The "false glare" that he created was now re-moved. We certainly regard this work as the first successful attempt to tell with truth, accuracy, and effect, the story of these important times: so to tell it, we mean as to place it permanently in its true light, and to remove it from that false glare which has so long rested on it. 7 3 Moncreiff, reflecting the Romantic ideal, thought that a historian should aim to create a l iving picture of times he is trying to represent. This should "reflect not iso-lated facts but the general manners, habits, principles, as well as actions of men that lived and flourished in them." 7 4 Overlooking any possible contribution by Hume, Moncreiff credited Macaulay wi th expanding historical discourse by including descriptions of the "manners and custom, and general conditions, both social and political, of the English" Macaulay, ac-cording to Moncrieff, had "made a courageous and very successful endeavor to lead history into a deeper and wider channel." 7 5 IV. T H E W H I G PROFESSOR: W I L L I A M S M Y T H Professor Wi l l i am Smyth, unlike Moncrieff, would credit Hume wi th meaningful contributions to modern historiography. Smyth, a lecturer in Modern European His-tory at Cambridge from 1807 to 1847, provided a relatively balanced, if still stinging, Whig political critique of Hume. In addition, Smyth, in considering Hume's historical method, generated criticisms similar to Jeffrey and Mackintosh. In his lectures, pub-28 lished posthumously in 1848, Smyth identified Hume and Rapin, the early eighteenth-century French historian, as the two leading guides to understanding the "related histo-ries of England's monarchs, barons, and other remarkable men and the future and fortune of the constitution." 7 6 Smyth found Hume's history to contain many valuable and penetrating insights. Smyth made special mention of Hume's contribution to political economy that could be found in the appendices of the Hume's history. Smyth argued that Hume's analysis went beyond mere surface facts, to provide a new and deeper understanding. 7 7 Nevertheless, Smyth devoted considerable time to correcting what he thought were Hume's historical misrepresentations and errors. He urged his students to read Hume with great caution. and we are thus taught to be more than ever suspicious of the historian's particular prejudices. And on the whole, this instance wil l show that you must not take it for granted that Mr. Hume ac-curately represents even the very authorities he quotes: so irresistible in these cases is the influence of the sentiments of the mind over operations of the understandings.78 Smyth, a political Whig, thought Hume's account of the seventeenth century was prejudiced and incomplete. Smyth insisted on a political continuity from the past to the present. Mr. Hume tells the story of England without giving sufficient praise to those patriots who preserved and transmitted those gen-eral habits of thinking on political subjects which have always distinguished this country, and to which alone every Englishmen owes, at this day, all that makes his life a blessing and his exis-tence honourable.79 Smyth contended that, given England's "mixed government," (its constitutional monarchy), historians would necessarily fall into one of two camps - they would eventually subscribe to a pro-monarchy or pro-popular position. Smyth, unlike Towers 29 and Macaulay, alleged that Hume was an outright royal apologist, not merely an advo-cate for the Stuarts, Smyth thought there were two reasons Hume advanced the royal position. First, Smyth, like Jeffrey, suspected Hume was in part animated by contrari-anism. Since at the time Hume wrote his history the Whig orthodoxy of Rapin reigned, Hume, following his contrarian impulses, decided to write an alternative historical view. Second, Smyth thought Hume was temperamentally opposed to political insta-bility and operated on the mistaken assumption that "popular privileges w i l l always lead to disorder, and render the government insecure." 8 0 Smyth rejected Hume's argument that the fight for liberty was a relatively recent development. Smyth insisted that the struggles of the seventeenth-century could be traced to a more remote period in time. "The great leading idea which should be formed of our constitutional history is that there has always been a constant struggle between prerogative and privilege." 8 1 Attending to Hume's method, Smyth attacked Hume for employing anachro-nisms in his historical representations. He ascribes to the personages of history, as they pass be-fore him, the views and opinions of later eras and those sentiments and reasonings, for instance, which his own enlight-ened and powerful mind was enabled to form, not those which either really were or could be formed by men minking and acting many centuries before.82 Smyth d id not articulate the strictly historicist argument that the past should be understood for itself. But he was moving in that direction when he wrote "the proper instruction of history, much of which lies in the comparison of one age to another." 8 3 That very comparison dictated a more historicist approach than Hume offered. 30 For example, Smyth cited Hume's representation of a speech by the Bishop of Carlisle in the fourteenth-century. Smyth granted that Hume's description and rea-soning was both beautiful and marvelous. But Hume's account did not accurately reflect what the Bishop said and why he said it. How worthy of the generalizing mind of the philosopher of the eighteenth-century - how little likely to have been addressed by a warm hearted ecclesiastic to the disorderly barons of the four-teenth.84 Unlike the other critics of Hume, Smyth did observe when Hume wrote authen-tic history. Smyth pointed to Hume's description of a speech given by Henry IV. Smyth's comments reflect the historicist spirit that was emerging in the early nine-teenth-century. Smyth indicated that he wanted more evocative detail and less imposition of modern values. The words extracted were certainly very remarkable and very de-scriptive of the scene and the age, but it is relics of this kind, that an historian should produce and make the subject of philosophic meditation of his reader, not offer modern views and sentiments of his own. 8 5 Authenticity was, therefore, crucial to Smyth. Hume was commended when his account was seen as reflecting what really happened. Realism was preferred to mere speculation. A few barbarous words or any distinct fact, that can be shown to be authentic, are worth volumes of reasonings and conjectures of a thinking mind; or rather it is on such facts that the student must in the first place alone depend when he collects materials for his in-struction, and he must never lose sight of them, when he comes afterwards to build up his political reasonings and conclusions.86 31 V. THE IMPORTANCE OF REVELATION: SIR FRANCES PALGRAVE Sir Francis Palgrave attacked Hume's history from a religious perspective. In contrast to MacQueen's eighteenth-century religious criticism of Hume, Palgrave's dis-cussion reflects the growing concerns in the nineteenth-century with historical realism and authenticity. He shared with his Whig contemporaries the belief that Hume could not throw his mind back into the past. Palgrave wrote two scathing critiques of Hume for the Quarterly Review. In the first article, published in 1826, Palgrave expressed an historicist perspective when he wrote that Hume failed to manifest a sensitivity to different periods within the Middle Ages. " A l l minor distinctions amongst them are lost in conformity. Hume offered a cu-rious exemplification of the deceptions thus produced by the aerial perspective of the mind." 8? Hume's approach prevented h im from paying attention to the particulars. Pal-grave thought that Hume's religious antipathy was at the core of an inability to grasp an era dominated by a religious sensibility. However, Hume's "aerial perspective" also contributed to his inability to capture the spirit of the medieval period. In his second article, published in 1844, entitled Hume's Influence on History, Pal-grave continued his attack on Hume. Generally, he found Hume the historian superficial and lazy. Hume did not do sufficient leg work; he failed to track down original sources and was too content wi th questionable secondary sources. As a result, Hume "could never remove himself out of the eighteenth-century."8 8 Palgrave insisted on "bringing intellect into continual subjection to revelation." 8 9 These were his first principles. From a historiographical perspective, he contended that 32 we could not understand many great historical figures unless we understand the relig-ious convictions that animated their actions. Palgrave maintained that Hume consistently distorted the historical record to obscure this point. For example, Palgrave pointed to Hume's account of Prince Alfred, who lived in the ninth century. Palgrave argued that the evidence, as revealed in original sources, showed that Alfred's religious beliefs and devotion were central to his character and his policies. But Hume "has concealed every passage, every fact, every incident, every transaction, displaying that active belief in Christianity, which governed the whole tenor and course of Alfred's l i fe ." 9 0 Palgrave also discussed Hume's representation of Charles I. For Palgrave, Hume again diminished the role that religion played in a king's life. Furthermore, Palgrave thought that Hume's removal of the role of religion undercut the entire basis for royal political authority. Hume has been and is still valued by many, as a defender of mon-archical principles; but his support kills the roots of loyalty. By advocating the duty of obedience to the Sovereign, simply with reference to human relations, he deprived allegiances of the only sure foundation upon which it can rest.91 VI . T H O M A S C A R L Y L E A N D J O H N S T U A R T M I L L Thomas Carlyle continued Palgrave's attack against Hume on the issue of relig-ion. Like Palgrave and Macaulay, Carlyle insisted that a historian could not access an understanding of the interior lives of men without paying attention to their religious beliefs. Carlyle called for more attention to be paid to ecclesiastical history. This would provide a point of departure for understanding the "moral well-being" and "true good" 33 of individuals in history. What was most important was not the form of government a person lived under, but the church and the moral environment created by religious leadership. For Carlyle, the historian, looking to identify causal factors in history, could not ignore moral and ethical reasons. Carlyle thought that an understanding of ecclesi-astical history was far more important than political or constitutional history. 9 2 Carlyle argued that church history provided access to understanding something deeper than mere constitutional history. "Political history only described the walls of the house a man lived in. A History of the church provided an understanding of interior forces; the invisible forces that mattered more than the visible." 9 3 In his Hero lectures, Carlyle did not mention Hume by name, but clearly Hume is an intended target of Carlyle's diatribe against eighteenth-century historiography of the great events of the seventeenth century. A n absence of soul prevented a proper un-derstanding of the Puritans and Cromwell . Formalism and Skepticism led to the inappropriate label of superstition for the defenders of liberty and revolt. For Carlyle, it was a "vulpine intellect," a "dilettantism," an insincerity, along wi th skepticism that precluded an appreciation of "sincerity when they see i t ." 9 4 In 1826, in the Westminster Review, John Stuart M i l l , wrote a review article of "Mignet's French Revolution" which also served as an historiographical essay resembling Macaulay's History as Romance published two years later. M i l l observed that there were two modes of writ ing history. The old mode was characterized by a v iv id conception, the evoking of intense emotions. M i l l cited the ancient historians L ivy and Thucydides as master storytellers possessing great narrative talents.9 5 Modern history, in contrast, was characterized by a narrative subservient to phi losophy. The new priority was on the illustration of the laws of human nature. M i l l observed that there was an intermediary style that tried to unite the two modes of his-torical representation. M i l l , however found that practitioners of this mode, including Hume, tended to provide narrative amusement at the expense of penetrating insight. Important analysis was avoided or banished to an appendix. 9 6 The common reader is thus provided with such instruction, or supposed instruction as his habits of mind render him capable of receiving, and is possessed with a high idea of the powers of the writer, who can communicate wisdom in so easy and entertaining a form. Of the popularity which may be acquired by this mode of writing history, the success of Hume is a striking example.97 M i l l granted that Hume's grasp of narrative was superior to other historians. However, M i l l questioned Hume's reputation for perspicacity. In fact, M i l l suggested mutually exclusive relationship between meaningful insight and popularity. He has also obtained credit for the profundity of his reflections. That his reputation for this quality is so widely diffused, is of itself a sufficient proof that it is undeserved. Had his reflections been really profound, we may venture to affirm that they would have been less popular. By a profound reflection, it is meant a reflec-tion, the truth of which is not obvious at first sight, and to a cursory reader, but which in proportion as a man grows wiser, and takes a deeper insight into things, forces itself upon his as-sent.98 Writing almost 75 years after Hume's history was published, M i l l agreed wi th other critics who maintained that Hume's powerful narrative had a nefarious impact c public opinion. Writ ing about deceptions and falsehoods found in many histories written by Frenchmen, M i l l observed that there was a saving grace; the histories were so boring and dul l that nobody read them. The potential harm of historical misrepre-35 sentation was nullified by a lack of audience. M i l l regretted that this was not the case in England. Hume is clearly the target of the following: We have in our own history a standing example of how deep a root party lies may take in the public mind, when a writer, in whom the arts of the most consummate advocate are combined with all the graces of style, employs his skill in giving them the color of truth." It is instructive to note that when M i l l complimented Mignet, one of the positive features he identified was Mignet's alleged non-partisanship. It is most fortunate, therefore, that the first readable history of France should be the production of a writer who is of no party, except that of human nature; who has no purpose to serve except that of the truth, and whose only bias is towards the happiness of mankind. 1 0 0 Two years earlier, in 1824, M i l l wrote another review for the Westminster Review in which he devoted consideration to Hume's alleged defense of the Stuarts in the sev-enteenth-century. M i l l was a Radical, not a Whig. But he shared the Whigs' dissatisfaction wi th the political interpretations contained in Hume's history. Taking advantage of the opportunity to review Brodie's history to provide his own analysis of the seventeenth-century rebellion and its aftermath, M i l l identified Hume as the foil for which a new understanding must be generated. 1 0 1 Mil l ' s detailed discussion of Hume was a scathing indictment. Hume's history was described as a mere romance written in defense of the Stuarts. Hume, according to M i l l , was more interested in exciting the emotions than provoking understanding. From a utilitarian perspective, Hume's history was a vulgar disgrace. Romance is always dangerous, but when romance assumes the garb of history, it is doubly pernicious. To say nothing of its other evils, on which this is no place to expatiate, it infallibly allies itself with the sinister interests of the few. When events come to be looked at, not as they effect the great interests of mankind, but as 36 they bear upon the pleasures and pains of an individual; a habit is engendered of considering the pleasures and pains of an individ-ual as of more importance than the great interests of mankind. 1 0 2 It is within this framework that M i l l repeated the charge that Hume was a disin-genuous advocate. His language closely resembled Macaulay's diatribe against Hume. Many of the most material facts, facts upon which the most im-portant of the subsequent transactions hinged, and which even the party writers of the day never attempted to deny, Hume totally omits to mention; others which are so notorious that they cannot be safely be passed over in silence, he either affects to disbelieve, or mentioning no evidence, indirectly gives it to be understood that there was none. The direct lies are not a few; the lies insinu-ated are innumerable.103 M i l l challenged Hume on many of the same substantive points made by the Whigs. One argument that was novel with M i l l and reflected his Radical political af-filiation was his questioning of the significance of the historical debate in the first place. Regarding the Tory vs. Whig debate over the constitutional legacy that the Stuarts in-herited, M i l l wrote: It is of little consequence whether misgovernment was of an an-cient or of a modern date in Great Britain; in either case, resistance to it was equally a duty; the opposition to that resistance, equally a crime; and it is a strange doctrine, that we are not entitled to good government, unless we can prove that our ancestors enjoyed it. 1 0 4 Unlike his Whig contemporaries, M i l l d id not seem to possess a Burkean concern with precedent. Yet, M i l l almost immediately backpedaled from this assertion of principle and d id offer this disclaimer: although, as mankind, educated as they hitherto been, are gov-erned by custom and precedent much more than reason, it was perfectly natural that each party at the time should endeavor to throw the reproach of innovation upon its opponents.105 37 Despite Hume's literary talent, M i l l expressed dissatisfaction with the quality Hume's historical representations. Hume failed to capture the spirit of individuals l iv-ing in the past. Mi l l ' s critique here was both methodological and aesthetic.§ In his essay on Carlyle's French Revolution M i l l argued that Hume fell far short of the new standard set by Carlyle. According to M i l l , Hume failed to evoke the immedi-acy of historical actors. If there be a person who reading the histories of Hume, Robert-son, and Gibbon (works of extraordinary talent, and the works of great writers) has never felt that this after all, is not history — and that the lives and deeds of his fellow-creatures must be placed be-fore him in quite another manner, if he is to know them, or feel them to be real beings, who were once alive, beings of his own flesh and blood, not mere shadows and dim abstractions; such a person, for whom plausible talk about a thing does as well as an image of the things itself, feels no need of a book like Mr. Carlyle's. 1 0 6 Like Macaulay, M i l l observed that other genres such as historical plays and ro-mances were satisfying a need not met by modern historians. Macaulay writ ing in 1828 had thought that the ideal history, combining novelistic characterization wi th scrupu-lous attention to fact, remained to be written. In 1837, M i l l thought that Carlyle had met the ideal. Mr. Carlyle has been the first to show that all which is done for history by the best historical plays may be done in a strictly true narrative ... in which every incident rests on irrefutable authority; may be done by means merely of an apt selection and a judicious grouping of authentic facts.107 § It could also be argued that his call - like Macaulay's - for a more inclusive social history contained an additional, albeit implicit, attack on Hume's politics. This new political attack went beyond the old W h i g / T o r y clash over the legacy of the seventeenth century and suggested a new, more populist sensi-bility. 38 For M i l l , Carlyle was the Shakespeare of historical prose. The ordinary dramatist presented his characters as "logical abstractions." Shakespeare made them real, he made them come to life. This quality, so often pointed out as distinctive of Shakespeare's plays distinguishes Mr. Carlyle's history. Never before did we take up a book calling itself by its name, a book treating of past times, and professing to be true, and find ourselves actually among human beings. We at once felt, that what had hitherto been to us mere abstractions, had become realities.108 In contrast, Hume's historical figures were mere "algebraical symbols." 1 0 9 M i l l also repeated the charge that Hume failed to throw his mind into the past. Hume didn't capture the spirit of an age. He failed to appreciate human aspirations. He substituted reason for authenticity. Furthermore, where religious critics noted Hume's insensitivity to religious be-lief and the role it played in individual and collective life, M i l l emphasized Hume's failure to evoke the spirit of everyday life as lived by the common man. His comments below closely resemble Macaulay's call for a new, more inclusive, social history. They also reflect the preference for authenticity over speculation that we have seen discussed by other writers in this paper. Does Hume throw his own mind into the mind of an Anglo-Saxon, or an Anglo-Norman? Does any reader feel, after reading Hume's History, that he can now picture to himself what human life was, among the Anglo-Saxons? how an Anglo-Saxon would have acted in any supposable case? what were his joys, his sor-rows, his hopes and fears, his ideas and opinions on any of the great and small matters of human interest? Would not the sight, if it could be had, of a single table or pair of shoes made by an An-glo-Saxon, tell us, directly and by inference, more of his whole way of life, more of how men thought and acted among Anglo-Saxons, then Hume, with all his narrative skill, has contrived to tell us from all his materials?110 39 Curiously, because religious devotion is not something one associates wi th M i l l , we also see an echoing of Palgrave's and Carlyle's criticism of Hume on religion in Mi l l ' s essay on Michelet's History of France, written for the Edinburgh Review in 1844. Palgrave and Carlyle attacked Hume for his atheism and skepticism. They also argued that, regardless of one's beliefs, the history of religion and its institutions were too im-portant to ignore. M i l l picked up on the latter point in a discussion of recent French historians. He commented favorably on the fact that even non-believing historians felt it necessary to pay attention to the importance of rel igion. 1 1 1 The present French thinkers, whether receiving Christianity or not as a divine revelation, in no way feel themselves called upon to be unjust to it as a fact in history. There are men who, not disguising their own belief, have written deeper and finer things in vindica-tion of what religion has done for mankind than have sufficed to found the reputation of some of its most admired defenders.112 M i l l could not depart this subject without throwing an additional jab at Hume. In France, the unbelievers had abandoned their vitriolic antipathy towards Catholicism that had marked the thought of Voltaire. If they have any prejudice on the subject, it is in favor of the priesthood. They leave the opinions of David Hume on ecclesias-tical history to the exclusive patronage (we are sorry to say) of Protestant writers in Great Britain. 1 1 3 C O N C L U S I O N Hume's literary and analytical achievement represented a point of departure for nineteenth-century discussion of the proper aims, methods, and narrative style of his-tory. Hume suggested the possibility that a history could combine comprehensive analysis wi th compelling narrative. However Hume's history was considered to fall short of the ideal set by his nineteenth-century critics. 40 The early nineteenth century British writers discussed in this paper generally conceded that Hume possessed both analytic and literary talent. However, they con-tested his political and religious interpretations. Furthermore, the distinct sensibility that was thought to inform his history was rejected and repudiated. The objectionable sensibility included, in the eyes of his early nineteenth century critics, a certain aloofness, an inability to sufficiently empathize or identify wi th histori-cal actors. Because he could not "throw his mind back to the past," Hume could not appreciate the true motivations, the feelings and emotions that animated historic action. Hume was too rational, he was too removed and distant. What Hayden White charac-terized as Hume's "Enlightenment Irony", early nineteenth-century writers in England described as Hume's propensity to theorize instead of investigate the past. 1 1 4 For Hume's critics, theory was not to be abandoned but combined wi th close at-tention to the particularities of the past. They thought that historical investigation must begin with an historian immersing himself in original sources to get a feel for the spirit of past ages. It was an article of faith for these nineteenth-century writers that an im-mersion in original source was the prerequisite for acquiring an empathy for the past which in turn was the essential ingredient in creating more v iv id and compelling nar-ratives. The emerging historical consciousness that we have seen manifested in the re-ception of Hume's history in the first half of the nineteenth-century would be echoed in historicist writings in the twentieth-century. For example, in his book The Whig Interpre-tation of History, Herbert Butterfield wrote that a historicist outlook was predicated on 41 the assumption that the past was fundamentally different from the present. Butter-field's comments reflect a similar sensibility to the nineteenth century a criticism of Hume's "conjectural history." However, if Butterfield agreed wi th the emerging nineteenth-century historicism, he also rejected many of the Whig's claims to attach a continuity between past and present for present political purposes. 1 1 5 Articulating the fully developed twentieth-century historicist critique of Hume was the German historian Fredriche Meinecke. In his book Historism, Meinecke ex-pressed an historical understanding that reflected and elaborated on nineteenth century concerns. Meinecke wrote: "The essence of historicism is the substitution of a process of individualizing observation for a generalizing view of human forces." 1 1 6 Meinecke also did not suggest abandoning the search for general laws in history. Echoing the writers discussed in this paper, Meinecke wrote that the desire to theorize must be accompanied by a "feeling for the ind iv idua l . " 1 1 7 Meinecke criticized Hume for his tendency to generalize rather than pay attention to the particular. Hume showed insufficient feeling for the hidden tendencies and movement of individual and collec-tive life. Meinecke thought that Hume never successfully grasped the problem of individuality in history. 1 1 8 When nineteenth-century critics claimed that Hume's method was conjectural or anachronistic they hinted at the idea, without being explicit, that Hume failed to recog-nize that human nature is historically variable. Meinecke would make this point explicit. Meinecke wrote that Hume's commitment to general laws and his subscription to the idea that human nature is constant over time, precluded a deeper understanding 42 of the inner forces of history that manifested themselves through individual conscience. Meinecke, citing Dilthey, observed that Hume was in this regard, a mere positivist; Hume was tone deaf and oblivious to the "changing subjectivity of individuals in his-tory."" 9 Meinecke, however, unlike his nineteenth-century predecessors was more w i l l -ing to explicitly recognize Hume's contribution to this new concern wi th historical subjectivity. While Macaulay and M i l l cited the novelist Walter Scott as a key influence, Meinecke saw the manners, commerce and literature in Hume's appendices as an im-portant foundation for his own historicism. Furthermore, Meinecke turned nineteenth-century political criticism of Hume on its head. Where Whig historians attacked Hume for his Tory sympathies and his ten-dency to impose his eighteenth-century values on history, Meinecke saw another way in which Hume had contributed to an historicist outlook. Meinecke wrote that Hume tried to understand the Tudors and Stuarts by the standard of their own time. By con-textualizing their actions within the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century instead of imposing his own eighteenth-century standards, Hume had created another important historicist inroad. 1 2 0 43 E N D N O T E S 1 D. Hume, The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688. Six volumes, rpt. of 1778 edition (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1983). 2 J.W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 26. 3 D. MacQueen, Letters on Hume's History of Great Britain (London, Thoammes, 1990, rpt from 1756 ed.), 306. 4 MacQueen, 36-63. 5 MacQueen, 252. 6 J. Towers, Observation on Mr. Hume's History of England (London: Robinson 1778), 48. 7 Towers, 53. 8 C.J. Fox, History of the Early Part of the Reign of James the Second (Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1808). 9 L. Holland, introduction to Fox's History, iv-v. 1 0 Holland, xiii. 1 1 Holland, xxiii-xxiv. 1 2 Fox, 1-53; Hume, The History of England, Volume 5,156-185. For a discussion of Hume's "new plan of liberty" see D. Forbes, Hume's Philosophical Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 276-282. 1 3 Fox, 4. 1 4 F. Jeffrey, review of "Fox's History" in The Edinburgh Review (1808), Volume 12, 271-306, 277. 1 5 Id. 1 6 Id. 17 Jeffrey, 283. 1 8 Jeffrey, 284. 1 9 Id. 2 0 F. Jeffrey, review of "Brodie's History" in The Edinburgh Review (1824), Volume 40, 92-146. 2 1 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 92. 2 2 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 93. 2 3 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 93-944. 2 4 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 94. 2 5 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 95. 2 6 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 94. 2 7 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 95. 2 8 Id. 2 9 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 96. 3 0 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 96-97. 44 3 1 Jeffrey on "Brodie," 97. 3 2 Id. 3 3 Id. 3 4 Id. 3 5 J. Mackintosh, Memoirs of the Life of Sir James Mackintosh (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1853), 169. 3 6 J. Mackintosh, Memoirs, 167. 3 7 Mackintosh, 168. 3 8 Mackintosh, 169. 3 9 Id. 4 0 Id. 4 1 J. Mackintosh, review of "Sismondi's History of France," in The Edinburgh Review (1821), Volume 35, 488-509. 4 2 Mackintosh on "Sismondi," 491. 4 3 Mackintosh on "Sismondi," 492. 4 4 Id. 4 5 Mackintosh on "Sismondi," 493. 4 6 H . Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (New York: Norton, 1965), 11. 4 7 Mackintosh on "Sismondi," 493. 4 8 Id. 4 9 Id. 5 0 T.B. Macaulay, The Letters ofTlioinas Babington Macaulay, Volume 1 (1807-1831), edited by Thomas Pin-ney (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 53. si Id. 5 2 Id. For a discussion of Macaulay's religious upbringing, see J. Clive, Macaulay: The Shaping of the Histo-rian (New York: Knolf, 1975), 21-36. 5 3 Id. 5 4 T.B. Macaulay, "Milton," in Tlie Works of Lord Macaulay, Volume 5 (London: Longmans, 1879), 24. 5 5 Macaulay, "Milton," in Works, 28. 5 6 Id. 5 7 Macaulay, "Milton," in Works, 25. 5 8 T.B. Macaulay, "History" in The Works of Lord Macaulay, Volume 5, edited by Lady Trevelyan (London: Longmans, 1879), 122-161. 5 9 Macaulay, "History," in Works, 151. 6 0 Id. 6 1 "History," 151. 45 6 2 "History," 152-153. 6 3 "History," 154. 6 4 Id. 6 5 "History," 154-158. See also Macaulay, "Hallam's Constitutional History," in Works, 162-163. 6 6 "History," 156. 6 7 "History", 160. 6 8 "History," 158. 6 9 "History," 160. 7 0 "History," 158. 7 1 Id. 7 2 J. Moncrieff, review of "The History of England from the Accession of James the Second," by Thomas Babington Macaulay, The Edinburgh Review, Volume 90,1849, 250. 7 3 Moncreiff, 256. 7 4 Moncreiff, 252. 7 5 Moncreiff, 253. 7 6 W. Smyth, Lectures on Modern History, Volume 1 (London: Pickering, 1848), 117. For more on Prof. Smyth see K.T.B. Butler's " ' A Petty Professor of Modern History': William Smyth (1765-1849)," in The Cambridge Historical Journal, (9), 1948, 217-238. 7 7 Smyth, 173-174. 7 8 Smyth, 133. 7 9 Smyth, 141. 8 0 Smyth, 122,143. 8 1 Smyth, 124. 8 2 Smyth, 133. 8 3 Id. 8 4 Smyth, 135. 8 5 Smyth, 138. 8 6 Id. 8 7 F. Palgrave, "Anglo-Saxon History," The Quarterly Review, (34), 1826,244. 8 8 F. Palgrave, "Hume and His Influence on History," The Quarterly Review, (90), 1844, 559. 8 9 Palgrave, "Hume's Influence," 571. 9 0 Id. 9 1 Palgrave, "Hume's Influence," 572. 9 2 T. Carlyle, "On History," in The Varieties of History From Voltaire to the Present, edited, selected, and in-troduced by Fritz Stern (New York: World Publishing, 1965), 90-101. 9 3 Carlyle, "On History," 100. 46 9 4 T. Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 185. 9 5 J.S. Mi l l , "Mignet French Revolution," in Collected Works, Volume 20. "Essays on French History and Historians." Edited by John M . Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 1-52. 9 6 Mi l l , "Mignet," 4. 9 7 Id. 9 » I d . 9 9 Mi l l , "Mignet," 19. wo Id. 1 0 1 J.S. Mi l l , review of "Brodie's History," in Collected Works, volume 9 "Essays on England, Ireland and the Empire," edited by John M . Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 1-58. i°2 Mi l l , "Brodie's History," in Works, 3-4. 103 Mi l l , "Brodie's History," in Works, 5. i ° 4 Mi l l , "Brodie's History," in Works, 9. i°5 Id. i ° 6 Mi l l , "Carlyle's French Revolution," in Collected Works, Volume 20,134. i ° 7 Id. i ° 8 Mi l l , "Carlyle's French Revolution," in Works, 135. 109 Id. no Id. i n Mi l l , "Michelet's History of France," in Works, Volume 20, supra, 217-255. "2 Mi l l , "Michelet's History," 220. "a Id. 114 H . White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in the Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1973), 53. 115 Butterfield, 10-11. 1 1 6 F. Meinecke, Historism: The Rise of a New Historical Outlook, trans, by J.E. Anderson (New York: Herder & Herder, 1972), iv. « 7 Id. « 8 Meinecke, 178-179. 119 Meinecke, 162. 120 Meinecke, 178. 47 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Brodie, George. A History of the British Empire from the Accession of Charles I to the Restora-tion; with an Introduction, Tracing the Progress of Society, and of the Constitution, from the Feudal Times to the Opening of the History; and Including A Particular Examina-tion of Mr. Hume's Statements Relating to the Character of the English Government. 4 Vols. Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1822. Burrow, J. W. A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Butler, K. T. B. " A Petty Professor of Modern History: Wi l l iam Smyth (1765-1849)." The Cambridge Historical Journal. (9) June, 1948: 217-238. Butterfield, Herbert. The Whig Interpretation of History. New York: Norton, 1965. Carlyle, Thomas. " O n History." The Varieties of History From Voltaire to the Present. Ed-ited, selected, and introduced by Fritz Stern. New York: Wor ld Publishing, 1965. . On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Clive, John. Scotch Reviewers, The Edinburg Review, 1802-1815. London: Faber, 1956. . Macaulay: The Shaping of the Historian. New York: Knopf, 1973. Forbes, Duncan. Hume's Philosophical Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Fox, Charles James. History of the Early Part of the Reign of James the Second. A n intro-duction by Lord Holland. Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1808. Hume, David. The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Abdication of James the Second. 6 Volumes, Reprint of 1778 edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1983. Jeffrey, Francis. Review of " A History of the early part of the Reign of James the Sec-ond," by Charles Fox, The Edinburgh Review (12) July, 1808: pp. 271-306. . Review of " A History of the British Empire . . ." by George Brodie, The Edinburgh Review (40) March, 1824: pp. 92-146. Jessop, T. E. A Bibliography of David Hume and of Scottish Philosophy from Francis Hutche-son to Lord Balfour. London: Brown & Sons, 1938. Mackintosh, James. Review of "Histoire des Francais," by Sismonde De Sismondi, The Edinburgh Review (35) July, 1821: pp. 249-292 48 . Memoirs of The Life of Sir James Mackintosh. Edited by Robert James Mackintosh. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1853. Macaulay, Thomas Babington. The Works of Lord Macaulay. Volumes 5 & 6. Edited by Lady Trevelyan. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1879. . The Letters of Thomas Babington Macaulay. Volume I. (1807-February 1831.) Edited by Thomas Pirtney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. MacQueen, Daniel. Letters On Hume's History of Great Britain. Reprint of the 1756 Edi -tion. Bristol: Thoemmes Bristol, 1990. Meinecke, Friedrich. Historism: The Rise of A New Historical Outlook. Translated by J. E. Anderson. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972. M i l l , John Stuart M i l l . "Essay on England, Ireland, and the Empire." Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Volume VI. Edited by John Robson. Toronto: University of To-ronto Press, 1982. . "Essays on French History and French Historians." Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Volume 20. Edited by John Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985. Moncreiff, James. Review of "The History of England from the Accession of James the Second," by Thomas Babington Macaulay. The Edinburgh Review (90) July, 1849: pp. 249-292. Palgrave, Francis. Anglo-Saxon History. Quarterly Review. Volume 34, June, 1826, pp. 248-298. Palgrave, Francis. Hume and His Influence Upon History. Quarterly Review. Volume 73, March, 1844, pp. 536-592. Smyth, Wil l iam. Lectures On Modern History: From the Eruption of the Northern Nations to the Close of the American Revolution. Volume I. London: Wi l l i am Pickering, 1848. Towers, Joseph. Observations On Mr. Hume's History of England. London: Robinson, 1778. White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1973. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0089164/manifest

Comment

Related Items