The Eighteenth-Century British Reviews of Hume's Writings

The first printed reactions to Hume’s publications were usually book reviews which appeared in British, German, and French journals. Until recently, the most complete catalogs of these reviews were in T. E. Jessop’s A Bibliography of David Hume (1938), and E. C. Mossner’s The Life of David Hume (1954). ¹ Since Jessop and Mossner, knowledge of the German reviews has advanced dramatically with two studies. First, Manfred Kuehn (1987) provides a comprehensive bibliography of references to Hume as they appear in Germany’s foremost eighteenth-century review journal, the Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen. ² Second, Gunter Gawlick and Lothar Kreimendahl (1987) attempt a comprehensive analysis and catalog of eighteenth-century German discussions of Hume as appeared in both books and review articles. ³ These studies expand the list of German reviews of Hume from the five or so listed in Jessop and Mossner to several dozen.

The German studies also suggest that more work is needed in cataloging the reviews from other countries, especially those from Great Britain. This essay will update the standard list of eighteenth-century British reviews of Hume’s writings by providing references to additional reviews which do not appear in the Hume literature. To Jessop’s list of eighteen British reviews, ⁴ thirteen new reviews are listed for first edition publications of Hume’s writings, and eight new reviews are listed for eighteenth-century abridgments and collections containing Hume’s writings.

A History of the Early British Review Journals

The first European journal devoted exclusively to reviewing new books was the French Journal des Sçavans, founded in 1665. The journal focused on scholarly books, as opposed to popular publications, and the format of the articles consisted largely of extended excerpts from the book under review. This format was quickly adopted in Great Britain by newly founded review journals such as Weekly Memorials for the Ingenious (1682), The History of Learning (1692), The Complete Library (1692), and Memoirs for the Ingenious (1692). Most of these review journals survived only a few years and were frequently reincarnated with slight alterations in their titles. Because of their failure to tap into a stable readership market, the inconsistent appearance of the British review journals continued throughout the first half of the eighteenth-century.

When Hume’s Treatise first appeared in 1739, the History of the Works of the Learned, edited then by Jacob Robinson, was the only review journal in publication. Like its forerunners, the History of the Works of the Learned had a fifteen-year checkered history of title changes and mergers with other journals (1728–43). The title “History of the Works of the Learned” was borrowed from a short lived early eighteenth-century journal by the same name. Typical of the review journals of the time, it was highly selective and focused only on scholarly publications. It is in this context that the History of the Works of the Learned reviewed Book I of Hume’s Treatise in 1739 and 1740. In a letter to Francis Hutcheson, Hume describes the review as “somewhat abusive.” ⁵ Indeed, the review contains a succession of sarcastic comments, such as “these are too dazzling for my weak Sight,” “our Author’s superlative Modesty,” and “A most charming System indeed.” Upon the publication of Hume’s Life in 1777, two writers commented on the demeaning tone of the review of the Treatise. The first notes that the review

so highly provoked our young philosopher, that he flew in a violent rage, to demand satisfaction of Jacob Robinson, the publisher; whom he kept during the paroxysm of his anger, at his sword’s point, trembling behind the counter lest a period should be put to the life of a sober critic by a raving philosopher. ⁶

This story is countered by the second writer:

We remember however, that it [i.e., the Treatise] was distinguished by the Reviewers of that time, though not in a manner suitable to the expectations or wishes of the Author. It was treated with some degree of contempt by the Writer of the History...