Anonymous Writings of David Hume

Notes and Discussions Anonymous Writings of David Hume Dr. David Raynor has recently put forward the hypothesis that David Hume was the author of an abstract and review of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments which was published anonymously in the Critical Review of May 1759.* The hypothesis at first sight seemed beset with obstacles. It was not easy to reconcile some of the reviewer's praise of Smith's book with criticisms which Hume had made elsewhere and which indeed Dr. Raynor himself pointed out and reinforced in the course of his exposition. An even greater obstacle lay in the reviewer's statement that Smith's book "refutes" the moral theory of Hume by "irrefragable arguments," and in the commendation of Smith for his "strict regard.., to the principles of religion," both of which seemed dishonest if written by Hume. Raynor went on, however, to show, with considerable ingenuity, that the obstacles could quite characteristically have been planted by Hume in order to help conceal the authorship of a piece designed to forward the success of his friend's book. The apparent dishonesty of the remarks about having refuted Hume and about regard to religion disappears if one reads them as typical examples of Humean irony, invisible to an unpracticed eye. The net result was to provide a really convincing case for the initially unconvincinghypothesis. Nevertheless one could not speak of absolute proof. It says much for Raynor's perceptiveness that his hypothesis, reached purely from internal evidence of the review, can now be confirmed by contemporary testimony. D. D. Raphael wishes it to be known that credit for most of the early research leading up to this article belongs to Tatsuya Sakamoto, who found and appreciated the significance of George Chalmers's manuscript note, and who also established the vital point that "Uncle Ramsay" was Michael Ramsay of Mungale. We both wish to express our warmest gratitude to David Raynor. In the first instance he provided a number of helpful comments and in particular suggested that the trustworthiness of the manuscript note would be enhanced if it turned out that "Uncle Ramsay" was either Allan Ramsay the younger or Michael Ramsay of Mungale, both of whom were close friends of Hume. Then, at a later stage, he discovered the two letters written by Michael Ramsay in 1768 and informed us that they could affect the identification of Chalmers's "Mr Callendar." Tatsuya Sakamoto wishes to express special thanks to Professor Andrew Skinner for advice and encouragement; he also wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to the Faculty of Economics of Keio University, Tokyo, for granting him leave to study at the University of Glasgow in the sessions of 1984-85 and 1985-86, and to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for a generous grant in connectionwith his leave. ' David R. Raynor, "Hume's Abstract of Adam Smith's Theo~ ofMoral Sentiments,"Journal of theHisto0 ofPhilosophy 22 (1984): 51-79. [27~] 272 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 28:2 APRIL 1990 Among the Laing manuscripts in Edinburgh University Library are several papers written by George Chalmers. Two of the Chalmers manuscripts are expressly concerned with Hume. One of them consists of half a dozen anecdotes or reports, apparently well attested. The second of these reports states categorically that David Hume wrote a review of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments for the Critical Review in 1759 or 176o." The manuscript note, which we reproduce below, begins by giving the source of the writer's information, a "Mr Callendar," who was repeating what he had heard from "his Uncle Ramsay." We shall present evidence to show that "Mr Callendar" was David Callander, a talented former student of Adam Smith, and that "his Uncle Ramsay" was Michael Ramsay of Mungale, a close friend of David Hume from early youth. The words of the manuscript do not make it altogether clear whether this carefully attested source of Chalmers's information refers only to the first item of the manuscript note (an intriguing topic which we shall discuss shortly) or also to some or all of the subsequent items. The second alternative seems more probable from the form...