David Hume: Prophet of the Counter-Revolution

6. Debate with Turgot

Prophet_051-100.indd 54 3/2/12 10:28 PM BEFORE 1789 rope where his history and his philosophical writings are everywhere read and admired by all those who do not think like Monsieur l'Abbe Bergier.144 6 DEBATE WITH TURGOT As their answer to Bergier indicates, the philosophes were fairly confident that Hume belonged, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, heart and soul to the camp of the d'Alemberts and d'Holbachs . Moreover, even though this first generation of philosophes saw the success of their cause as largely dependent on a victory over traditionalists in the religious controversy, they were probably quite willing to forgive not only David Hume's laziness or lack of militancy in not writing an ecclesiastical history but also the general ignorance of the harsher "religious" facts of life he at times displayed as when, for example, he confided naively to the astonished baron d'Holbach that he had never seen an atheist and that he did not believe such creatures existed.145 Such errors were amusing or at least pardonable in a man who had already written so cleverly on miracles, divine providence, and the immortality of the soul. As for Hume's apparent lack ofa liberally orientated political philosophy, the philosophes of this generation from about 1750 to 1770 could have no insurmountable objections on this point ei144 - Recueil philosophique, II. 204-6. Bergier answered by pointing out that he was puzzled as to why Hume's testimony should not be used if he indeed had the great reputation his philosophe admirers attributed to him (Bergier, op. cit., VIII. 259). Ironically, the Recueil philosophique published at the same time, but anonymously, two of Hume's strongest dissertations, "Of the Immortality of the Soul" and "Of Suicide," both probably translated by d'Holbach. It also included in its pages some rather different comments by Hume on the clergy-chosen this time by the philosophes (Recueil philosophique, II. 237). All this was perhaps to show Bergier whose ally Hume really was. For the French Abbe's reactions to the two anonymous dissertations, see Bergier, op. cit., VIII. 262. 145. See Diderot's letter of 6 October 1765 to Sophie Volland; Lewinter, v. 946. 54 Prophet_051-100.indd 55 3/2/12 10:28 PM DEBATE WITH TURGOT ther. Revolution, if not reform, was as far from their aims as it was from Hume's. Few philosophes showed any real objections to living under a political despot provided he, like Frederick the Great, for example, was witty and a good priest-hater as well. As is well known, the intellectual mood in France was soon to change. A second generation of philosophes begins to emerge in the 1770s and 178os, still anti-clerical-although this question was by now rather old hat-but more interested in investigating and pointing out the sins of kings than of priests. These last very definitely do not claim David Hume as an ally. There is even some apprehension on their part that he might be just what Trublet, Bergier, Nonnotte, Royou, Gerdil, Lefebvre de Beauvray, and others in their use of him had suggested he was-a treacherous enemy in disguise. It is in the correspondence ofTurgot and Hume exchanged between the years 1 766 and 1768 that we catch perhaps our first real glimpse-and it is still only a glimpse-ofwhat was to be a consciously acknowledged fundamental disagreement between Hume and the politically idealistic French intellectuals ofthis later period. Turgot was with d'Alembert one of Hume's closest friends on the continent. Unlike the other philosophes, however, he showed on the occasion of the Hume-Rousseau quarrel a certain unflattering if sincere reserve injudging the wrongs ofthe affair which left unsatisfied the wounded feelings ofthe Scottish historian. Mter receiving letters from Turgot in which Rousseau's ingratitude is called real but unpremeditated, more the result ofmadness than ofvillainy,146 Hume could not help accusing the French physiocrat of "partiality " for the black-hearted citoyen de Geneve.147 This aspect ofthe correspondence will not concern us further here, butwhat is especially significant for us is the fact that it led finally to an open discussion between Hume and one ofhis liberal French admirers oftheir genuine political differences-differences which the earlier uncritical praise of Hume by the philosophes had all but totally obscured. q6. See Letters ofEminent Persons, pp. 139, 144- 45, letters of 27 July and 7 September 1766. 147. Greig, op. cit., II...