This is a study of Hume's political thought based on a survey of all his writings in their original and revised versions, with very full reference to the works of predecessors and contemporaries, including journalists, pamphleteers and historians. Hume's political thinking is presented in its historical context as a modem, 'philosophical', empirically based system of politics for a new post-revolutionary age, and a political education for parochial, backward-looking party men.

This essay, which won the Prince Consort Prize for 1950, treats of the revolutionary change in historical writing that followed the entry into England, early in the nineteenth century, of the ideas of Vico and of the German historical school. Chiefly through Coleridge's influence, eighteenth-century rationalist suppositions gave place in certain men to a fundamentally opposed, 'Romantic' philosophy, and so to a new kind of History. Mr. Forbes is particularly concerned with the part played in this revolution by the liberal (...) Anglicans: Thomas Arnold, Headmaster of Rugby and Regius Professsor of Modern History at Oxford; Richard Whitely, Professor of Political Economy at Oxford and Archbishop of Dublin; Julius Charles Hare, disciple of Coleridge and translator (with Thirlwall) of Niebuhr's History of Rome; Connop Thirlwall, Bishop of St David's and author of the History of Greece; Henry Hart Milman, Professor of Poetry and Oxford and Dean of St Paul's; Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, pupil and biographer of Thomas Arnold, and Dean of Westminster. They have elsewhere been studied in the compartments of 'classical' and 'ecclesiastical' history. But it is fundamental to their outlook on Church and State that for them no such compartments existed, and their idea of History as a whole has hitherto lacked an English historian. This essay does much more than clarify technical problems in one of the various ideas of History embraced in Professor Toynbee's system. Mr. Forbes addresses his book to all students of nineteenth-century thought. (shrink)

The term ‘Scottish Enlightenment’ annoys some Scottish historians, because to them it seems to suggest that a state of unenlightenment prevailed in Scotland before the mideighteenth century, but ‘enlightenment’ when used by the historian of ideas is simply a technical term to describe certain aspects of eighteenth-century thought. The trouble is in defining precisely what aspects of eighteenth-century thought it is meant to describe. Different people study the eighteenth century Scottish thinkers for different reasons; for Professor Pocock, for example, they (...) belong to the tradition of ‘civic humanism’ and constitute one of his Machiavellian moments. But they are more widely known nowadays for the modernity and sophistication of their social theory. (shrink)

"Hume's History of Great Britain, published in the middle of the eighteenth century, remained the standard work for well over a century. It is a masterpeice, even if its author is now better known for A treatise on human nature. Grounded on an almost sociological view of the 'progress of society', Hume's is perhaps the most European of all the classic narrative histories of Britain. Moreover it embraces far more than the merely political, and it was Adam Smith who pointed (...) out that Hume was the first historian to deduce political effects from commercial and industrial causes. The volume, covering the years 1603-49, was the first to be written and was published as a self-contained entity. Hume's own view was that it was 'by far the best', because the subject admitted of 'greater nicety of reasoning and more acute distinctions'"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Professor Knox’s translation is, as one would expect, excellent. Even so, understanding this text will present difficulties to anyone who is anything less than expert not only in the philosophy of Hegel, but in those of Kant, Fichte and, especially, Schelling, because Hegel’s philosophy in 1802–3 was still by no means fully-fledged. The result is that the usual difficulties of Hegelian terminology are compounded by the infusion of the terminology and philosophical programme of Schelling; one’s tendency to interpret the text (...) in the light of Hegel’s mature philosophy has to be tempered by the realization that what prima facie looks ‘Hegelian’ is not necessarily so. This makes the initial agonies of a Hegel text even more hellish than usual, and no translator’s notes, no Introduction, however good, can spare one these pains when one starts reading. Perhaps the translator might have been a bit more generous with bracketed or footnoted explanations, for example, of words like ‘divine’, ‘difference’, ‘indifference’, and even more usefully of words that do not look odd in the context, like ‘immediately’ or ‘science’. On the other hand, since in reading a Hegel text for the first time it is usually best to push on regardless, it may be a help not to have too much in the way of explanation of technicalities to hold one up. (shrink)