What do you think?
Rate this book
The Life of David Hume
Mossner's Life of David Hume remains the standard biography of this great thinker and writer. First published in 1954, and updated in 1980, this excellent life story is now reissued in paperback, in response to an overwhelming interest in Hume's brilliant ideas. Containing more than a simple biography, this exemplary work is also a study of intellectual reaction in the eighteenth century. In this new edition are a detailed bibliography, index, and textual supplements, making it the perfect text for scholars and advanced students of Hume, epistemology, and the history of philosophy. It is also ideal for historians and literary scholars working on the eighteenth century, and for anyone with an interest in philosophy.
736 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1954
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 2, 2014
This is an excellent life of Hume, written by a man with excellent skills as a writer, historian, and biographer. Granted, you won't enjoy it unless you are already geeky about Hume or the Scottish enlightenment generally; but if you are, this book will both inform and entertain. One gets the sense that Mossner was attracted to Hume as a subject because both men shared a sober perspective paired with a gentle sense of humor. Philosophers will not find close and detailed analysis of Hume's arguments and theories, but it seems to me Mossner stays at the sort of general level Hume himself would have approved.
March 23, 2021
The balance between eulogy and history is always prevalent in biographies, and always on my mind when reading one. This biography, as interesting and well-written as it is, finds its most prominent defect in having an overly eulogistic nature.
It is quite understandable in this case, given that E.C. Mossner had a successful career as a Hume scholar, to which he spent pretty much all his working days not devoted to teaching English literature. What is more, he did not even specialise in Humean philosophy, but instead was, throughout his life, an expert in figuring out all the details pertaining to Hume's activities and circumstances, publishing several papers on the topic, including on such esoteric subjects as the relation between Hume and the London booksellers in his day. It would make sense if Mossner was, or became, somewhat infatuated with Hume. Because: why devote so much time to a person of which one wishes only to paint an accurate, historical picture? Surely, some passions must play a role here; surely, if one's primary focus is Hume's life, and not his philosophy, one must think Hume's character extraordinarily special, especially given the fact that the actual events in Hume's life were not so noteworthy as to be comparable to those in the lives of, say, Napoleon, Churchill, or even Wittgenstein.
It seems clear that Hume's character was indeed special. The idea that Hume was a benevolent, mild, and good-humoured man is widely supported, and only further bolstered by this biography. Numerous important thinkers and characters of the 18th century, including, but certainly not limited to, Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon and Benjamin Franklin, are quoted in this biography as all, quite on their own, coming to the same conclusion: David Hume was a good man. Even the religious fanatics that utterly despised Hume's sceptical philosophy could not help but defend the notion that Hume's nickname, le bon David, was apt.
But, as I've said, this biography is too eulogistic, to such an extent that to a modern reader, it loses much of its persuasive force. Recently, debates have arisen over Hume's racism. They have become so prominent that, seven months ago, the 'David Hume Tower' in Edinburgh was renamed - the irony of which I will explain below. Hume made explicitly racist remarks in his 1753 essay 'Of National Characters' (though more as an aside than as forming the thesis of that essay). An article from a contemporary (but less prolific) Hume scholar in The Scotsman offers further evidence in favour of Hume falling on the wrong side of the history of racism. Apparently, Hume advised his patron and friend Lord Hertford to buy a slave plantation in Grenada, and also facilitated this purchase by contacting the French Governor of Martinique and lending £400 to one of the main investors. Granted, this latter evidence was only 'discovered' in 2014 in the Princeton University Library; but the fact that E.C. Mossner, the man who has essentially studied the character of David Hume for 40 years, shows no attempt whatsoever at researching or analysing this possibly blameworthy side of the philosopher's character is regrettable - if not objectionable. Mossner has read 'Of National Characters'; why ignore the racism? Why should the man who's written the 'definitive' biography of David Hume, a book that's revised multiple times over a period of decades, leave it to a much less prominent Hume scholar to investigate Hume's racist views?
I think I know why. The author finished this biography's first edition at the start of the fifties while living in Texas, which means he wrote it in a place where racial segregation was enforced by law. Furthermore, Mossner generally seems to hold quite socially unprogressive views. He uncritically uses the term 'bluestocking' to refer to women who have historically been endowed with that derogatory appellation. After describing Hume's experiences with the female-dominated Parisian salons, which were places designed to hold intellectual and literary conversations, Mossner writes of this 'feminine domination': "Nevertheless, charming as it is, there are times when a man demands stimulation more virile." In short, it appears that Mossner sees a strict division between the 'feminine' and the 'masculine'. My problem with this is not that this is an incorrect depiction of the times, or of Hume's views. It could well be suitable to assume these strict divisions when these were held to be true by both men and women alike in the time which you are depicting. My problem is that Mossner fails to invoke the power of hindsight. Sure, depict Hume's sister Katherine as the mere "beloved companion of her two brothers", but try to make at least some attempt at critically analysing this role. The idea that the feminine-masculine-division was a harmful hoax seems to find its roots already in John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women, published in 1869(!); my man Mossner was still working on this biography in the 1980's. One would think, two waves of feminism would suffice to remove one to a different shore; but Mossner was still stuck in Sexism Island, a place in no discernible way different from the one inhabited by 18th century Brits.
To return to the topic of race, I would have liked to see the same thing as with the topic of sex: less indulgence and more criticism, more hindsight. But this biography contains no treatment of race at all, let alone of what Hume thought about it. Granted, an author living under Jim Crow laws can be expected to steer clear of the topic of race, but perhaps not to the degree that Mossner did. At one point, he explains that Hume was "on the side of the Colonies", but hereby only refers to the American Colonies, and possibly the Canadian ones. Given our evidence, I doubt that Hume would have been on the side of Grenadian independence.
Just like with feminism, 'anti-racism' had much evolved from the time of Hume to the days of Mossner. For instance, Grenada did actually acquire independence from France in 1967. Mossner's time was, though still 'backwards' in some sense, already a great leap forward from the 18th-century; but, I must again emphasise, in Mossner's writing, when it comes to race and sex, this leap appears not to have occurred. The reason I wish to make this point is that, when it comes to religion, Mossner's insinuated criticism of Hume's religiose adversaries and his obvious sympathy with Hume's sceptical outlook show that, on this topic, Mossner has taken the leap - and this adds much value to the biography. If anything, the fact that Mossner (imo rightly) takes Hume's side in the religious conflicts he faced is what makes this biography readable and enjoyable. The fact that Mossner fails to apply the same hindsight to the topics of racism and sexism is what makes this biography eulogistic and, on occasion, cringeworthy.
To conclude, the irony in renaming the David Hume Tower can be found in Hume's relationship with the University of Edinburgh, of which the tower is a part. In the 1740's, David Hume and many of his companions fanatically campaigned for him to procure a chair in the philosophy department of the University. But, although the 30-year old philosopher was more than qualified for the position, religious fanatics stopped him from obtaining it, as they 'accused' him of heresy and scepticism (qualities we would now likely find meritorious when found in a philosophy professor). After recounting this tragic episode in Hume's life, Mossner writes: "Edinburgh's greatest non-Professor is now vindicated by the David Hume Tower in George Square." Precisely: in the 2020's, David Hume is again found to be out of tune with the mob. But this time, his vindication will be a hard task, and might turn out to be unachievable. What we will need is an 'authorative' biography that lays down and analyses the evidence for both Hume's benevolence, as well as the evidence for his possibly immoral parts. Only then can we fairly judge Hume's character, and only then can we appreciate its worth: a diamond will not shine before its ore is scrubbed away.
It is quite understandable in this case, given that E.C. Mossner had a successful career as a Hume scholar, to which he spent pretty much all his working days not devoted to teaching English literature. What is more, he did not even specialise in Humean philosophy, but instead was, throughout his life, an expert in figuring out all the details pertaining to Hume's activities and circumstances, publishing several papers on the topic, including on such esoteric subjects as the relation between Hume and the London booksellers in his day. It would make sense if Mossner was, or became, somewhat infatuated with Hume. Because: why devote so much time to a person of which one wishes only to paint an accurate, historical picture? Surely, some passions must play a role here; surely, if one's primary focus is Hume's life, and not his philosophy, one must think Hume's character extraordinarily special, especially given the fact that the actual events in Hume's life were not so noteworthy as to be comparable to those in the lives of, say, Napoleon, Churchill, or even Wittgenstein.
It seems clear that Hume's character was indeed special. The idea that Hume was a benevolent, mild, and good-humoured man is widely supported, and only further bolstered by this biography. Numerous important thinkers and characters of the 18th century, including, but certainly not limited to, Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon and Benjamin Franklin, are quoted in this biography as all, quite on their own, coming to the same conclusion: David Hume was a good man. Even the religious fanatics that utterly despised Hume's sceptical philosophy could not help but defend the notion that Hume's nickname, le bon David, was apt.
But, as I've said, this biography is too eulogistic, to such an extent that to a modern reader, it loses much of its persuasive force. Recently, debates have arisen over Hume's racism. They have become so prominent that, seven months ago, the 'David Hume Tower' in Edinburgh was renamed - the irony of which I will explain below. Hume made explicitly racist remarks in his 1753 essay 'Of National Characters' (though more as an aside than as forming the thesis of that essay). An article from a contemporary (but less prolific) Hume scholar in The Scotsman offers further evidence in favour of Hume falling on the wrong side of the history of racism. Apparently, Hume advised his patron and friend Lord Hertford to buy a slave plantation in Grenada, and also facilitated this purchase by contacting the French Governor of Martinique and lending £400 to one of the main investors. Granted, this latter evidence was only 'discovered' in 2014 in the Princeton University Library; but the fact that E.C. Mossner, the man who has essentially studied the character of David Hume for 40 years, shows no attempt whatsoever at researching or analysing this possibly blameworthy side of the philosopher's character is regrettable - if not objectionable. Mossner has read 'Of National Characters'; why ignore the racism? Why should the man who's written the 'definitive' biography of David Hume, a book that's revised multiple times over a period of decades, leave it to a much less prominent Hume scholar to investigate Hume's racist views?
I think I know why. The author finished this biography's first edition at the start of the fifties while living in Texas, which means he wrote it in a place where racial segregation was enforced by law. Furthermore, Mossner generally seems to hold quite socially unprogressive views. He uncritically uses the term 'bluestocking' to refer to women who have historically been endowed with that derogatory appellation. After describing Hume's experiences with the female-dominated Parisian salons, which were places designed to hold intellectual and literary conversations, Mossner writes of this 'feminine domination': "Nevertheless, charming as it is, there are times when a man demands stimulation more virile." In short, it appears that Mossner sees a strict division between the 'feminine' and the 'masculine'. My problem with this is not that this is an incorrect depiction of the times, or of Hume's views. It could well be suitable to assume these strict divisions when these were held to be true by both men and women alike in the time which you are depicting. My problem is that Mossner fails to invoke the power of hindsight. Sure, depict Hume's sister Katherine as the mere "beloved companion of her two brothers", but try to make at least some attempt at critically analysing this role. The idea that the feminine-masculine-division was a harmful hoax seems to find its roots already in John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women, published in 1869(!); my man Mossner was still working on this biography in the 1980's. One would think, two waves of feminism would suffice to remove one to a different shore; but Mossner was still stuck in Sexism Island, a place in no discernible way different from the one inhabited by 18th century Brits.
To return to the topic of race, I would have liked to see the same thing as with the topic of sex: less indulgence and more criticism, more hindsight. But this biography contains no treatment of race at all, let alone of what Hume thought about it. Granted, an author living under Jim Crow laws can be expected to steer clear of the topic of race, but perhaps not to the degree that Mossner did. At one point, he explains that Hume was "on the side of the Colonies", but hereby only refers to the American Colonies, and possibly the Canadian ones. Given our evidence, I doubt that Hume would have been on the side of Grenadian independence.
Just like with feminism, 'anti-racism' had much evolved from the time of Hume to the days of Mossner. For instance, Grenada did actually acquire independence from France in 1967. Mossner's time was, though still 'backwards' in some sense, already a great leap forward from the 18th-century; but, I must again emphasise, in Mossner's writing, when it comes to race and sex, this leap appears not to have occurred. The reason I wish to make this point is that, when it comes to religion, Mossner's insinuated criticism of Hume's religiose adversaries and his obvious sympathy with Hume's sceptical outlook show that, on this topic, Mossner has taken the leap - and this adds much value to the biography. If anything, the fact that Mossner (imo rightly) takes Hume's side in the religious conflicts he faced is what makes this biography readable and enjoyable. The fact that Mossner fails to apply the same hindsight to the topics of racism and sexism is what makes this biography eulogistic and, on occasion, cringeworthy.
To conclude, the irony in renaming the David Hume Tower can be found in Hume's relationship with the University of Edinburgh, of which the tower is a part. In the 1740's, David Hume and many of his companions fanatically campaigned for him to procure a chair in the philosophy department of the University. But, although the 30-year old philosopher was more than qualified for the position, religious fanatics stopped him from obtaining it, as they 'accused' him of heresy and scepticism (qualities we would now likely find meritorious when found in a philosophy professor). After recounting this tragic episode in Hume's life, Mossner writes: "Edinburgh's greatest non-Professor is now vindicated by the David Hume Tower in George Square." Precisely: in the 2020's, David Hume is again found to be out of tune with the mob. But this time, his vindication will be a hard task, and might turn out to be unachievable. What we will need is an 'authorative' biography that lays down and analyses the evidence for both Hume's benevolence, as well as the evidence for his possibly immoral parts. Only then can we fairly judge Hume's character, and only then can we appreciate its worth: a diamond will not shine before its ore is scrubbed away.
June 20, 2014
An overall good reading, but not fully what I expected from the focus of the book. Not enough elaboration on Hume's works and the way he worked on them. At the same time too much focus on minor things with lots of not entirely relevant quotations from different people.
December 13, 2020
This is a great book on Hume the human. But, because Mossner has so little, relatively, on specific philosophical stances and ideas of Hume, that's the primary reason it doesn't get a fifth star.
And now, a few thoughts on Mossner.
First, on style, he comes off at times as more British than American!
Second, he perhaps goes too much into Hume’s family history.
Third, he does disagree with James Harris and his 2015 on some elements, notably re the Treatise.
First, per Hume’s writing to Hutcheson re his reaction to the Treatise? Let us quote, via Mossner: “And tho I am much more ambitious of being esteem’d a Friend to Virtue, than a Writer of Taste; yet I must always carry the latter in my Eye, otherwise I must ever despair of being serviceable to Virtue.”
Well, later, Hume, by the time of his essays, had decided that for reasons of money and other things, his bread was better buttered on the side of a writer of taste.
Mossner, re Hume and the Edinburgh professorship, differs strongly with Harris. He notes that Hume really wanted it, up to the end, that his comments after not getting it amount to sour grapes, and he should have known better.
Mossner also deals better with at least one particular aspect of Hume the historian, vis-à-vis his delay in publishing the essay “On the Protestant Succession,” than does Harris He goes into more detail about the ’45 and how it entwined itself with Scottish friends. He notes that Kames, for example, went radio silence at this time.
Mossner has a lot on the personal side on his time in France as both Lord Hertford’s personal secretary then as official embassy secretary. Lots on his relationship with Mme de Boufflers. Doesn’t indicate whether it was consecrated or not. But, in this area, and from here through to Hume's deathbed, he is humanized.
Also, has lots from letters to or about Hume, even if we have few of Hume’s own.
Re Beattie, he does not discuss Hume’s racism at all, let alone his revision of his footnote in “Of National Characteristics” in apparent direct response to Beattie. Claims Beattie wrote his book with emotion-laden appeal precisely to try to get under Hume’s skin. Shades of “Treatise” level passions!
On Hume’s dying, has more on his insistence that the Dialogues on Natural Religion would be published, somehow or another, especially after Adam Smith seemed tentative. (Eventually, the Plan B was what had to be carried out, as Hume’s namesake nephew was the publisher.) And, befitting a biography of Hume the human, he describes Hume’s dying days, and Hume’s equanimity, in full detail.
But, because Mossner doesn't discuss racism (or the boatload of other stereotypes of alleged national and ethnic natures in Of National Characteristics), he doesn't discuss whether or not Hume's equanimity would extend to any non-White he met in person.
Yes, Mossner wrote in 1954. And his 1980 revised, pre-desktop publishing programs, is nothing more than appendixed notes at the end of the original. Nonetheless, racism was front and center in America by then and an appendixed note could have been slipped in.
Boswell comes off a ghoul, not only visiting the dying Hume to suss him out, but the dead Hume’s funeral.
And now, a few thoughts on Mossner.
First, on style, he comes off at times as more British than American!
Second, he perhaps goes too much into Hume’s family history.
Third, he does disagree with James Harris and his 2015 on some elements, notably re the Treatise.
First, per Hume’s writing to Hutcheson re his reaction to the Treatise? Let us quote, via Mossner: “And tho I am much more ambitious of being esteem’d a Friend to Virtue, than a Writer of Taste; yet I must always carry the latter in my Eye, otherwise I must ever despair of being serviceable to Virtue.”
Well, later, Hume, by the time of his essays, had decided that for reasons of money and other things, his bread was better buttered on the side of a writer of taste.
Mossner, re Hume and the Edinburgh professorship, differs strongly with Harris. He notes that Hume really wanted it, up to the end, that his comments after not getting it amount to sour grapes, and he should have known better.
Mossner also deals better with at least one particular aspect of Hume the historian, vis-à-vis his delay in publishing the essay “On the Protestant Succession,” than does Harris He goes into more detail about the ’45 and how it entwined itself with Scottish friends. He notes that Kames, for example, went radio silence at this time.
Mossner has a lot on the personal side on his time in France as both Lord Hertford’s personal secretary then as official embassy secretary. Lots on his relationship with Mme de Boufflers. Doesn’t indicate whether it was consecrated or not. But, in this area, and from here through to Hume's deathbed, he is humanized.
Also, has lots from letters to or about Hume, even if we have few of Hume’s own.
Re Beattie, he does not discuss Hume’s racism at all, let alone his revision of his footnote in “Of National Characteristics” in apparent direct response to Beattie. Claims Beattie wrote his book with emotion-laden appeal precisely to try to get under Hume’s skin. Shades of “Treatise” level passions!
On Hume’s dying, has more on his insistence that the Dialogues on Natural Religion would be published, somehow or another, especially after Adam Smith seemed tentative. (Eventually, the Plan B was what had to be carried out, as Hume’s namesake nephew was the publisher.) And, befitting a biography of Hume the human, he describes Hume’s dying days, and Hume’s equanimity, in full detail.
But, because Mossner doesn't discuss racism (or the boatload of other stereotypes of alleged national and ethnic natures in Of National Characteristics), he doesn't discuss whether or not Hume's equanimity would extend to any non-White he met in person.
Yes, Mossner wrote in 1954. And his 1980 revised, pre-desktop publishing programs, is nothing more than appendixed notes at the end of the original. Nonetheless, racism was front and center in America by then and an appendixed note could have been slipped in.
Boswell comes off a ghoul, not only visiting the dying Hume to suss him out, but the dead Hume’s funeral.
July 5, 2022
I bought this book after seeing it listed on fivebooks.com as recommended reading for David Hume, as I had wanted to learn more about the philosopher's philosophy for a while. While not difficult as it's mostly descriptive, the book is pretty big at 604 pages. The book gives you a rich description of the man's life, full of amusing anecdotes like Hume worrying about everyone falling over each other due to them having to step back and curtsy at a rapid pace after speaking to the Empress Dowager. Sometimes these stories can be dramatic, such as ch 35 which describes Hume's fraught encounter with Rousseau or ch 13 where Hume has to tutor a mad nobleman but ended up making a big bag at the end of it.
While regaling us with a story of the man's life, Mossner simultaneously carefully lays out of the many influences on the philosopher as he develops and provides concise descriptions of their core doctrines, which helps to demystify Hume the philosopher. Mossner also explains Hume's own philosophy in order to explain what people had got wrong about Hume's Treatise (and why it annoyed Hume) when it came out in 1739. Later on it shows what later philosophers thought about Hume's philosophy, such as Kant and his response to Hume, when discussing Reid and Beattie's misunderstandings of Hume's philosophy.
Although Hume was not loved in his own time for his philosophy due to it being misunderstood, Hume was well received for his numerous writings on political, historical, economical and aesthetic subjects. To illustrate how loved he was in his time, Hume is described as being constantly pestered by hordes of adoring, french aristocrats who had wanted to meet the great 'Le Bon David' during Hume's time as secretary for the English ambassador to France in 1760s.
I could say so much more about it but it would end up becoming a full essay onto itself! The only negative I can say about it is that not all of the chapters are that interesting and can be a slog to get through, but that's to be expected in a biography. I highly recommend it to people who are generally interested in learning about philosophers and the scholars whom would appreciate this text to occasionally dip into for sources.
While regaling us with a story of the man's life, Mossner simultaneously carefully lays out of the many influences on the philosopher as he develops and provides concise descriptions of their core doctrines, which helps to demystify Hume the philosopher. Mossner also explains Hume's own philosophy in order to explain what people had got wrong about Hume's Treatise (and why it annoyed Hume) when it came out in 1739. Later on it shows what later philosophers thought about Hume's philosophy, such as Kant and his response to Hume, when discussing Reid and Beattie's misunderstandings of Hume's philosophy.
Although Hume was not loved in his own time for his philosophy due to it being misunderstood, Hume was well received for his numerous writings on political, historical, economical and aesthetic subjects. To illustrate how loved he was in his time, Hume is described as being constantly pestered by hordes of adoring, french aristocrats who had wanted to meet the great 'Le Bon David' during Hume's time as secretary for the English ambassador to France in 1760s.
I could say so much more about it but it would end up becoming a full essay onto itself! The only negative I can say about it is that not all of the chapters are that interesting and can be a slog to get through, but that's to be expected in a biography. I highly recommend it to people who are generally interested in learning about philosophers and the scholars whom would appreciate this text to occasionally dip into for sources.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews