"David Hume - My Own Life" - читать интересную книгу автора (Hume David)

Works. That edition cannot be published for a considerable

time. The Editor, in the mean while, in order to serve the

purchasers of the former editions; and, at the same time, to

gratify the impatience of the public curiosity; has thought

proper to publish it separately, without altering even the

title or superscription, which was written in Mr. Hume's own

hand on the cover of the manuscript.


In spite of the editor's claim of not altering Hume's piece,
liberties were taken with spelling, punctuation and minor wording.
This is evident from a comparison with the original manuscript of
Hume's which is in the Royal Society of Edinburgh (reprinted
in Greig, Vol. 1, pp. 1-7). A pre-print of the Hume's and
Smith's appeared in , January 1777,
Vol. 39, pp. 1-7. The version is evidently based on
the text of the published 1777 pamphlet, rather than the manuscript;
for, although it departs slightly in punctuation, it retains the
altered wording found in the 1777 pamphlet. Contrary to Hume's

wishes, his was not included in the subsequent edition of his
. The reviews of Hume's
reproduced almost the complete text of Hume's autobiography
within their reviews. The concludes noting that
"The whole of this narrative breathes ingenuousness, and a noble
consciousness of integrity, not without that solicitude of literary,
as well as moral fame, which we may suppose to have animated a
writer, so distinguished, from his earliest years, for his ardor in
the pursuits of philosophy and general learning" (1777, Vol. 43, pp.
222-227). The relates that Hume held at sword's
point the editor of for
their 1740 review of the (see editor's note to the Hume
Archives edition of the review of the ). The reviewer also
expresses surprise that Hume fails to mention Beattie's
since, "It were difficult to speak of this work with more contempt
than, we are well assured, Mr. Hume entertained of it." Other
published reactions to Hume's quickly appeared, many of which
were negative. Although most of the negative reaction was aimed at
Smith's (see editor's not to the Hume Archives edition of
Smith's ), criticism was also directed at Hume's essay. For
example, an anonymous author comments in the Edinburgh Amusement> (Vol. 36, 364-365) that, "Though I am in some
degree an admirer of Mr. Hume's character and of his writings, yet I
am sorry to see that little biographical account of himself imposed
on the public." The author sees the work as having "an obvious,

123456789