The first printed reactions to Hume's publications were usually book reviews which appeared in British, German, and French journals. Until recently, the most complete catalogs of these reviews were in T.E. Jessop's A Bibliography of David Hume (1938), and E.C. Mossner's The Life of David Hume (1954).⁽¹⁾ Since Jessop and Mossner, knowledge of the German reviews has advanced dramatically with two studies. First, Manfred Kuehn's "Hume in the Gottingische Anzeigen" (1987)⁽²⁾ provides a comprehensive bibliography of references to Hume as they appear in Germany's foremost eighteenth-century review journal, the Gottingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen. Second, Gunter Gawlick and Lothar Kreimendahl's Hume in der deutschen Aufklarung (1987)⁽³⁾ attempts a comprehensive analysis and catalog of eighteenth-century German discussions of Hume as appeared in both books and review articles. These studies expand the list of German reviews of Hume from the five or so listed in Jessop and Mossner to several dozen.

The German studies also suggest that more work is needed in cataloging the reviews from other countries, especially those from Great Britain. This essay will update the standard list of eighteenth-century British reviews of Hume's writings by providing references to additional reviews which do not appear in the Hume literature. To Jessop's list of eighteen British reviews,⁽⁴⁾ thirteen new reviews are listed for first edition publications of Hume's writings, and eight new reviews are listed for eighteenth-century abridgments and collections containing Hume's writings. I begin with a history of the early British review journals and a discussion of the scholarly merits of the Hume reviews.

The first European journal devoted exclusively to reviewing new books was the French Journal des Scavans, founded in 1665. The journal focused on scholarly books, as opposed to popular publications, and the format of the articles consisted largely of extended excerpts from the book under review. This format was quickly adopted in Great Britain by newly founded review journals such as Weekly Memorials for the Ingenious (1682), The History of Learning (1692), The Complete Library (1692), and Memoirs for the Ingenious (1692). Most of these review journals survived only a few years and were frequently reincarnated with slight alterations in their titles. Because of their failure to tap into a stable readership market, the inconsistent appearance of the British review journals continued throughout the first half of the eighteenth-century.

When Hume's Treatise first appeared in 1739, the History of the Works of the Learned, edited then by Jacob Robinson, was the only review journal in publication. Like its forerunners, the History of the Works of the Learned had a 15 year checkered history of title changes and mergers with other journals (1728-1743). The title "History of the Works of the Learned" was borrowed from a short lived early eighteenth-century journal by the same name. Typical of the review journals of the time, it was highly selective and focused only on scholarly publications. It is in this context that the History of the Works of the Learned reviewed Book I of Hume's Treatise in 1739 and 1740. In a letter to Francis Hutcheson, Hume describes the review as "somewhat abusive."⁽⁵⁾ Indeed, the review contains a succession of sarcastic comments, such as "these are too dazzling for my weak Sight," "our Author's superlative Modesty," and "A most charming System indeed." Upon the publication of Hume's Life in 1777, two writers commented on the demeaning tone of the review of the Treatise. The first notes that the review
 

so highly provoked our young philosopher, that he flew in a violent rage, to demand satisfaction of Jacob Robinson, the publisher; whom he kept during the paroxysm of his anger, at his sword's point, trembling behind the counter lest a period should be put to the life of a sober critic by a raving philosopher.⁽⁶⁾

We remember however, that it [i.e. the Treatise] was distinguished by the Reviewers of that time, though not in a manner suitable to the expectations or wishes of the Author. It was treated with some degree of contempt by the Writer of the History of the Works of the Learned, vol. ii. for the year 1739; who, nevertheless, prognosticated better things, from the maturer age of the [then young] author. There is a pleasant story of David's paying a visit to the Critic, and threatening to put him to the sword; but as we cannot duly authenticate the particulars, we do not chuse to repeat them.⁽⁷⁾

In 1741 and 1742, Hume's two volume Essays, Moral and Political was published. Unfortunately, it was not reviewed by The History of the Works of the Learned or any other short lived review journal. The demise of the History of the Works of the Learned in 1743 was followed by a six year period in which no journal was devoted exclusively to book reviews. It was during this time that Hume's Philosophical Essays (i.e. first Enquiry) was published and, consequently, this work also appears to have gone unreviewed in the British journals.

In 1749 a milestone was reached in the history of British review journals with the founding of The Monthly Review, edited by Ralph Griffiths (1720-1803). Griffiths's ideal was to review or at least catalog every book or pamphlet which appeared in Great Britain. Because this encompassed works of prose, poetry and drama, areas neglected by previous review journals, the Monthly established a wide readership base. Each month perhaps six of the more important works which appeared were given a lengthy review of five to ten pages. For these lengthy reviews, on average two-thirds of each article consisted of extracts and summaries of the book under consideration, and one-third was evaluative. An opening paragraph or two would describe the merits of the author and the book. Occasional paragraphs and sentences in the body of the article might challenge specific claims made in the work. A concluding paragraph would then give its recommendation. Works of lesser importance would be assigned to a "Monthly Catalog" in the latter section of the journal. Reviews of these ranged in length from one sentence to a few paragraphs. As book publishing increased during the second half of the eighteenth-century, the Monthly kept pace by increasing the number of pages in each issue. The impact which a review from the Monthly could have on an author's reputation was significant. Thomas Cowper jestfully expresses his own anxiety about an upcoming review from the Monthly:
 

All these [i.e., watchmakers, carpenters, bakers] read the Monthly Review, and all these will set me down for a dunce, if those terrible critics show them the example. But oh! wherever else I am accounted dull, dear Mr. Griffiths, let me pass for a genius at Olney!⁽¹¹⁾

...our review answers a double purpose; its pages being not only read in order to learn what is passing in the literary world at the moment of their appearance, but often consulted in times long subsequent, as a regular history of literature, and a register of the publications that have issued from the press since its [i.e., the Monthly Review's] commencement, nearly half a century ago.⁽¹²⁾

There are but few of our modern Writers, whose works are so generally read, as those of Mr. Hume. And, indeed, if we consider them in one view, as sprightly and ingenious compositions, this is not at all to be wondered at: there is a delicacy of sentiment, an original turn of thought, a perspicuity, and often an elegance, of language, that cannot but recommend his writings to every Reader of taste.

Were a drunken libertine to throw out such nauseous stuff in the presence of his bacchanalian companions, there might be some excuse for him; but were any man to advance such doctrines in the company of sober citizens, men of plain sense and decent manners, no person, we apprehend, would think him entitled to a serious reply, but would hear him with silent contempt.

In 1756 The Critical Review was launched in direct competition with the Monthly by novelist Tobias Smollett (1721-1771) and printer Archibald Hamilton. Smollett and Hamilton patterned the new journal after the successful style of the Monthly, and for the next half century became its chief rival. Smollett, formerly a reviewer for the Monthly, believed the Critical was superior to the Monthly in terms of impartiality and quality. He argued that Griffiths's dual roles were in conflict as both book seller and book reviewer in the early years of the Monthly. He also chided Griffiths's literary abilities, and charged that Mrs. Griffiths rewrote many of the reviews. Nangle, in the above cited works, ably defends Griffiths against Smollett's charges. The rise of a second journal accentuated political differences between the two; the Monthly gained a reputation for being Whiggish, and the Critical for being Tory. Like the Monthly, the Critical published its reviews anonymously, and Hamilton also penned the names of the authors into his copies of the first two volumes.⁽¹⁴⁾ Based on other evidence, James G. Basker has recently documented Smollett's own contributions to the critical review for the first 24 volumes (1756-1767).⁽¹⁵⁾ From these sources we see that Smollett reviewed Hume's History Volume Two (1756). Although he notes both factual and stylistic flaws in this volume of Hume's History, Smollett's overall evaluation is most flattering:

We have carefully perused this performance, comparing it with other productions on the same subjects, and notwithstanding the little blemishes on which we have animadverted, we will venture to pronounce it one of the best histories which modern times have produced.

Except for their review of Essays on Suicide and Immortality, Hume's other writings were favorably reviewed in the Critical. Their brief 1760 review of Hume's Two Additional Essays ("Of the Jealousy of Trade" and "Of the Coalition of Politics") shows their high regard for Hume as a political theorist:
 

... ["Of the Coalition of Politics"] in particular, reflects credit on the good sense, moderation, and public spirit of the elegant writer.... [T]he author runs no hazard of diminishing the reputation he has deservedly acquired of a refined, manly, and free inquirer, by this addition to his political works.

In the years following the establishment of the Critical, new review journals would appear and then disappear, sometimes only after a single issue. By these standards, the London Review which lasted five years (1775-1780) had a credible life span. Founded by William Kenrick (1780-1799), the London Review adopted the same format as the Monthly and the Critical. Like Smollett, Kenrick previously reviewed for the Monthly and was himself the author of books and articles on a range of subjects. Although the London Review only covers the publication period of Hume's Life and the Dialogues, flattering discussions of Hume can be found throughout the journal.⁽¹⁸⁾ Their treatment of Hume is particularly distinguished by its enthusiastic endorsement of the Dialogues, as reflected in the following:
 

That the dispute between the atheist and the theist is merely verbal is thus proved.... This reconciliation of these two seemingly most distant opponents, is one of more service to true religion than volumes of divinity; and, in our opinion, whoever carefully peruses these Dialogues will not readily be infected with either of the two greatest corruptions of religion, enthusiasm or superstition.

Over 400 separate journals appeared in the eighteenth-century, and only a handful were dedicated exclusively to book reviews.⁽²¹⁾ However, other journals of a more general nature included book reviews along with news and feature articles. Often the reviews were reprints or condensations of reviews which appeared in one of the review journals. Just as often, though, the reviews were original. Journals of this type which included original reviews of Hume's writings are, The Gentleman's Magazine, The Scots Magazine, The Literary Magazine: or Universal Review, The Weekly Magazine, or Edinburgh Amusement, and The European Magazine and London Review. The format of these reviews parallels the format established by the review journals, and the insights they offer are no less valuable. For example, the Literary Magazine's review of Four Dissertations (1757) was the first of the three reviews of that work to appear, and is on the whole more probing than the other two. To illustrate, in the following it take issue with Hume's account of wit in the "Dissertation on the Passions" as a matter of pleasing taste:
 

We thought Wit had been long since very justly defined, a similitude unexpectedly pointed out between two objects not apparently resembling each other, in such a manner as to give new lights to the subject, and excite the agreeable sensations of surprize. If this definition is just, as it certainly is, judgment and not taste is to decide it, tho' we allow that the gratifications of taste will greatly heighten it.

There were few if any constraints on the format of the reviews. For example, Francis Palgrave's anonymous review of Par Augustin Thierry's Histoire in the Quarterly contains a single paragraph on Thierry, and the remainder -- 55 pages -- is a detailed essay on Hume's influence on the study of history.⁽²³⁾ On the other hand, their review of the 1825 edition of Hume's History contains only one paragraph on Hume and the remainder is the author's own view of Anglo-Saxon history, with no further mention of Hume. With this new freedom in reviewing, the ideas expressed sometimes proved controversial. For example, the anonymous Dangers of the Edinburgh Review (1808) attacks the Edinburgh for taking liberal stands on religion and politics. The Edinburgh is criticized in particular for elevating Hume's views on those subjects above those of bishops.⁽²⁴⁾ An analysis of Hume's reception in the Edinburgh and the Quarterly is a study in itself. However, the most important of these reviews for Hume scholarship should be briefly noted. In addition to Palgrave's essay, there is the review of Brodie's History in the Edinburgh, which is exclusively on Hume's History,⁽²⁵⁾ the review of Alexander Keith's Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion in the Quarterly, half of which is an attack on Hume's essay "Of Miracles,"⁽²⁶⁾ the two reviews of Burton's Life and Correspondence of David Hume,⁽²⁷⁾ and the 1880 combined review in the Quarterly of five Hume-related publications.⁽²⁸⁾

Unable to adapt to the tastes of a new generation of readers, the Monthly and the Critical adhered to the old formula of reviewing and progressively lost popularity. This decline forced Griffiths's son (who inherited the journal) to sell it in 1815. The Critical published its last volume shortly after in 1817. The new incarnation of the Monthly slowly moved to the review style of philosophical criticism, but eventually shut down in 1845.

Nangle and Roper both arduously defend the eighteenth-century review journals against nineteenth and twentieth-century negative stereotypes, particularly charges of incompetence and bias. They argue convincingly that the reviews were written by scholars of the highest abilities, and that the general charge of bias is groundless. But, for historians of philosophy in general and Hume scholars in particular, the question remains about the value of these reviews given today's standards of critical analysis. To be sure, the reviews consist largely of excerpts and summaries, the critical observations are often general in nature, and line by line textual analysis is typically absent. It is of course a mistake to expect the critical style from any historical period to emulate current conventions of criticism. It is also a mistake to expect a book review from any historical period, including our own, to serve double duty as a sustained commentary. Nevertheless, there is much more scholarly merit to the eighteenth-century reviews of Hume than is usually acknowledged.

First, at least one of the reviews is a sustained commentary: the review of Hume's Essays on Suicide and Immortality in the English Review. Less than half of the nine page review contains excerpts, and the rest is a point by point refutation of Hume's arguments in the two essays. For example, in reaction to Hume's claim in "Of Suicide" that "the order of nature has actually submitted life to human prudence," the reviewer argues,
 

... in this argument of Mr. Hume's, the word prudence is used in an equivocal sense. That human life is actually submitted to human prudence, that is, that in all the conduct of life we ought to consult the dictates of prudence, is true.... But, according to the philosophy of the Stoic, the Platonist, and the Christian, there is a propriety, a grace, a dignity, a submission to the divine will, an obedience to the duties of life, which, in the order of providence and truth are superior to life itself with all its enjoyments.

Presented below are two chronological bibliographies. The first lists all of Hume's first edition publications and gives citations for British reviews of these. As indicated below, there are no known reviews of seven first edition publications. The second bibliography lists four abridgments and collections containing Hume's writings, and gives British reviews pertaining to these. Each entry concludes with an indication as to whether the review is documented in Jessop, or whether it is new to the Hume literature. The references from Jessop have been checked against the original publications for accuracy, and in many cases missing information has been provided, such as the month of the publication, and complete page references. Although the first of the bibliographies below aims at completeness, it is a mistake to suppose that no other eighteenth-century British reviews of Hume's writings exist. Indeed, one may hope that there is waiting to be discovered a review of Hume's first Enquiry tucked away in an obscure eighteenth-century journal.

A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40)

reviewed in The History of the Works of the Learned, November and December 1739, Vol. 2, pp. 353-390, 391-404. [In Jessop]

no known review

no known review

no known review

no known review

no known review

no known review

reviewed in The Monthly Review [by William Rose], January 1752, Vol. 6, pp. 1-19 (lead article). [In Jessop]

no known review

reviewed in The Monthly Review [by William Rose], January and February 1752, Vol. 6, pp. 19-43, 81-90. [In Jessop]

no known review

reviewed in The Monthly Review, [by Roger Flexman], March 1754, Vol. 12, pp. 206-229. [In Jessop]

reviewed in The Critical Review [by Tobias Smollett], December 1756, Vol. 2, pp. 385-404 (lead article). [New]
reviewed in The Monthly Review [by William Rose], January 1757, Vol. 16, pp. 36-50. [In Jessop]

reviewed in The Literary Magazine: or Universal Review, December 1757, Vol. 2, pp. 32-36. [New]
reviewed in The Critical Review, February 1757, Vol. 3, pp. 97-107, 209-216. [New]
reviewed in The Monthly Review [by William Rose], February 1757, Vol. 16, pp. 122-139. [In Jessop]

reviewed in The Critical Review [by Tobias Smollett], April 1759, Vol. 7, pp. 289-303 (lead article). [In Jessop]
reviewed in The Monthly Review [by Owen Ruffhead], April and May 1759, Vol. 20, 344-364, 400-417. [In Jessop]

reviewed in The Critical Review, June 1760, Vol. 9, p. 493. [New]

reviewed in The Monthly Review [by Owen Ruffhead], December 1761, Vol. 25, pp. 401-414 (lead article), and February 1762, Vol. 26, pp. 81-95 (lead article). [In Jessop]
reviewed in The Critical Review, January and February 1762, Vol. 13, pp. 58-65, 81-93 (lead article). [New]

reviewed in The Critical Review, November 1766, Vol. 22, pp. 376-378. [New]
reviewed in The Monthly Review [by William Rose], November 1766, Vol. 35, pp. 390-402. [In Jessop]
reviewed in The Gentleman's Magazine, November 1766, Vol. 36, pp. 499-504. [In Jessop]

reviewed in The Critical Review, March 1777, Vol. 43, pp. 222-227. [New]
reviewed in The Gentleman's Magazine, March 1777, Vol. 47, pp. 120-121. [In Jessop.]
reviewed in The London Review [by William Kenrick], March 1777, Vol. 5, pp. 198-205. [In Jessop]
reviewed in The Monthly Review [by Ralph Griffiths], March 1777, Vol. 56, pp. 206-213. [In Jessop]
reviewed in The Scots Magazine, March 1777, Vol. 39, p. 153. [New]
reviewed in The Weekly Magazine, or Edinburgh Amusement, Thursday, March 13, 1777, Vol. 35, pp. 353-357 (extracts only). [New]

reviewed in The Critical Review, September 1779, Vol. 48, pp. 161-172 (lead article). [New.]
Reprinted in The Weekly Magazine or Edinburgh Amusement, October and November 1779, Vol. 46, pp. 113-115, 136-138, 162-164. [New]
reviewed in The London Review, 1779, Vol. 10, pp. 365-373. [New]
reviewed in The Monthly Review [by William Rose], November 1779, Vol. 61, pp. 343-355. [In Jessop]

reviewed in The Critical Review, December 1783, Vol. 56, p. 475. [New]
reviewed in The English Review, 1783, Vol. 2, pp. 418-426. [New]
Reprinted in abbreviated form in The European Magazine, January 1784, Vol. 5, pp. 42-43. [New]
reviewed in The Monthly Review [by William Rose], June 1784, Volume 70, pages 427-428. [In Jessop]
reviewed in The Gentleman's Magazine, August 1784, Volume 54, p. 35. [In Jessop]

Beauties of the magazines... also some essays by D. Hume, Esq. (1772; includes Hume's "On Impudence and Modesty," "On Love and Marriage," and "On Avarice")

reviewed in The Monthly Review, April 1772, Vol. 46, p. 462. [New]
reviewed in The Critical Review, May 1772, Vol. 33, p. 414. [New]

reviewed in The Monthly Review, December 1782, Vol. 67, p. 477. [New]
reviewed in The Critical Review, February 1783, Vol. 55, pp. 157-158. [New]

reviewed in The Critical Review, March 1787, Vol. 63, p. 233. [New]
reviewed in The Monthly Review, August 1787, Vol. 77, p. 153. [New]

reviewed in The Critical Review, January 1795, Vol. 13, pp. 76-79. [New]
reviewed in The Monthly Review [by William Enfield], January 1796, Vol. 19, pp. 73-74. [New]

1. E.C. Mossner, The Life of David Hume, (Edinburgh, Nelson, 1954), 118-130, 225-227. Additional bibliographical material is in Mossner's "The Continental Reception of Hume's Treatise," Mind, 54 (1947), 31-43.

2. Manfred Kuehn, "Hume in the Gottingische Anzeigen," Hume Studies, 13 (1987), 46-73.

3. Gunter Gawlick and Lothar Kreimendahl's Hume in der deutschen Aufklarung (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1987).

4. T.E. Jessop, A Bibliography of David Hume and of Scottish Philosophy, (London, Brown and Son, 1938), 12-42.

5. The Letters of David Hume, ed. J.Y.T. Greig, Vol. 1, 38.

6. Review of The Life of David Hume, in The London Review, 5 (March 1777), 198-205. The review appeared with the initial "W." indicating its authorship, which is usually believed to be the Journal's editor, William Kenrick.

7. Ralph Griffiths, in the review of The Life of David Hume, in Monthly Review, 56 (March 1777), 206-213.

8. See, for example, Francis Palgrave, "Hume and his Influence upon History," in Quarterly Review, 73 (1844), 536-592.

9. Thomas Ritchie offers the following analysis: "Kenrick's Review was held to be rather an illiberal production, and not over-nice as to the correctness of its assertions. It is now impossible to ascertain, whether this anecdote be true or false." An Account of the Life and Writings of David Hume, Esq., (London, T. Cadell, 1807), 29.

10. John Hill Burton, The Life and Correspondence of David Hume, (Edinburgh, William Tait, 1846), Vol. 1, 111.

11. The Correspondence of William Cowper, ed. Thomas Wright (1904), Vol. 1, 484.

12. Review of James Beattie's Elements of moral science (1790-1793), in Monthly Review, Vol. 19, 398-401.

13. The full passage in the letter reads, "I am sorry, both on your Account and Mr Rose's, for whom I have a great Regard, that it should be absolutely impossible for me, till my present Undertaking is finished, to have any hand in what he proposes to me. If I had leizure, I should certainly comply with his Request: He only disobliges me in mentioning any other Acknowledgment, than his being sensible of my Inclination to oblige him." Greig, Letters, Vol. 1, 336.

14. See Derik Roper, "Smollett's 'Four Gentlemen': The First Contributors to the Critical Review," in Review of English Studies, n.s., 10 (1959), 38-44.

15. James G. Basker, Tobias Smollett: Critic and Journalist, (Newark, University of Delaware Press, 1988).

16. Greig's Letters includes two friendly correspondence from Hume to Smollett; Vol. 2, 151, 185.

17. "Letter to the Authors of the Critical Review," Critical Review, 1759, Vol. 7, 323-334. The letter is reprinted in The Philosophical Works of David Hume, ed. Green and Grose, (London, 1874-1875), Vol. 4, 425-437.

18. See James Fieser, "Beattie's Lost Letter to the London Review," Hume Studies, 20 (1994), 1-12.

19. Daniel Roper, Reviewing before the "Edinburgh" 1788-1802, (Newark, University of Delaware Press, 1978).

20. Roper's source is C.H. Timperley, Encyclopaedia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote (1842).

21. For a complete list of these publications, see The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, ed. George Watson, (Cambridge, University press, 1971), Vol. 2, 1292-1312.

22. Like eighteenth-century review, nineteenth-century reviews were also published anonymously. Authorship of the nineteenth-century reviews listed below is established in The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824-1900, ed. Walter E. Houghton, (5 vols; London, Routledge, 1966-1989).

23. Francis Palgrave, "Hume and his Influence upon History," in Quarterly Review, 73 (1844), 536-592.

24. Letters 1 and 2 (pp. 1-23). References to the offending passages in the Edinburgh are Vol. 13, p. 94, Vol. 24, p. 276, and Vol. 19, p. 172.

25. Francis Jeffry, review of George Brodie's Constitutional History of the British Empire, in The Edinburgh Review, 40 (1824), 92-146.

26. W.J. Croker, review of Alexander Keith's Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion, in The Quarterly Review, 53 (1835), 142-174.

27. Reviews of Burton's Life in The Edinburgh Review, by William Empson, 85 (1847), 1-72; and The Quarterly Review, by William C. Lake, 78 (1846) 75-113.

28. Brownlow Maitland, The Quarterly Review, 149 (1880), 287-330.