Beschreibung:

HUME (DAVID)Series of four rediscovered autograph letters to Horace Walpole from Scottish philosopher David Hume (1771-1776), speaking of his infamous argument with Jean-Jacques Rousseau justifying the publication of his account and distancing himself from Walpole's 'King of Prussia letter', comprising:
i) Autograph letter signed ("David Hume") to Horace Walpole ("Dear Sir"), recounting how he has received a letter from D'Alembert "...who tells me, that, on receiving from me an account of my affair with Rousseau, he summon'd a meeting of all my literary friends at Paris..." who all agreed, contrary to his own opinion, that he should give a public statement "...especially after receiving the last mad letter... it is of great importance for me to justify myself from having any hand in the letter from the King of Prussia... I am collecting all the original pieces and shall connect them by a concise narrative...", ending by asking for Walpole's letter and Rousseau's answer, integral address panel, docketed in ink and pencil, one page on a bifolium, dust-staining, creased, seal tear, remains of red wax seal, 4to (226 x 185mm.), [n.p.], "Saturday Forenoon" [but Saturday 26 July 1766, dated from Walpole's reply of that day, according to Correspondence, p.24]
ii) Autograph letter signed ("David Hume") to Horace Walpole ("Dear Sir"), regarding the account of his "...rupture with Rousseau..." to be published by his friends (Exposé succinct de la contestation qui s'est élevèe entre M. Hume et M. Rousseau, published at Paris in October 1766), notifying him that he has included Walpole's letter "...justifying my innocence with regard to the Prince of Prussia's letter...", and his reluctance to publish but "...my antagonist had wrote Letters of Defiance against me all over Europe, and said, that the Letter he wrote me was so confounding to me that I would not dare to show it to any one without falsifying it... my Silence might be construed into a Proof of Guilt...", mentioning that the book will probably be soon in London, docketed in pencil, 2 pages on a bifolium, dust-staining, creased at folds, 4to (228 x 185mm.), Edinburgh, 30 October 1766
iii) Autograph letter signed ("David Hume") to Horace Walpole ("Dear Sir"), on the publication of his "...Narrative of this ridiculous Affair between Rousseau & me...", objecting to D'Alembert writing in his appendix that the King of Prussia's letter was cruel, possibly because Walpole is a friend of his enemy Madame du Deffand, and that passages in the narrative that mention Walpole have been "...altered in translation, and rendered much less obliging than I wrote them...", assuring him that his original words will be restored in the edition printed in London, docketed by Walpole on reverse "Recd Nov. 8th 1766.", 2 pages on a bifolium, dust-staining, frayed, creased at folds, some small holes, 4to (228 x 185mm.), Edinburgh, 4 November 1766
iv) Autograph letter signed ("David Hume") to Horace Walpole a long letter explaining why he felt it necessary to reluctantly consent to the publication ("...I am as sensible as you are of the ridicule to which Men of Letters have expos'd themselves, by running every moment to the Public, with all their private Squabbles and Altercations... My antagonist, by his Genius, his Singularities, his Quackery, his Misfortunes & his Adventures had become more the subject of general Conversation in Europe... than any person in it... How else could it have happened that a Clause of a private letter which I wrote somewhat thoughtlessly to a private Gentleman at Paris, should in three days time have been the only subject of Conversation in that Capital, and should thence have propagated itself everywhere, as fast as the Post could carry it?..."), apologising for suppressing Walpole's clause where he admitted to composing the King of Prussia's letter, discussing D'Alembert ("...a ...model of a virtuous and philosophical character...") and Madame du Deffand, vindicating himself and his friends, ending by begging him "...to consider the great difference in point of morals between uncultivated and civilized ages...", the postscript pointing out "...The French Translation of this strange Piece... was not made by Dalembert...", 6 pages on 2 bifolia, dust-staining, creased at folds, some small tears, 4to (235 x 188mm.), Edinburgh, 20 November 1766Footnotes'THIS RIDICULOUS AFFAIR BETWEEN ROUSSEAU & ME': FOUR REDISCOVERED LETTERS FROM DAVID HUME TO HORACE WALPOLE AT THE HEART OF HIS SPAT WITH ROUSSEAU.
Much has been written on the very public argument between the two great Enlightenment philosophers David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1766. These rediscovered letters, from the latter half of that year, clearly demonstrate the key role Horace Walpole played in the incident. Even Walpole's biographer, R.W. Ketton-Cremer, a staunch supporter, lays the cause of the quarrel squarely at Walpole's door, blaming the entire imbroglio between the two most celebrated philosophers of the age on a letter written by Walpole purporting to be from the King of Prussia. It began, he says, with '...a mild jeu d'esprit...' and ended with public humiliation and recriminations. Relations between Hume and Walpole, as shown here, remained cordial, although as shown in our letters, was sure to distance himself from the offending letter.
The events that preceded our correspondence began three years earlier, when Hume accompanied the Earl of Hertford to Paris as his secretary in August 1763. In Paris, he was feted by the cream of the French Enlightenment, including the editors of the Encyclopédie, Jean D'Alembert and Denis Diderot, and not least by salonnière Mme de Boufflers with whom he had an intense but platonic relationship. It was at her request that Hume offered to find Rousseau a refuge in England in January 1766, after Rousseau had been forced to flee from Switzerland, and is there that the argument took place: '...Once in London, Rousseau was treated as something of a curiosity. He sat for Allan Ramsay who painted his second portrait of Hume at the same time. Hume took him to the theatre, the better that the king and queen might observe him... lodgings were found for him in Chiswick, where he was joined by Thérèse Le Vasseur... The night before he left [to stay at Wootton Hall courtesy of Richard Davenport], Rousseau stayed with Hume in London, and an episode took place which had decisive consequences for their relationship. Rousseau suspected a conspiracy in all the offers of help he was receiving, and accused Hume of connivance in them. Hume denied it, Rousseau suddenly sat down on his knee, and the scene ended with the two in tears. Rousseau had some reason for his suspicions, for Hume, so sensitive to any suggestion of dependence on his own part, had been active in procuring a government pension for the refugee. Hume believed that the crisis had been resolved by Rousseau's apology... Rousseau wrote accusing Hume of having brought him to England to dishonour him; and he followed this on 10 July with a much longer account of the many stages and aspects of his mistreatment. Written in the form of a French judicial memoir, the letter was clearly designed for publication... Hume then collected the correspondence ["...I am collecting all the original pieces and shall connect them by a concise narrative..." he confirms in our letter to Walpole], had copies made, and sent one set over to Paris... The affair was discussed in several salons; and after some hesitation a meeting of philosophes chaired by D'Alembert [which Hume also refers to in our letters] decided to publish... the public, that is the contributors to the ensuing debate, sided overwhelmingly with Rousseau. The same judgement was delivered in London as in Paris: Rousseau was a martyr persecuted by godless atheists, and deserved every sympathy from Christians...' (John Robertson, ODNB).
As our letters show, Hume came to regret the publication: '...He had misread Rousseau, and misread the public. It is quite possible that Parisian flattery of 'le bon David' had turned his head: he believed that he could befriend Rousseau where other philosophes had failed, and he may have felt that he owed something to Mme de Boufflers. Rousseau sensed such motives—and rebelled, deviously and hurtfully. By September 1766 Hume had returned to Edinburgh, with the intention of burying himself anew in philosophical retreat...' (Robertson, ODNB).
Rousseau's complaints centred on a letter purporting to be from the King of Prussia, promising him sanctuary, which was doing the rounds of the salons to much amusement, and was even printed in the English press: 'If you want new misfortunes, I am a king and can make you as miserable as you can wish' it said. Rousseau concluded that it was part of a conspiracy against him centred on Hume, Voltaire and D'Alembert, not realising that Hume was, in fact, acting in his interests and that the letter had been written by Walpole. Walpole gives a long and detailed account of the quarrel, including a transcript of the offending letter, and the correspondence between himself and Hume in A Narrative of what passed relative to The Quarrel of Mr David Hume and Jean Jacques Rousseau as far as Mr Horace Walpole was concerned in it, published in Works, Vol.4, pp.249-256.
Our first letter from Hume dated "Saturday Forenoon" is numbered Letter I in Walpole's Works. Walpole wrote his reply to Hume later that afternoon on Saturday 26 July, freely admitting to having composed the letter in Paris before Rousseau's arrival there: '...I did not go to see him... as you often proposed to me; thinking it wrong to go and make a cordial visit to a man, with a letter in my pocket to laugh at him... I should be very sorry to have you blamed on my account: I have a hearty contempt of Rousseau... If there is any fault, which I am far from thinking, let it lie on me. No parts can hinder my laughing at their possessor if he is a mountebank. If he has a bad and most ungrateful heart, as Rousseau has shown in your case, into the bargain, he will have my scorn likewise, as he will of all good and sensible men...' (Works, Vol.4, p.258).
Supporters of Walpole made light of the so-called 'King of Prussia' letter, dismissing it as a mere prank, a literary conceit: '..an amusing trifle with some effective hits at Rousseau's clamorous self-pity and his constant sense of imaginary wrongs... Walpole could hardly forsee that his pretended letter from Frederick, which was nothing more than a piece of mild chaff, would be the means of bringing about the breach between Rousseau and Hume...' (R.W. Ketton-Cremer, Horace Walpole 1964, pp.233-234). Others conclude that the rift was in some ways inevitable, that Hume and Rousseau were too different personally and intellectually. In short, as J.Y.T. Greig wrote in his 1931 biography of Hume, The annals of literature seldom furnish us with two contemporary writers of the first rank, both called philosophers, who cancel one another out with almost mathematical precision'.
All four letters are published in the Yale edition of Horace Walpole's Correspondence online (Vol. 41, pp.24, 43, 48 and 59), although the whereabouts of the originals were unknown until now. They were first published with Walpole's Narrative in Mary Berry's The Works of Horace Walpole Earl of Orford, 1798, Vol. 4, pp.257-269, letters I, III, V and VII, the text taken from the original letters in her own collection. They are also printed in J.Y.T. Greig The Letters of David Hume, 1932, and elsewhere. They formed part of the Walpole correspondence retained by Mary Berry and bequeathed to Lady Lewis in 1852.
Provenance: Horace Walpole (1717-1797); Mary Berry (1763-1852); Lady Maria Theresa Lewis (née Villiers) (1803-1865); her son Sir Thomas Villiers Lister (1832-1902); thence by descent.
Lady Lewis' collection was initially formed through the amalgamation of two significant collections of letters: royal and political correspondence from that of her mother the Hon Theresa Villiers (1775-1856), and that of her close friend, the writer Mary Berry (1763–1852). Mary Berry's bequest included correspondence from Horace Walpole most notably his correspondence with Thomas Chatterton and David Hume, hitherto thought lost, and three poems dedicated to her. To this inheritance Lady Lewis subsequently added her own correspondence and collection of autographs gathered through her wide circle of social, political and literary connections entertained at her home, Kent House, St James's. Not seen outside the family until now, the collection is a remarkable survival and tells the story of a family at the heart of English society. An intricate web of connections and alliances is revealed, bringing together the worlds of royalty and politics, the arts and literature. It is also a story of influential women both as collectors and as correspondents: Theresa Villiers as keeper of royal secrets, Mary Berry and her circle of intellectuals, and, importantly, Lady Lewis as collector and salonnière bringing them all together in one extraordinary collection.