What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of England #5
The History of England, Vol 5
Volume V details the accession of James I and the establishment of the Stuart dynasty, the heightened tensions between the king and parliament as the kingdom grappled with the questions of absolute rule and the problems of religion, continuing into the reign of Charles I, the civil war, and the execution of Charles.
595 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1754
5 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
About the author
David Hume
3,144 books1,678 followersDavid Hume was a Scottish historian, philosopher, economist, diplomat and essayist known today especially for his radical philosophical empiricism and scepticism.
In light of Hume's central role in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy, Bryan Magee judged him as a philosopher "widely regarded as the greatest who has ever written in the English language." While Hume failed in his attempts to start a university career, he took part in various diplomatic and military missions of the time. He wrote The History of England which became a bestseller, and it became the standard history of England in its day.
His empirical approach places him with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others at the time as a British Empiricist.
Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. In opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably René Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour. He also argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. He argued that inductive reasoning and therefore causality cannot be justified rationally. Our assumptions in favour of these result from custom and constant conjunction rather than logic. He concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self.
Hume's compatibilist theory of free will proved extremely influential on subsequent moral philosophy. He was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on feelings rather than abstract moral principles, and expounded the is–ought problem.
Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent western philosophy, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive philosophy, theology and other movements and thinkers. In addition, according to philosopher Jerry Fodor, Hume's Treatise is "the founding document of cognitive science". Hume engaged with contemporary intellectual luminaries such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Boswell, and Adam Smith (who acknowledged Hume's influence on his economics and political philosophy). Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers".
In light of Hume's central role in the Scottish Enlightenment, and in the history of Western philosophy, Bryan Magee judged him as a philosopher "widely regarded as the greatest who has ever written in the English language." While Hume failed in his attempts to start a university career, he took part in various diplomatic and military missions of the time. He wrote The History of England which became a bestseller, and it became the standard history of England in its day.
His empirical approach places him with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others at the time as a British Empiricist.
Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. In opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably René Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour. He also argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience. He argued that inductive reasoning and therefore causality cannot be justified rationally. Our assumptions in favour of these result from custom and constant conjunction rather than logic. He concluded that humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self.
Hume's compatibilist theory of free will proved extremely influential on subsequent moral philosophy. He was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on feelings rather than abstract moral principles, and expounded the is–ought problem.
Hume has proved extremely influential on subsequent western philosophy, especially on utilitarianism, logical positivism, William James, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophy, cognitive philosophy, theology and other movements and thinkers. In addition, according to philosopher Jerry Fodor, Hume's Treatise is "the founding document of cognitive science". Hume engaged with contemporary intellectual luminaries such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Boswell, and Adam Smith (who acknowledged Hume's influence on his economics and political philosophy). Immanuel Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers".
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
August 5, 2020
Without a doubt Hume’s summaries at the end of each volume are worth the price of admission to this History of England; sure, it only cost me 99 cents for the Kindle version, but even at a higher price these volumes are well worth it alone for the edifying connections that Hume makes and for his marvelous story telling in general.
Nowise should one be put off by the odious Irish since they are noted for their habitual sloth and ignorance and are odious for their barbarity and their superstitious beliefs. Now, as for me, I had no problem with the occasional use of obsolete words such as nowise or for the out and out violation of all objective historical standards when the story teller is as masterful as Hume’s.
Hume is telling his story differently than from the previous first four volumes in this series. He removes himself from the story except when he is speaking about the odious Irish, or the Papist, the Puritans (he also really doesn’t like the Independents either, the Scottish Presbyterian or even the Quakers), and he seems to grudgingly admire Oliver Cromwell, Charles I and James I, and expertly contextualizes the Gunpowder Plot (‘remember, remember the 5th of November’). Oh wait, he doesn’t remove himself at all from this volume since that is what this volume basically covers and Hume assumes the history as an inevitable conclusion from the time period he is writing from.
I found it odd that Thomas Jefferson was so put off by this history because the way Hume is telling the story is not against the people’s liberty since Hume tells the story in such a way that in the absence of a central overriding authority that the reckless abandonment of the traditions, laws and standards can lead to a beheading of a King when faced with the factional politics motivated by religion or political zeal while providing no real defense for the people against a despot be they King, Parliament, or Lord Protector. Hume doesn’t really mince words when he is making his points though he does seem to be more charitable to Oliver Cromwell than most historians while simultaneously providing an apologia for Charles I. As one reads this history, one understands how almost all of the Bill of Rights are a reaction to what Charles I did, or Parliament tried to do, or Oliver Cromwell strived to do, and Jefferson could have easily been inspired by the odious behavior of what happened in 17th century England and did what he could to make sure that would not trample on America’s liberty except for that 3/5th thing.
Hume did say something in this book from 1760 that I was not aware of. John Milton was not well regarded until much later than when he wrote Paradise Lost and by Hume’s time, he finally was becoming revered, and that Hobbes' system of conservative politics would lead to tyranny according to Hume and Hobbes was falling out of favor in Hume’s time period. Of all the books that brain-dead Trump followers should read, I would put Hobbes’ Leviathan near the top of the list since it would give them a foundation of which they sorely lack elsewise, and, since I’m talking about brain dead Trumper’s books to read, I would also recommend Will to Power purportedly by Nietzsche since that book has an elegance usually lacking within fascist screeds.
There’s a whole lot to like within this series of history. I would say I find these works vastly superior to Gibbon’s Decline of the Roman Empire. The overlap between how the history of the Roman Empire follows writ large what Hume is writing about with his narrow focus within just one island (or two if we include the odious Irish) makes me say something I really hate to say, and that is Arnold Toynbee, the fascist, of who I can say with certainty was feted by the Nazis and accepted their accolades, is right to point out patterns with civilizations both between and within and that almost all of the stories that Hume tells can also be found within the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, if one connects the patterns between the two with the diligence of an historian.
Nowise should one be put off by the odious Irish since they are noted for their habitual sloth and ignorance and are odious for their barbarity and their superstitious beliefs. Now, as for me, I had no problem with the occasional use of obsolete words such as nowise or for the out and out violation of all objective historical standards when the story teller is as masterful as Hume’s.
Hume is telling his story differently than from the previous first four volumes in this series. He removes himself from the story except when he is speaking about the odious Irish, or the Papist, the Puritans (he also really doesn’t like the Independents either, the Scottish Presbyterian or even the Quakers), and he seems to grudgingly admire Oliver Cromwell, Charles I and James I, and expertly contextualizes the Gunpowder Plot (‘remember, remember the 5th of November’). Oh wait, he doesn’t remove himself at all from this volume since that is what this volume basically covers and Hume assumes the history as an inevitable conclusion from the time period he is writing from.
I found it odd that Thomas Jefferson was so put off by this history because the way Hume is telling the story is not against the people’s liberty since Hume tells the story in such a way that in the absence of a central overriding authority that the reckless abandonment of the traditions, laws and standards can lead to a beheading of a King when faced with the factional politics motivated by religion or political zeal while providing no real defense for the people against a despot be they King, Parliament, or Lord Protector. Hume doesn’t really mince words when he is making his points though he does seem to be more charitable to Oliver Cromwell than most historians while simultaneously providing an apologia for Charles I. As one reads this history, one understands how almost all of the Bill of Rights are a reaction to what Charles I did, or Parliament tried to do, or Oliver Cromwell strived to do, and Jefferson could have easily been inspired by the odious behavior of what happened in 17th century England and did what he could to make sure that would not trample on America’s liberty except for that 3/5th thing.
Hume did say something in this book from 1760 that I was not aware of. John Milton was not well regarded until much later than when he wrote Paradise Lost and by Hume’s time, he finally was becoming revered, and that Hobbes' system of conservative politics would lead to tyranny according to Hume and Hobbes was falling out of favor in Hume’s time period. Of all the books that brain-dead Trump followers should read, I would put Hobbes’ Leviathan near the top of the list since it would give them a foundation of which they sorely lack elsewise, and, since I’m talking about brain dead Trumper’s books to read, I would also recommend Will to Power purportedly by Nietzsche since that book has an elegance usually lacking within fascist screeds.
There’s a whole lot to like within this series of history. I would say I find these works vastly superior to Gibbon’s Decline of the Roman Empire. The overlap between how the history of the Roman Empire follows writ large what Hume is writing about with his narrow focus within just one island (or two if we include the odious Irish) makes me say something I really hate to say, and that is Arnold Toynbee, the fascist, of who I can say with certainty was feted by the Nazis and accepted their accolades, is right to point out patterns with civilizations both between and within and that almost all of the stories that Hume tells can also be found within the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, if one connects the patterns between the two with the diligence of an historian.
December 2, 2014
As the title suggests, this is volume five of Hume's six-volume The History of England. This edition is based on the 1778 edition and incorporates the author's last corrections before his death in August 1776. Best I can tell, it was originally written around 1758.
I was an English major in college, not a history major. I enjoy learning about history, but I have a short attention span for nonfiction in general, so it was necessary for me to cast about a bit before I found the right strategy for reading this work of historical (and at times philosophical) nonfiction. I didn't read volumes one through four, and I'm not sure if I'll read six. I did enjoy Hume's style, especially once I figured out how to read him, but while I'm tempted to pick up the other five volumes to learn more about England from Hume's perspective, I think I need a nice long break before I do that.
I started out reading this book word-by-word, underlining and taking notes on practically every page. I do not recommend this strategy to the casual reader, or even the modestly invested reader. It was educational but made for very, very slow reading. When I found myself ready to quit, I shifted gears to focus on more of an overview, having faith that, even without the copious note-taking, I would get a general idea of this era of English history.
I think it pretty much worked. Taking this approach, I was able to enjoy Hume's voice more than I had, and I did gain many insights about the founding of the United States, the evolution of religious and civil liberty, and the advent and nature of civil war in general.
I've posted a more detailed review on my blog at Imperfect Happiness.
I was an English major in college, not a history major. I enjoy learning about history, but I have a short attention span for nonfiction in general, so it was necessary for me to cast about a bit before I found the right strategy for reading this work of historical (and at times philosophical) nonfiction. I didn't read volumes one through four, and I'm not sure if I'll read six. I did enjoy Hume's style, especially once I figured out how to read him, but while I'm tempted to pick up the other five volumes to learn more about England from Hume's perspective, I think I need a nice long break before I do that.
I started out reading this book word-by-word, underlining and taking notes on practically every page. I do not recommend this strategy to the casual reader, or even the modestly invested reader. It was educational but made for very, very slow reading. When I found myself ready to quit, I shifted gears to focus on more of an overview, having faith that, even without the copious note-taking, I would get a general idea of this era of English history.
I think it pretty much worked. Taking this approach, I was able to enjoy Hume's voice more than I had, and I did gain many insights about the founding of the United States, the evolution of religious and civil liberty, and the advent and nature of civil war in general.
I've posted a more detailed review on my blog at Imperfect Happiness.
December 29, 2017
Covering the reigns of James I and Charles I and then the Civil War. Hume is an interesting read. His vocabulary and sentence structures both require a bit of work at time. Viand is an example of the vocabulary plus other words that have multiple spellings. The flow of his work is interesting and after the political items which are his focus, he includes a bit of economic history, etc. Thanks to Father Dave Hellman for leading me the texts.
September 3, 2019
A lot of political philosophy, I think, passes for history. Or so says the answer that follows the question "What is the ink with which history is written? None other than fluid prejudice." But let me be careful and tread lightly, I don't want to overstep. Most history, I am willing to grant, is genuine--unsullied with political ambitions and speculative designs--and is better described as an account, a retelling of the facts, rather than a dogma dressed in a story. But if I grant you that much, I don't think it unfair to ask in return for the admission that there is some history, a few, that are less about building a record of events and more about illustrating a political Truth. Hume's History is the perfect example of such a book.
I apologize that I cannot enter a thoughtful opinion here--I have waited too long to compose this piece, and my memory, infirm as it is, would rend from the stress if I were to summon the details needed to provide Hume a fair hearing. I will say, however, that his History is definitively shaped by his politics. It isn't hidden but plain for anyone to see. The question is: does this make his History a must read? Or unreadable? I haven't yet decided, but I see reasons for both. In his defense I would offer the delightful, absolutely beautiful, prose; the flowing narrative; the build and relief of dramatic effect; and, finally, the discussion of politics--the stakes for the liberties and traditions of the British--this was very well done. But, if that was an adequate submission in Hume's defense, then I must offer the indictment: that Hume makes little effort examine with a neutral bent--historical figures enter the story as either good, bad, or incompetent. The bad are blemished, the good lauded, and the subtle shades of gray pressed to choose sides. Not only is this opposite to the virtue of rigor, caution, and evenmindedness, but, it can be charged, violence has been done.
So it bears reminding that although this book describes itself as a history, and is organized chronologically, Hume is principally interested with the tribulations of British government--the contest between the King, Court, and Parliament--and that his treatment brings events into view based on that motive. I recommend it you.
I apologize that I cannot enter a thoughtful opinion here--I have waited too long to compose this piece, and my memory, infirm as it is, would rend from the stress if I were to summon the details needed to provide Hume a fair hearing. I will say, however, that his History is definitively shaped by his politics. It isn't hidden but plain for anyone to see. The question is: does this make his History a must read? Or unreadable? I haven't yet decided, but I see reasons for both. In his defense I would offer the delightful, absolutely beautiful, prose; the flowing narrative; the build and relief of dramatic effect; and, finally, the discussion of politics--the stakes for the liberties and traditions of the British--this was very well done. But, if that was an adequate submission in Hume's defense, then I must offer the indictment: that Hume makes little effort examine with a neutral bent--historical figures enter the story as either good, bad, or incompetent. The bad are blemished, the good lauded, and the subtle shades of gray pressed to choose sides. Not only is this opposite to the virtue of rigor, caution, and evenmindedness, but, it can be charged, violence has been done.
So it bears reminding that although this book describes itself as a history, and is organized chronologically, Hume is principally interested with the tribulations of British government--the contest between the King, Court, and Parliament--and that his treatment brings events into view based on that motive. I recommend it you.
August 25, 2010
let's just say I'm done! I did get insights of why our Declaration and Constitution are the way they are.
Also I learned about England's civil war. Things don't change. They fought over religion. Ireland was very brutal with what they did to the English. It's not just Hitler's army that was brutal.
Then there were the aspects of a good old soap opera. Real life is more amazing then some writer's creativity!
Also I learned about England's civil war. Things don't change. They fought over religion. Ireland was very brutal with what they did to the English. It's not just Hitler's army that was brutal.
Then there were the aspects of a good old soap opera. Real life is more amazing then some writer's creativity!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews