What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of England #1
The History of England, Vol 1 From the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688
David Hume's great, enduring reputation in philosophy tends to obscure the fact that, among his contemporaries, his history of England was a more successful work. The history covers almost 1800 years. Hume saw English history as an evolution from a government of will to a government of law. Advanced in Hume's masterly prose, this argument continues to make the "History" a valuable study for the modern reader. This Liberty Fund edition is based on the edition of 1778, the last to contain corrections by Hume. The typography has been modernized for ease of reading. Hume's own index to the entire work may be found at the conclusion of volume VI.
546 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1754
444 people are currently reading
1551 people want to read
About the author
David Hume
3,112 books1,675 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 - 26 of 26 reviews
November 13, 2021
What can you do once you have completed Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but still yearn for more? Can any other history survive comparison with its deliberate opinions, its vast scope, its lofty style? Well, it took me twenty years, but I have stumbled upon an answer: you can read Hume's History of England. It ain't the same, my fellow Gibbon lovers, but it's close.
David Hume—of course--is not identical to Edward Gibbon. Hume's sentences, not nearly so stately, possess a sharpness all their own. Whereas Gibbon's prose moves more slowly, taking the longer view, like a man walking uphill who observes extensive ruins from increasingly greater heights, Hume's prose moves quickly, like a well-breathed horse, covering many miles of challenging terrain with apparent effortlessness. Whereas Gibbon displays man's follies and vices, leading us to the peace of philosophical resignation, Hume anatomizes the oppressions of the state that precipitate those follies and vices, and by so doing instils in us a renewed passion for liberty, the benefactor of mankind.
But the two historians share much as well. Both abhor superstition, particularly when it is united to policy, and are equally forceful in their denunciations of political leaders who—seduced by private desires or a lust for public power—derange the operations of the state.
This volume is the first chronologically considered, but the last to be published. (It was issued in 1761, a full fifteen years before the first volume of Gibbon.) It covers the period from the initial conquest of Julius Caesar, through the long reign of the Conquerer and the fitful careers of his immediate successors, and ends with the accession of Henry II.
Hume—ever on the lookout for the heroes and villains of liberty—finds one hero to praise and one villain to condemn. The hero is Alfred the Great, whose unification of England halted the debilitating custom of continual war and minimized the predations of the petty kings and thanes, thus bringing new stability to the yeoman of England. The villain is William the Conqueror, who systematically deprived the Anglo-Saxons of self-governance and damaged their self-respect as he elevated his fellow Norman invaders to a nobility divorced from its country's traditions, a nobility which acknowledged few legitimate restraints.
To conclude: fellow lovers of Edward Gibbon, I urge you to give David Hume a try. If you find Hume a slight bit inferior to Gibbon, remember: Hume did it first.
June 28, 2020
This is the best telling of early English history that I’ve come across. Hume gives the facts as he believes them and weaves a narrative that makes for a coherent story as he believes them to be and relevant for his time period of 1760.
I found this book and its accounting of its history to parallel Henriech Graetz’s first two volumes of his History of the Jews and his story telling. As these books unfolded it becomes obvious to the reader that the concept of The English or The Jews is a construct that each author have bought in completely as real that they’ve created out of their fictions about themselves in order to give sense to who they are in the time period that they are writing in, 1760 for Hume and 1860 for Graetz.
As I was reading this volume, I did a wiki on Anglo-Saxon because of the way Hume was using it seemed to conflate with how he was considering who the English People were and Wiki altered me to the fact that the term only makes sense if the assumption of commonality between Anglo, Saxon, and English people are made through out different historical time periods (yes, it is more complex than what I am saying, but I don’t want to elaborate too much since it’s up to the reader to determine for themselves). It seemed to me that the story Hume was telling was a story of the conquerors be they the early Romans, the Danes, the Anglo-Saxon-Jutes, or finally the Normans, and Hume was conflating the conquered indigenous people with their conquerors and seamlessly conflating the two even though the real story he was telling was the story of the conquerors not the conquered. Graetz does a very similar thing in his first two volumes as he tells his story.
I like this book incredibly more than I liked Gibbon’s Decline and Fall. Gibbon makes odd forays into the history of England that really don’t belong into his overall telling of the Romans and while I was reading his book, I couldn’t help but think the story that he was telling was a story about only the rulers and elite that was remote from the actual people who lived in the Roman Empire and how remote most of what he was telling did not relate to the actual people that were within the Roman Empire and who were not the rulers of the Empire.
Hume knew how to tell his story such that the English person of his day was discovering who their identity as an individual as part of a nation were and how they were meant to think about themselves. Gibbons dwelt on picayune minutia such as the 30 names of emperors you’ve never heard of in that 60-year time period or was that 60 names of emperors over that 30-year time period? Hume’s book has all of the characteristics that are required for a national epic which first and foremost include who they are as a people, has a hero (Alfred the Great, Richard the Lion-Hearted), and gives a fiction that describes the people as a people both as individuals and as a nation. Hume does that with this book while never entering into Gibbon’s remotely distant presentation from who the people really are or at least who they are becoming.
Hume gives an incredibly powerful presentation of a complex period of time by giving a compelling narrative for how a people should think about themselves while never dwelling on the insignificant more than what is necessary for its understanding, and, moreover, this book reads as good or better than any modern history book.
I found this book and its accounting of its history to parallel Henriech Graetz’s first two volumes of his History of the Jews and his story telling. As these books unfolded it becomes obvious to the reader that the concept of The English or The Jews is a construct that each author have bought in completely as real that they’ve created out of their fictions about themselves in order to give sense to who they are in the time period that they are writing in, 1760 for Hume and 1860 for Graetz.
As I was reading this volume, I did a wiki on Anglo-Saxon because of the way Hume was using it seemed to conflate with how he was considering who the English People were and Wiki altered me to the fact that the term only makes sense if the assumption of commonality between Anglo, Saxon, and English people are made through out different historical time periods (yes, it is more complex than what I am saying, but I don’t want to elaborate too much since it’s up to the reader to determine for themselves). It seemed to me that the story Hume was telling was a story of the conquerors be they the early Romans, the Danes, the Anglo-Saxon-Jutes, or finally the Normans, and Hume was conflating the conquered indigenous people with their conquerors and seamlessly conflating the two even though the real story he was telling was the story of the conquerors not the conquered. Graetz does a very similar thing in his first two volumes as he tells his story.
I like this book incredibly more than I liked Gibbon’s Decline and Fall. Gibbon makes odd forays into the history of England that really don’t belong into his overall telling of the Romans and while I was reading his book, I couldn’t help but think the story that he was telling was a story about only the rulers and elite that was remote from the actual people who lived in the Roman Empire and how remote most of what he was telling did not relate to the actual people that were within the Roman Empire and who were not the rulers of the Empire.
Hume knew how to tell his story such that the English person of his day was discovering who their identity as an individual as part of a nation were and how they were meant to think about themselves. Gibbons dwelt on picayune minutia such as the 30 names of emperors you’ve never heard of in that 60-year time period or was that 60 names of emperors over that 30-year time period? Hume’s book has all of the characteristics that are required for a national epic which first and foremost include who they are as a people, has a hero (Alfred the Great, Richard the Lion-Hearted), and gives a fiction that describes the people as a people both as individuals and as a nation. Hume does that with this book while never entering into Gibbon’s remotely distant presentation from who the people really are or at least who they are becoming.
Hume gives an incredibly powerful presentation of a complex period of time by giving a compelling narrative for how a people should think about themselves while never dwelling on the insignificant more than what is necessary for its understanding, and, moreover, this book reads as good or better than any modern history book.
September 28, 2013
"Such was the idea which the popes then entertained of the English: and nothing can be a stronger proof of the miserable ignorance in which that people were then plunged, than that a man, who sat on the papal throne, and who subsisted by absurdities and nonsense, should think himself entitled to treat them as barbarians." I'm reviewing all six volumes, that's all 3332 pages worth, here -(from the invasion of Caesar to the Glorious Revolution). Hume isn't always the most exciting writer, but there is a definite wit that percolates up here and there. He mixes facts and anecdotes rather well. His commentary on the absurdities of religion was his strongest point. Overall, it was indeed most excellent - other than perhaps his overload of facts regarding budgetary matters.
February 26, 2023
This isn’t exactly cutting edge history, crammed with all the latest insights that can be provided by modern archeology, but it is beautifully written and an enjoyable read.
July 1, 2015
Several years ago, my son-in-law gave me the six-volume history of England by David Hume. I put it on a shelf, admiring how impressive the books looked there. The sheer size of the work was intimidating; starting it seemed like a big commitment. Plus, the fact that it had been written in mid-18th Century was a bit off-putting, as past experience with literature of this period proved the writing style to be a little inaccessible for my taste.
I had occasion about a month ago to pick up Vol. 1 and give it a go. I'm glad I did, since Hume does a fantastic job of succinctly summarizing in Vol. 1 the period between Caesar's invasion and the death of King John.
Hume was a writer of the Scottish Enlightenment and a rationalist par excellence, and it is entertaining to read the dismay with which he viewed the chaos of the early Anglo-Saxon period, when what we know today as England was comprised of the Heptarchy of seven kingdoms: Kent, Northumberland, East Anglia, Mercia, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. There was almost constant warfare among the seven, with each striving to be primum inter pares. Just about every page is filled with accounts of ravaging and pillaging. In this culture, might made right and there really was no rule of law. Those among us who are of an anarchistic frame of mind would do well to read this to see how wretched life could be without the rule of law.
The Conquest in 1066 changed everything: the Saxon aristocracy was replaced to a large extent with Normans and for the next two hundred years, a recurrent theme is a desire to return to "the good old days" of Saxon hegemony. Henry II comes off pretty well in this version as a king who brought a degree of stability to the nation's affairs. Speaking of "affairs," Hume paints Henry's wife, Eleanor, as a bit of a floozie, mentioning her occasional "gallants." Richard I, although a brave knight who was great in battle, was a washout as king, spending only 6 months of his reign in England. King John was just as bad as he is portrayed in "Robin Hood." (No Sheriff of Nottingham, though).
Throughout this first volume of Hume's work, the Church (meaning the Catholic Church - the only game in town during this period) was in almost perpetual conflict with the Crown. Hume takes a dim view of the Church, characterizing it as "superstition." He wasn't an atheist, however; he reflects the Protestant view that was widespread in England at that time. He misses no opportunity to point out the far-from-holy machinations of the Holy See, repeatedly letting kings off the hook for pledges they had made to rule better.
One of the things that strikes the reader immediately about this work is the rather liberal position the author takes in regard to commas. They are inserted seemingly willy-nilly and require a bit of adjustment in a reader with more conventional views on punctuation. Also, the word "farther' is used to denote degree as well as distance. The word "further" is not used at all.
I was delighted with Vol. 1. And I still have five more volumes to go!
I had occasion about a month ago to pick up Vol. 1 and give it a go. I'm glad I did, since Hume does a fantastic job of succinctly summarizing in Vol. 1 the period between Caesar's invasion and the death of King John.
Hume was a writer of the Scottish Enlightenment and a rationalist par excellence, and it is entertaining to read the dismay with which he viewed the chaos of the early Anglo-Saxon period, when what we know today as England was comprised of the Heptarchy of seven kingdoms: Kent, Northumberland, East Anglia, Mercia, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. There was almost constant warfare among the seven, with each striving to be primum inter pares. Just about every page is filled with accounts of ravaging and pillaging. In this culture, might made right and there really was no rule of law. Those among us who are of an anarchistic frame of mind would do well to read this to see how wretched life could be without the rule of law.
The Conquest in 1066 changed everything: the Saxon aristocracy was replaced to a large extent with Normans and for the next two hundred years, a recurrent theme is a desire to return to "the good old days" of Saxon hegemony. Henry II comes off pretty well in this version as a king who brought a degree of stability to the nation's affairs. Speaking of "affairs," Hume paints Henry's wife, Eleanor, as a bit of a floozie, mentioning her occasional "gallants." Richard I, although a brave knight who was great in battle, was a washout as king, spending only 6 months of his reign in England. King John was just as bad as he is portrayed in "Robin Hood." (No Sheriff of Nottingham, though).
Throughout this first volume of Hume's work, the Church (meaning the Catholic Church - the only game in town during this period) was in almost perpetual conflict with the Crown. Hume takes a dim view of the Church, characterizing it as "superstition." He wasn't an atheist, however; he reflects the Protestant view that was widespread in England at that time. He misses no opportunity to point out the far-from-holy machinations of the Holy See, repeatedly letting kings off the hook for pledges they had made to rule better.
One of the things that strikes the reader immediately about this work is the rather liberal position the author takes in regard to commas. They are inserted seemingly willy-nilly and require a bit of adjustment in a reader with more conventional views on punctuation. Also, the word "farther' is used to denote degree as well as distance. The word "further" is not used at all.
I was delighted with Vol. 1. And I still have five more volumes to go!
January 27, 2016
Good book, in general. At times a bit dull, but generally fascinating and with an admirable anti-Church stance that makes the book far more enjoyable than those written by the pious sycophants of both past ages and present.
September 20, 2023
Very hard going. Lots of cross references. Lots of difficult similar sounding names. Authoritative, possibly but most older citations are single documents written long after the events. Accurate contemporaneous accounts are unlikely. Writing style is definitely one for academia not light reading.
April 16, 2016
Yes! The wonderful thing about reading an old history is that you learn about two periods in one fell swoop: the period described and the period in which it is written. On top of that, I really appreciate Hume's obvious charm and wit and perspective. His treatment of Beckett is interesting and refreshing. I can't help but categorize this with Decline and Fall. The most lasting impression is the value of an eighteenth century perspective, in two senses--first, the clarity. This is Reason, that is Superstition (lookin at you, popes). Second, relatedly, the implicit understanding of why one writes a history or reads it. A serious scholarly work that will not only expose structures but also distill wisdom from the mess of chronicled facts. Reading it done reminds me of how unusual this project is. Not that it's not done now, but the examples I can think of are in bad faith and closed-minded rather than the alternative.
Five stars means that not only would I recommend it, but if you don't like it I will draw unfavorable inferences, before I get back off my soapbox.
Five stars means that not only would I recommend it, but if you don't like it I will draw unfavorable inferences, before I get back off my soapbox.
February 8, 2014
Clearly, from Hume's perspective the early Anglo-Saxons were barbarians, the Norman kings of England were pure thugs no better than the popular view today of the Mafia, and the church at Rome was the evil empire. Reading Hume is very entertaining as long as you don't expect anything even remotely like respect for authority or for antiquity. I doubt he received many invitations to social gatherings. I think this could also have an alternative title of, A Curmudgeon Looks at Merrie Olde Englande." I can't wait to read the volume after Edward. I can almost guess that he'll say something like, "the barbaric Scots stood astride a filthy ditch called Bannockburn to meet the vast army of vile English ruffians."
April 23, 2008
One word to desribe it: "incredible." All done without a proper library. Appealed to all for its frankness. No not painting the wart on the King's nose. And why am I the only one to rate this book?
January 6, 2015
Ok in parts, but who is to say that his version of history is true!?
June 21, 2020
Talk of genocide, think of the native people who were the British. Talk of exterminators of a whole people, think of the native Saxons who invented that name and nation called England. Talk of domination and suppression, think of the Normans of Normandy who made the England we know the murderous, suppressive, domineering, and coldly deceitful nation that most races on the globe felt its bloodthirsty and rapacious acidity. Thanks to Mr. Hume.
November 18, 2020
A History of England
Hume’s history of England is not an easy read, nor a particularly entertaining one. However, if you are into English history, the book is an important precursor to its successor similar history by Churchill. Coming in three volumes, this one covers the pre-Roman times through the 1688 revolution. As written, parts seem missing in this edition, but you’ll get a feel for the genre.
Hume’s history of England is not an easy read, nor a particularly entertaining one. However, if you are into English history, the book is an important precursor to its successor similar history by Churchill. Coming in three volumes, this one covers the pre-Roman times through the 1688 revolution. As written, parts seem missing in this edition, but you’ll get a feel for the genre.
February 17, 2025
It's dense but at times quite breezy. I wouldn't consider it exhaustive or authoritative, and certainly not balanced or unbiased but a solid going over of the main events in England's history from the invasion of Ceaser to Magna Charta.
September 6, 2020
A History Of England Volume 1 by David Hume is enlightening, literally, from the period of enlightenment. Hume’s prose is wonderfully transparent, the clarity sometimes brilliant.
July 31, 2016
I finally finished this one. I have been reading this one in the background since the beginning of the year. I decided when I was on the elliptical or the bike to read a book to maximize efficiency in my day vice watching the endless, meaningless commentary of our times...also called the news. English history is one of my favorite areas to read about since it covers so many ages. I love the Roman era. I find the Anglo-Saxon invasions interesting although the names kill me. The appearance of the Vikings, the colonizing Danes, and their subsequent decline are covered here in depth. Finally the advent of the Conqueror and the beginning of the Plantagenet line of monarchs and their crusades, quarrels, and injustices lead to Magna Carta. The book is a large volume and takes a significant time to finish. I do recommend it even though the Old English of the author can be quite tricky.
August 17, 2016
I adored this book. It put English and French history into perspective for me, and the chapters on Thomas of Becket and Henry II completely transformed the way I looked at that period. 1150 to 1250 in England is one of the most important places and times that ever were, and I wonder why. So many books, so many plays and movies and important debates and cliches and legal principles come from that time.
I do believe now that Henry did not mean to kill Thomas, or at least was sorry.
In other news, David Hume appears to be one of the most delightful and pleasant human beings ever born. A remarkably farsighted individual, especially since he was alive around the time of the American revolution....
I do believe now that Henry did not mean to kill Thomas, or at least was sorry.
In other news, David Hume appears to be one of the most delightful and pleasant human beings ever born. A remarkably farsighted individual, especially since he was alive around the time of the American revolution....
February 13, 2016
Perseverance required
I chose to read this book knowing very little about the history of England during this period. It honestly took me a while to get used to Hume's style and seemingly endless sentences! However, it is worth a read to gain some middle age history knowledge if nothing else.
I chose to read this book knowing very little about the history of England during this period. It honestly took me a while to get used to Hume's style and seemingly endless sentences! However, it is worth a read to gain some middle age history knowledge if nothing else.
March 19, 2016
Not to far into it, but good so far.
Reading this on my new Kindle 3. (free download)
Finished to main stuff, now I'm reading the appendix about British Law.
Done with vol. 1 ready to start vol. 2.
Reading this on my new Kindle 3. (free download)
Finished to main stuff, now I'm reading the appendix about British Law.
Done with vol. 1 ready to start vol. 2.
September 4, 2022
A little dry but occasionally witty and refreshing. Interesting to see an 18th Century perspective to English history which is this volume seems to be mostly about the power struggle between English Kings and the Roman Catholic church.
December 9, 2009
Nice book for its age.
October 14, 2010
Surprising modern style for a book written so long ago, and gave me a good overview of early English history.
October 23, 2013
This book did not go to 1688, but rather closed around 1300. Still, if you are interested in the early history of the English isle, this seems to be a good initial resource.
March 27, 2014
If you like reading about kings, Dukes and conquest, you'll like this book.
August 7, 2022
Whew!
September 15, 2015
Hume's thesis: the Saxon kings were putzes, the Normans were tyrants. There's probably some truth to that.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews