Hume, Marx, & Rousseau

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

Colin wrote:

> Specie-flow is just a model Hume employed and he can't be blamed for
> Rothbard's abuse of it 2 centuries after his death.

Hume was anti-egalitarian and would be at home in the
Mises-Hayek-Nozickian world, I believe.

*****   But historians, and even common sense, may inform us, that,
however specious these ideas [e.g., the ideas advanced by the
levellers] of _perfect_ equality may seem, they are really, at
bottom, _impracticable_; and were they not so, would be extremely
_pernicious_ to human society.  Render possession ever so equal,
men's different degrees of art, care, and industry will immediately
break that equality.  Or if you check these virtues, you reduce
society to the most extreme indigence; and instead of preventing want
and beggary in a few, render it unavoidable to the whole community.
The most rigorous inquisition too is requisite to watch every
inequality on its first appearance; and the most severe jurisdiction,
to punish and redress it.  But besides, that so much authority must
soon degenerate into tyranny, and be expected with great
partialities; who can possibly be possessed of it, in such a
situation as is here supposed?  Perfect equality of possession,
destroying all subordination, weakens extremely the authority of
magistracy, and must reduce all power nearly to a level, as well as
property.  (Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals)   *****

The Road to Serfdom indeed.

Marx himself criticized utopian socialists & unpacked the problem of
the idea of equality ("the equality consists in the fact that
measurement is _by the same standard_, labour....this _equal_ right
is an unequal right for unequal labour") in "Critique of the Gotha
Program," yes, *but* Hume (and heirs to his philosophy), unlike Marx,
argued against the idea of perfect equality *from a conservative
motive* against government interventions for egalitarian distribution.

In personal relations, however, Hume was apparently very kind to
Rousseau, whose philosophy & temperament differed greatly from his.
Rousseau, in a moment of what looks to be a species of paranoia (or
Eve Sedgwick might see a "homosexual panic" here), turned against
Hume.

*****   In the year 1762, Mr Hume attached himself to the celebrated
Rousseau, when the latter was about to be imprisoned, by an arret of
the Parliament of Paris, for publishing his famous romance called
Emile. Mr Hume was then in Edinburgh. A person, as he says, of merit,
but whose name he does not mention, wrote him from Paris, {196} that
M. Rousseau intended to come to Britain to procure an asylum from
persecution in a land where freedom reigns, and genius and literature
of every species are eminently encouraged. M. Rousseau, at the same
time, asked Mr Hume's patronage and recommendation when he should
arrive in London. Mr Hume, accordingly, wrote to several of his
friends in London, in favour of this famous exile; and likewise wrote
to himself, assuring him of his zeal and strong desire of doing every
thing in his power to serve him. Mr Hume, at the same time, solicited
Rousseau to come to Edinburgh, and offered him a secure retreat in
his own house as long as he should chuse. Mr. Hume's principal
motives for making this offer were the celebrity of Rousseau;s genius
and talents, and particularly the persecution he suffered from the
bigots of his own country, joined to the weak and diseased state of
his body, occasioned by the passing of blood through his urethra.
This disorder, like most chronical distempers, rendered his mind
peevish, and, of course, made his temper and his actions frequently
{197} bizarre and disagreeable, especially to strangers. Mr Hume
seems, in some parts of the controversy, not to have made sufficient
allowances for the weak and painful condition of his antagonist's
body. Pain, when long continued, not only induces general debility,
but frets and disturbs the mind, and makes it suspicious and
impatient. This circumstance, it is probable, was the principal cause
of the rupture that happened between these two learned and most
ingenious men. Mr Hume, however, through the whole controversy,
treats M. Rousseau with humanity and respect. He, indeed, defends
himself strenuously against the calumnies and insinuations of his
illustrious opponent; and he was fully entitled to do so.

At the instigation of Mr Hume, Rousseau arrived in England in Spring
1766; and Mr Hume procured a pleasant residence for him in a country
house belonging to Mr Davenport, a gentleman distinguished by his
birth, by his fortune, and by his merit. This villa is situated in
the country of Derby, and is called Wooton. As soon as Rousseau {198}
arrived at Wooton, he was charmed with the situation of the place, as
well as with the adjacent country; and wrote Mr Hume, in the most
polite and grateful terms, how much he esteemed his friendship and
patronage.

When on their route to Britain, one evening at Calais, Mr Hume asked
Rousseau, if he would accept a pension from the king of Britain,
provided it should be obtained? Rousseau replied, that he found some
difficulty in answering the question; but that he would refer the
affair to Lord Marshall, who was a great friend to Rousseau.
Encouraged by this response, Mr Hume, as soon as he arrived in
London, applied to General Conway, then Secretary of State, and
likewise to General Graeme, Secretary and Chamberlain to the Queen,
asking a pension to Rousseau, which was readily granted, on the sloe
condition that the affair should be kept secret. This condition was
highly agreeable to Rousseau, who loved to conceal such favours as he
occasionally received, and particularly in what related to
money-matters, because he thought {199} they degraded the spirit of
independency which he always, at least, pretended to possess. But Mr
Hume had, for some time, anxiously attended to the ease and interest
of M. Rousseau, who continually complained both of bodily pain and of
poverty, discovered with astonishment, that the last complaint of
extreme poverty was false. He employed this last artifice (for the
first was no artifice), Mr Hume remarks, to render himself, as a man
of genius, more interesting, and to excite the compassion of the
public.

The time which Mr Hume spent with M. Rousseau gradually enabled him
to unfold his real character. I at last perceived, says he, with
infinite pain, that this ingenious man was born for tumult and
storms; but, as Mr Hume had done every thing to accommodate Rousseau,
and to render his situation comfortable, he never dreamed that he
himself was to become a victim of his rage and peevishness. The
origin of the rupture between these two great men took its rise from
a ridiculous circumstance. {200} Mr Horace Walpole, who, it would
appear, was no great friend to Rousseau, wrote a letter, under the
fictitious designation of Frederic King of Prussia, inviting him to
come and reside in his Court at Berlin. Of this affair Mr Hume had no
knowledge. But Rousseau, from what circumstances it is difficult to
conjecture, imagined that Mr Hume had written and circulated that
letter with a view to perplex and burlesque him. Mr Hume, in this
more than foolish affair, excuses Mr Walpole by calling it an
innocent plaisanterie. But, when the genius, the temper, and the
diseased state of Rousseau's body are considered, instead of a
plaisanterie, it was a direct cruelty, and had, by a natural mistake,
the unhappy effect of converting two cordial and celebrated friends
into mortal enemies.

M. Rousseau, though Mr Hume procured him a grant of a pension from
his Majesty, actuated by some whimsical ideas of independency, and a
notion that his best friend meant to betray him, refused to accept of
it. Mr Hume, by friendly letters, {201} pressed Rousseau to accept of
the pension; but the latter obstinately persisted in his denial, and
even reproached Mr Hume, in terms the most indecent, for so
successfully endeavouring to serve him, and to render his
circumstances easy for life.

The supposititious letter, written in the name of the King of
Prussia, after copies of it had been circulated over Europe, was at
last published in the St James's Chronicle. It was in that News-paper
which Rousseau first saw this imprudent and ill-judged production. M.
Rousseau immediately wrote to the Editors of the St James's Chronicle
complaining bitterly of the imposture, and indirectly insinuating
that the pretended letter was composed by Mr Hume. When Mr Hume
learnt that he was suspected by M. Rousseau to be the author and
publisher of this letter, it gave him much uneasiness. Mr Hume
remarks, that, after the great attention and beneficent services he
had, with unremitting perseverance, bestowed on M. Rousseau, he was
suddenly become the object of his resentment and obloquy, upon {202}
no other foundation than a foolish and even absurd suspicion. Mr
Hume, notwithstanding this unhappy affair, continued to protect and
cherish Rousseau by friendly letters as well as by good offices. But,
soon afterwards, Rousseau threw off every mask, and accused Mr Hume
openly as a traitorous enemy, without assigning any reasons but what
were evidently capricious, frivolous, and contemptible. I shall
mention one example only. The first night after these two remarkable
men left Paris, in their way to Britain, they both slept in the same
chamber. M. Rousseau, in the last letter he ever wrote to Mr Hume,
which is of an enormous length, says, that during the night, Mr Hume
several times, called out, with unusual vehemence, Je tiens J.J.
Rousseau. He, however, acknowledges, that he knew not whether Mr Hume
was sleeping or waking. The expression, in the French language, is
strong; but, like many verbs, tenir is frequently used in very
different and even opposite senses. Rousseau interpreted the
expression thus: I have Rousseau in my possession, or, I hold him
fast. {203} Every time these words were repeated, Rousseau tells us
that he trembled with terror. This and some similar insignificant
circumstances gave rise to a complete rupture between those two great
men.   <http://www.utm.edu/research/hume/bio/smellie.htm>   *****

Yoshie