Page:Philosophical Review Volume 3.djvu/689

673 differences of opinion; Professor Huxley, for example, claiming that it is chiefly positive, and Green asserting that it is chiefly negative. And if we appeal to the testimony of the author himself, this confusion does not seem to be much removed. For in the advertisement to the second volume of the post-humous and authoritative edition of Hume's works, a volume containing the Inquiries concerning Human Understanding and the Principles of Morals, Hume complains that "several writers, who have honoured the Author's Philosophy with answers, have taken care to direct all their batteries against the juvenile work, which the Author never acknowledged"; and he concludes as follows: "Henceforth, the Author desires that the following Pieces may alone be regarded as containing his philosophical sentiments and principles." But, on another occasion, in a letter to Gilbert Elliot, he says, "I believe the Philosophical Essays [the Inquiry] contain everything of consequence relating to the understanding, which you would meet with in the Treatise; and I give you my advice against reading the latter. By shortening and simplifying the questions, I really render them much more complete. Addo dum minuo. The philosophical principles are the same in both; but I was carried away by the heat of youth and invention to publish too precipitately." We see, then, that it is only by a thorough examination of both works that this question can be satisfactorily settled. Of such an examination, I propose to state the more important results under the following heads: Form and Matter—general and particular.

I. Relations with regard to Form. In the Treatise, the style is immature, often egoistic, pedantic, and dogmatic, and there are many Scotticisms. There is much repetition, ambiguity, and mingling of essential parts with non-essential. In the Inquiry, the style has become smooth and polished, and the Scotticisms have disappeared. Redundancy has in most cases become changed to brevity. The depth of thought and labored mode of expression of the philosopher have given way to the superficiality and elegance of the author, so that, while the