Page:Philosophical Review Volume 3.djvu/775

759 introduction. Now we owe an equally good edition of Hume's Enquiry concerning the Human Understanding and his Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals to the same Press and the same editor. While it is now universally recognized that the first book of the Treatise is much more important than the Enquiry concerning the Human Understanding for a knowledge of Hume's system,—and this, of course, in the face of Hume's emphatic denial,—it is important for two reasons that we should have a good edition of the Enquiry for class use. In the first place, the Treatise is decidedly a difficult book; many classes would find the Enquiry a better introduction to Hume's philosophy, since it is at once much briefer and simpler in style. In the second place, the relation between the Treatise and the Enquiry is important, and a first-hand knowledge of each is necessary, of course, to an intelligent opinion regarding the matter. In fact, Mr. Selby-Bigge's particular aim has been to furnish one with the apparatus for making such a comparison. Besides the general index, which compares favorably with that prepared for the Treatise, there is an introduction and a set of comparative tables, the object of which is to show, in smallest possible compass, the relation between the Treatise, on the one hand, and the two Enquiries and the Dissertation on the Passions, on the other. In these tables, and also in the Index and Introduction, the references to the Enquiries are made by means of the marginal sections of the present edition, i.e., numbers to which there is nothing to correspond in the edition of 1777, which is here reprinted, but which have been introduced, as the editor says, "merely for convenience of reference and for the clearer articulation of the argument." As before in the Treatise, the editor keeps himself as much as possible in the background. While he does not find important differences in the points of view of the two works, he shows us quite definitely just what the differences are. In short, as might be expected, the editorial work gives evidence of great care and admirable judgment and taste.

E. A.

"The author's excuse," says Professor Sanford in his prefatory note, "for allowing the publication, even in this modest form, of so incomplete a