Introduction

In the entire history of the struggle between various philosophical schools among themselves, perhaps the most vividly and sharply expressed disagreements and differences of views were among the followers of the dogmatic and skeptical schools. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine more dissimilar teachings. If in this case, on the one hand, the representatives of philosophy are people who start from some position (dogma), recognizing it as undoubtedly true, immutable; if, having admitted this position, they then directly build their theories on it, sometimes very beautiful and fascinating, such as, for example, the theories of the Epicureans and Stoics, then, on the other hand, we are dealing with philosophers who begin their reasoning with doubt (skepticism) , with which they relate to the dogmatic schools that preceded them. The most ancient representatives of skeptics are considered to be those philosophers of the Aristotelian period who, in the 3rd century BC, founded schools called academic and who rebelled against the dogmatic assumptions of the Stoics and Epicureans.

As if the revival of this ancient struggle in a time relatively close to ours - but, we add, a much more original, brilliant and refined struggle - is the philosophical activity of the Englishman David Hume, who lived in the 18th century. Most of his works, remarkable both in content and in elegant literary form, are imbued with one desire: to dispel all misconceptions, all prejudices, errors and biases of those thinkers who, both long before him and immediately before him, were the leaders of mental development in contemporary society . Hume chose ancient skepticism as a weapon for this struggle, sharpening it with an amazing ability for subtle criticism and the ability to develop his thoughts with remarkable consistency, without retreating from the too bold, sometimes desperate conclusion to which his undertaken work led.

The following characteristic feature seems interesting to us, sharply distinguishing the ancient skeptics from Hume. The ancient skeptics, we said, were the opponents of the Epicureans and Stoics; It should be noted that both of these dogmatic schools pursued a purely egoistic goal in their quests: bringing happiness to an individual person; Moreover, some (the Epicureans) saw this happiness in the enjoyment of all kinds of pleasures and pleasures, since this, in their opinion, consists of the good indicated to us by nature; others (the Stoics) demanded from a person a completely dispassionate, apathetic attitude towards everything external, so that he could all the more successfully delve into himself and, with the help of his virtue, find the correct understanding of good and evil; a strengthened will will help him finally overcome all evil in the form of unreasonable natural inclinations, wishes, passions, etc. and become completely happy. Both of these theories started from the position that the essence of good, enjoyment or, conversely, evil, suffering is something accessible to the human mind. Skeptics objected to these teachings that all human knowledge is not enough to determine the essence of good and evil in order to know the absolute truth. Therefore, the unattainable desire to know the essence of things cannot give happiness to a person; on the contrary, it disturbs him, excites him, leads him into a state of eternal restlessness. True happiness is available only to that person who, having renounced the knowledge of absolute truth, looks at everything external with complete indifference, with peace of mind, not disturbed by any wishes.

Happiness, the possibility of happiness, the price that is profitable to pay for achieving it - these are the foundations and motivations for the philosophizing of ancient dogmatists, as well as skeptics... How far the new skeptic, Hume, is from this egoism, this self-interest of his ancient predecessors. To dispel the darkness of error and prejudice, to clear the way for the truth and to enjoy its light, even if it was such a blinding light from which unaccustomed eyes would suffer greatly - that was all that the famous skeptic of the 18th century sought. In further exposition of Hume's philosophy we will see that the devastating results of bold criticism actually led him to deep despair; but the philosopher’s direct and persistent mind and his strong character did not allow for any compromises or omissions. Hume heroically withstood both the contemptuous indignation of his contemporaries and his own mental torment - in a word, he endured everything that the ancient skeptics feared. This is what constitutes an interesting feature in the teaching and character of Hume, this remarkable and courageous analyzer.

Chapter I

Parents and the Yume family environment. - His school activities and youthful inclinations. - First steps in the practical field

The Hume family comes from the famous Scottish family of Earls Hume, and already in the times of James I and James II Stuart, its representatives distinguished themselves in the wars with France. David Hume's father, Joseph Hume, was a poor Scottish landowner who owned a small farm located in Berwickshire. This Hume family estate was called Ninewells, thanks to a rather significant spring that irrigated the sloping meadow in front of the house and flowed into the nearby Whiteadzer River. Hume's mother, the daughter of the President of the College of Law, Sir Falconer, is characterized both by her children and by her contemporaries who knew her as a wonderful woman and as the best of mothers.

On April 26, 1711, Joseph Hume and his wife, who were visiting Edinburgh, had a third child, David; Soon after, the father of the family himself died, leaving two young sons and a daughter in the arms of his wife.

In his autobiography, David Hume says the following about his family: “My family was not rich; and since I was little brother, then my share in my father’s inheritance was, of course, very insignificant. My father, who had a reputation as a talented man, died during my childhood, leaving me, my older brother and sister in the care of my mother, a woman with remarkable virtues - while still young and beautiful, she completely devoted herself to caring for and raising her children.” .

D. Hume's talented biographer, Burton, says that, judging by the portrait, Mrs. Hume's appearance was very pleasant and revealed great subtlety of mind. Insightful and very kind, homely and practical in all her actions, this woman passed on to her youngest son the main features of her moral personality, and some biographers (for example, Huxley), perhaps not without reason, suggest that David Hume inherited those qualities from his mother , which mainly determined his successes in the field of philosophical activity. It is interesting that in this case, heredity also manifested itself in the physical organization, the same in mother and son: both died from the same disease. Thus, in the person of D. Hume, we have another example for supporters of the theory that a son will inherit her mother’s abilities and that many remarkable and talented figures had fathers who were the most ordinary, mediocre people, and mothers who were distinguished by remarkable mental gifts and were outstanding from among contemporary women.

An interesting surviving story is about how Mrs. Hume described her youngest son in the days of his youth: “Our Davy,” she said, “has an excellent character, but he is surprisingly weak in mind.” The first part of this judgment was brilliantly justified throughout “Davi’s” subsequent life, but where did the insightful mother-educator draw her second conclusion? This is an interesting and mysterious question... Not to mention the fact that David Hume, in his scientific activities, discovered the abilities of a real mental athlete, we must recognize his great gift of practical wisdom and remarkable endurance in the execution of the decisions he made. In all likelihood, Mrs. Hume considered it a manifestation of “feeble-mindedness” in her son that he had chosen an unreliable and unprofitable career as a scientist. It may also be that the mother's harsh judgment in this case was caused by Hume's early revealed tendency to never get carried away in any direction; in all his opinions and actions, he usually showed that restrained moderation, which, although called the “golden” mean, nevertheless inspires a low assessment of both the abilities and aspirations of such a “mediocre figure.”

Very little information has reached us about Hume's initial upbringing and education: it is known that as a twelve-year-old boy he was sent to the Greek class at the University of Edinburgh, where he remained for about three years, that is, until the end of the course, which at that time was limited to three or four winters. semesters, six months each. Probably, it is precisely this school period of Hume’s life that his following words refer to: “I passed successfully through regular course teaching and very early felt an attraction to science, which was the main passion of my life and the highest source of my pleasures.”

Hume spent the next six or seven years of his life preparing for that work, which was then supposed to concentrate all his abilities, express all his views and convictions, and become his first prominent step on the path of social activity. Such an early, as if premature, development of the future philosopher’s mind may seem strange, but yet this was in fact the case: a sixteen-year-old youth in his letters expresses those thoughts that serve as direct hints at the essence of his future remarkable theories; In his studies, an inexperienced student immediately takes up what later serves as the basis for further research, and puts a noticeable imprint on both the external and internal sides of his works. The amazing certainty of aspirations and the stability of the intended course of action distinguished Hume from the first years of his adult life and were, of course, the main reason that his entire personality in the eyes of biographers received a bright coloring of a strong character and persistent nature.

The period from sixteen to twenty-two years in the life of every person is accompanied by the formation of his spiritual personality. True, intellectual life is characteristic to a certain extent of every age, starting from infancy; but it is also true that only in the era of adolescence, that is, from the age of fifteen or sixteen, this mental life begins to break out from under the shackles of other people’s concepts and beliefs, instilled both by educators and other close people; Only at this time does the young man begin to reason “in his own way,” and get carried away by “his own” interests and criticize what he previously took on faith from the world around him.

Let's see what marked this important period of youth in Hume's life. Left to his own devices at the end of his university course, he lived a concentrated and secluded life for six years, spending the winters in Edinburgh and the summer months on his estate. An inquisitive mind and a thirst for learning, only excited, but not satisfied by completing a university course, immediately determined Hume’s occupation: he began to read, choosing the ancient classics and those representatives of philosophy and poetry that were found in the small Hume family library. There is every reason to conclude that the main source of wisdom for Hume at that time was the writings of the Roman Stoics. Hume quickly grasped the essence of their systems and those philosophical questions about morality and knowledge that were posed and resolved in the works of the Stoics. These studies did not pass without leaving a mark on Hume’s future activity: if his philosophy can be considered to have developed from the teachings of Locke, it is still certain that in its initial phase, Hume’s philosophical views arose and developed mainly through the study of Greek and Roman writers. The influence of Cicero, Seneca and Plutarch is strongly manifested both in the formulation of various philosophical problems and in the very style of many of Hume’s works.

Absorbed in book studies, young David was rather indifferent to what constituted the environment of his life on the family estate, and yet this environment was far from uninteresting: the county in which Hume lived is rich in the most interesting legends about the raids and robberies of the seventeenth century; Towers and fortresses scattered along the banks of the Tweed and Yarrow rivers remain mysterious and eloquent witnesses of these adventures to this day. It is strange that even in those years when everything unusual and romantic excites and inflames the young imagination, even in these years Hume was not one iota romantic and did not pay the usual tribute to youthful enthusiasm. All that Hume paid his attention to and on which he concentrated his interest was utility; From this only point of view, he discussed those objects and phenomena on which his penetrating gaze rested. It is difficult to imagine a more dispassionate temperament, a less enthusiastic nature. In his prosaicism, Hume reached the point of complete misunderstanding of beauty and the inability to enjoy it. Painting, sculpture and music absolutely did not exist for this dry and strict thinker; and in his judgments about the largest literary works, he revealed such a lack of artistic flair, such a biased and unfair assessment, which are absolutely difficult to understand and tolerate in a person capable of the most witty and accurate judgments, since it concerned social and political philosophy. But it was precisely this one-sidedness and apparent imperfection of Hume’s talents that constituted the strength of this philosopher: they mainly gave integrity, definiteness and completeness to his theories.

So, the young man Hume, immersed in the study of ancient poets and philosophers, enthusiastically continued to develop his mind and fill in the gaps of his early completed school education. Hume expressed the fruits of his independent reflections, original and deep even at this early stage of his life, in eloquent messages to his friends; for example, in one of the letters addressed to Mikhail Ramsey, sixteen-year-old Hume writes, among other things, the following: “I live like a king, mainly for myself, in inaction and without any excitement. I foresee, however, that this state will not last long. The peace of my soul is not sufficiently guaranteed by philosophy from the blows of fate. True greatness and sublimity of spirit can only be found in study and contemplation; only they can teach us to despise the accidents of human life. You understand, of course, that in arguing in this way, I am speaking as a philosopher; I think about this subject a lot and could talk about it all day.”

Paying tribute to both the serious thoughts and the sublime tone of this letter, we must add, however, that a disdainful attitude towards material wealth and practical interests is often found among young men who lead a solitary, contemplative life and read a lot; In Hume’s letter, what is especially characteristic is the place where he expresses his attraction to philosophy. The words “I think a lot about this subject” were by no means an exaggeration. Hume's studies at this time were not limited to just reading famous thinkers; the ability and inclination to criticize awoke in him at the first acquaintance with the beliefs of former times; he boldly debunked all authorities and looked into the depths of their teachings, without being at all blinded by either the glory or the generally recognized greatness of these creations. Finding everything said by previous philosophers insufficiently defined and poorly substantiated, Hume, with all the ardor of his youth of which he was capable, went towards those discoveries that remained to be made in the field of thought. That is why, along with reading, seventeen- and eighteen-year-old Hume also takes up the pen; he wastes a lot of paper on a wide variety of notes and even tries to write something complete in the form of “Essays”, “Experiments”, etc. No matter how imperfect and poorly finished these young man’s writing attempts are, you can still find the beginnings of those thoughts in them and even the method that later made Hume famous.

Hume's peaceful and beloved pursuits during his youth were twice disrupted by the harsh and unsuccessful attempts of his relatives to direct David into a practical field. They planned to make seventeen-year-old Hume a lawyer and forced him to study legal sciences. There is no doubt that Hume would have made a great lawyer. According to Burton, he possessed all the necessary qualities - clarity of judgment, the ability to quickly master the essence of the matter, tireless activity and remarkable dialectics. But David was too absorbed in other ideas for him to devote himself to the study of knowledge of an overly professional nature: Hume dreamed of a great literary creation that would revolutionize the field of philosophy and create world fame for him; it is understandable how pitiful the successes among English lawyers or members of parliament seemed to him in comparison. “While my relatives thought that I was studying Vetus and Vinnia, I was secretly devouring Cicero and Virgil,” Hume says about himself.

PAGE_BREAK--

This forced preparation of Hume for legal activity lasted only a year, and then he was again left to his own devices and began to work on his favorite writers without interference. But the overly intense mental activity of the young philosopher was not in vain for him. In his eighteenth year, Hume's health deteriorated greatly; loss of spirit and a sluggish attitude appeared even towards what he had previously done with such fervor. David realized that he needed to have a good rest and get stronger physically and mentally before starting the serious essay that he had in mind. This led him to the decision to listen to the advice of his relatives and radically change his lifestyle: in 1734, having secured important letters of recommendation, Hume went to Bristol, hoping to get a job in the office of one of the local merchants. “After a few months,” says Hume in his correspondence, “I found this line of work completely unsuitable for me.” That's to be expected. Life and commercial activities in Bristol did not have any influence on Hume, and this episode could have been completely passed over in silence if it had not emphasized even more clearly the fact that no temporary deviations could make Hume forget his intended goal, could not distract him from his great thoughts and aspirations that completely took possession of his young being.

How long Hume spent in Bristol is a question that is difficult to answer with certainty. There is a hint in Hume's autobiography that his stay in Bristol was limited to only two months; in other works, among other things in the “Memoirs” of Anna More, it is said that the Bristol linen merchant, Peach, enjoyed communication with Hume for two years. Be that as it may, the first choice of practical activity was made unsuccessfully; Hume abruptly broke off relations with a circle of merchants alien to him and left Bristol for France, looking for such solitude far from his homeland in which he could indulge in his academic pursuits without interference.

To end the youthful period of Hume's life, we should mention one remarkable letter of this philosopher - a letter written by him in London, where he stopped on the way from Scotland to Bristol. It is not known to whom this message was intended; in Hume's papers it was preserved under the title “Letter to a Physician.” The author of the letter himself calls it “Something like the story of my life,” and for this reason alone it deserves our attention; The sincere and heartfelt tone of the letter will be best seen if we cite its main passages in full.

“I must tell you,” writes Hume, “that from my earliest childhood I had a strong attraction to books and letters. Since our classical education in Scotland - which, however, does not go further than the study of languages ​​- usually ends at the age of fourteen or fifteen, then at the end of the course I had complete freedom in choosing my reading; I soon became convinced that I was equally attracted to both philosophical books and poetic and verbal works. Anyone who has studied philosophy or criticism knows that in none of these areas there is anything firmly established and that they, even in their most essential parts, mainly involve endless disputes. Having studied them, I felt that courage of spirit was arising and strengthening in me, which did not dispose me to bow before this or that authority, but, on the contrary, prompted me to look for some new means for restoring the truth. After a number of studies and long reflections on this subject, when I reached the age of eighteen, it began to seem to me at last that an entirely new arena of thought had opened up before me; This consciousness delighted me immensely, and with the ardor characteristic of young people, I rejected every pleasure, every other activity, deciding to devote myself entirely to my thoughts. The career I had intended to choose, jurisprudence, became disgusting to me, and I began to think that the only path in which success was possible for me was to become a scholar and philosopher. This way of life gave me endless happiness for several months, but in September 1729 I felt that my original ardor was cooling and that I could no longer maintain my spirit at the height at which it had hitherto experienced the greatest pleasures.

At first, Hume attributed this decline of spirit to a manifestation of laziness and worked with redoubled diligence for nine months, but since this did not improve matters, he came to a different conclusion: he was strongly impressed by the wonderful images of virtue collected in the works of Cicero, Seneca and Plutarch , and the young man did not spare himself, trying to discipline his character, his will and subordinate them to reason.

“I tried,” Hume further says, “to strengthen my spirit by thinking about death, poverty, dishonor, suffering and other disasters of life. Without a doubt, all these reflections are very useful when added to active life, because in this case it becomes possible to act in accordance with our thoughts, and then these thoughts penetrate our soul, leaving a deep mark on it. But in a solitary, inactive life, they only scatter and exhaust the mind, because our spiritual powers, not meeting any resistance from the outside, seem to be lost in space - a sensation similar to what we experience when our hand strikes in the void.” Hume further says in the same letter: “I noticed that the moral philosophy of the ancients was distinguished by the same defect as their philosophy of nature, namely, that it was completely hypothetical, based more on inventions than on experience. Each philosopher turned only to the help of his imagination in order to establish the doctrine of virtue and happiness, but did not study human nature, and yet all theories of morality should be based on this study.”

Hume experienced a curious psychological crisis in that era, which he so simply and at the same time eloquently talks about in the letter we have cited. The young man, gifted with a bold flight of thought and a remarkable ability to criticize, noticed the weaknesses of the philosophical teachings he examined; to combine his observations and compose from them a systematic refutation of previous beliefs - for this the young philosopher found both the ability and sufficient confidence in his abilities. But the destroyed old buildings, when they fell, opened up a wide horizon, and the brave thinker rushed into this “new arena of thought,” trying to lay on it the foundation of such independent work, which would surpass all previous ones in its strength. But here all of Hume’s prudence showed itself, all of his inability to get carried away to the point of self-forgetfulness. While being critical of others, he did not spare himself; he understood perfectly well that, leading a solitary contemplative life and not having sufficient knowledge in the field of experimental sciences, he would not be able to create such moral theories that would be based on the study of human nature. There was still a lot to learn and a lot to learn, and the youthful imagination was already anticipating all the charm of the creative work of thought... In such a mood, disappointment in one’s own qualities, mental and moral, is also understandable, and a sluggish, indifferent attitude towards the work, the result of which so deceived Hume, is also understandable.

Knight characterizes this mood of the young Hume as “mental frailty”; It seems to me that in this case the truth is on the side of Huxley, who calls the apathy and abnormal state of mind of our philosopher a “crisis.” Yes, a crisis, after which a beneficial turning point took place in the patient’s body and the rapid and already non-stop development of Hume’s remarkable abilities began.

Chapter II

First trip to France; Hume's philosophical studies and their fruit - “Treatise on Human Nature”. The original fate of this work; Hume's authorial pride. - The second is Hume’s work - “Moral, Political and Literary Essays”. - Life in the house of the lords of Annendeley.

Heading from Bristol to France, Hume visited first of all Paris, then spent some time in Reims and finally settled in the small town of La Fleche, where he remained for two of the three years of his stay in France. Apparently, Hume was very pleased with the lifestyle he led in the secluded village he had chosen. According to him, here he managed to arrange for himself the regime that he had long and persistently sought. “I tried,” says Hume, “only to maintain my independence, and did not pay attention to anything other than improving my literary abilities.” However, from his refuge Hume obviously followed the events modern life, since in his first philosophical work and in the later “Experiences” we find thoughts regarding the essence of miracles and the possibility of performing them. These reasonings were caused by the fact that during Hume’s stay in Laflèche, public opinion in France was greatly excited by stories about miracles that took place in Paris at the grave of the Jansenist * abbot.

* Jansenism is a religious movement within Catholicism, close to Calvinism. - Ed.

Of course, Hume disputed both the possibility and reality of these miracles. Unfortunately, we have no further information about how Hume spent his time during his two-year stay in Laflèche. It is only known that at the age of twenty-five, Hume completed the great work “Treatise on Human Nature,” which constitutes Hume’s main and most valuable contribution to philosophical literature. Since, according to the author himself, he conceived and began this work while still living in Scotland, and then continued it in Reims, we will not be mistaken in assuming that in Laflèche Hume was engaged only in the final processing of his “Treatise,” that is, in the systematization of the material , its literary decoration, etc. Not without boasting, Hume says in one of his letters that he wrote his “Treatise on Human Nature” at the age of twenty-one to twenty-five years, a fact all the more surprising since the mentioned work is different remarkable merits: excellent literary form, incomparable simplicity and clarity of expression, combined with depth of thought. Certainly no philosophical work, so mature, so considered, and excellent in all its details, has been written by such a young author. It is remarkable that in this work Hume expressed the deepest, most original thoughts, so that his later works, perhaps more perfect in form and structure, are in content only pale copies of the powerful work with which Hume made his debut in the field of philosophical literature .

In September 1737, Hume went to London to work there for the publication of his Treatise. First of all, however, he set about revising and reworking his work; He completely released some parts of it, changed others greatly, doing all this in order to prepare the best possible reception for his brainchild. To his relative, Henry Hom, he wrote the following about this: “I am currently engaged in castrating my book, that is, cutting off its best parts, trying to make it as less offensive as possible.” In another letter to Henry, he says: “I cannot trust my opinion (of the Treatise) both because it concerns me too closely, and because it is extremely changeable, and I cannot in any way establish it “Sometimes I rise above the clouds, sometimes I am tormented by doubts and fears.”

Finally, Hume entered into a formal agreement with the publisher John Noone and handed over his manuscript to him, and in September 1738 he retired to his family estate, there, in the silence of the village, to await news of his success or downfall. The first two volumes of Hume's work were published in January 1739, and a few months later it was already possible to state the complete failure that accompanied the birth of his first philosophical work. Hume speaks of this fact as follows in his autobiography: “Never has there been such an unfortunate literary enterprise as my essay “Treatise of Human Nature” turned out to be; it perished at its very birth; he did not even have the honor of stirring up the murmurs of fanatics against himself. But since by my nature I was inclined to fun and hope, I soon recovered from this first blow and, living in the village, took up my studies with new fervor.”

There is, however, reason to think that Hume did not so easily come to terms with the failure of his first published work. In a letter dated June 1, 1739, he says: “I am no longer at all inclined to write such works, since I received news from London about the mediocre success of my philosophy - very mediocre if judged by the sale of the book and if my publisher trustworthy." Hume was especially upset by the indifferent and disdainful attitude of society towards the Treatise on Human Nature. The author understood how many bold and new thoughts his work contained; he expected that they would produce a whole revolution in the world of mental interests; he prepared for the indignation of the obscurantists and came up with means and weapons in advance to combat them. The proud philosopher, who immediately decided to make a revolution in the field of thought, did not expect any of this. Quiet, sluggish sales of the published parts of the Treatise, complete indifference of readers, silencing of critics... Hume had to make sure through bitter experience that the novelty of his thoughts and views was too far ahead of the development of his contemporaries and that most of them did not find anything in common, no connection between the reasoning of the new philosopher and his beliefs and views. All this disappointed Hume so much and so dampened his philosophical fervor that he decided to temporarily change his occupation and turned to the study of history and social issues.

However, Hume's Treatise was not completely passed over in silence. In the November 1739 publication entitled “History of the Works of the Learned,” a critical article appeared on Hume’s work, which treated this work carefully and with great respect. The author of this note is unknown, but he was probably a knowledgeable and insightful person; He assessed Hume’s work as follows: “This work is marked by undoubted and great talent; it reveals the inspiration of a genius, but a genius that is still young and insufficiently experienced.” Hume was very dissatisfied with this assessment and in a letter to Hutcheson complains about the criticism given, calling it “offensive.”

In the history of the initial failures of the Treatise on Human Nature, the saddest thing is not that this work was not understood by contemporaries and critics; it is surprising and offensive to notice in Hume a thirst for fame, an obvious desire to achieve the approval of the public, even if it was the approval of the ignorant majority, and not a chosen minority. In his desire to be understood and approved, Hume, as we have seen, even decided to “disfigure” his work. He made the first changes to it back in 1737, sending the manuscript of his “Treatise” to Bishop Betler for review. He mentions these changes in a letter to Henry Hom and adds: “There is a share of cowardice in this, for which I blame myself; but I decided not to be an enthusiast in philosophy, especially since I myself condemn other enthusiasts.” In the end, Hume became convinced that all his tricks and efforts in this direction were in vain and that the success of his philosophical work remained so far an unfulfilled dream. In 1739, he wrote from his estate: “Now I am dissatisfied with myself, but, no doubt, I will soon be dissatisfied with the whole world, like other failed authors.”

Hume spent the next six years (1739-1745) at the Ninewells estate in the company of his relatives. Indulging in ordinary scientific pursuits, Hume changed the field of his research: from the purely intellectual sphere, to which the two volumes of the Treatise he published belonged, he now turned to ethics and began to solve moral problems. The fruit of these studies was the third volume of the Treatise, published in 1740. In terms of the interest of the plot itself and the talented treatment of it, the most remarkable chapter is in which Hume talks about justice and injustice, while clarifying the origin of the concepts of law and property.

Having barely completed the publication of a three-volume treatise, Hume again appears before the public as the author of the first volume of Essays, Moral and Political, published in 1741; a year later the first volume was followed by the second. It is interesting that this publication remained anonymous for a long time: Hume did not want to give his new work a name that would remind everyone of the author of the Treatise, who had such an unsuccessful start to his literary career. Hume's "Experiments" were a great success; Already in June 1742, their first edition was sold out, and demand was increasing, so that in 1748 a second edition of this work appeared, with two chapters published and three new ones added. In the second edition, Hume called his work: “Essays Moral, Political and Literary”, and under this title Hume’s new work went through several successive editions. So, the persistent author achieved the desired success, which this time was expressed both in the rapid sale of publications and in the approval of Hume’s friends and acquaintances. Bishop Betler, who passed over the Treatise of Human Nature in silence, warmly recommended Hume's new work as an exemplary literary work, written “clearly, powerfully, and full of brilliance, interest, and wit.” Indeed, one cannot help but recognize the great merits of Hume’s Essays: in some of them he expresses such weighty economic judgments and so successfully connects them with wisely resolved political questions that with these reflections he prepares the way for that work of Adam Smith (“On the Wealth of the People” ), which is considered a major contribution to the economic literature of the eighteenth century. But as a philosophical work, the Essays are far inferior to the Treatise, and Hume’s contemporary philosophers turned out to be bad critics, not recognizing the serious significance that his first philosophical work had, and preferring the Essays to him for their literary merits and less harsh views.

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--

Having published his second literary work, Hume spent two or three years at Ninewells, reading and improving in Greek, which he admitted he did not know well enough. At this time, Hume was surrounded by the most brilliant representatives of the Scottish intelligentsia of his day; among his friends there were many people who enjoyed great fame in the literary and political world, and David Hume gladly devoted his leisure time to direct communication or correspondence with new friends. However, there was something in Hume’s position that made him think very much: despite the success of the Essays, he still did not have such a certain income that would provide him with a modest but independent life. The efforts of Hume's friends to provide him with a vacant chair of moral philosophy at the University of Edinburgh ended in failure, and in 1745 Hume accepted the offer of the young Marquis Annendel to live with him as a mentor and director of his education. A strange and difficult life befell Hume during the year he spent on the estates of the Annendeley family. Hume's pupil was a pitiful, half-crazed young man, who, of course, could neither be taught nor developed as seriously as the philosopher educator would have wished. In addition, the uncle of the young marquis, who was in charge of all the affairs of the lords of Annendeley, turned out to be a very bad person, and Hume had to endure many unfair insults from him. Without a doubt, one material need and the need to earn money forced Hume to lead such a difficult lifestyle for a whole year, but, unfortunately, his labors and patience were not rewarded in any sense: the Annendels did not pay Hume the agreed salary, and he had to live a long life. the process to get their earnings from the rich, whose estates were valued in the millions. It is interesting that Hume pursued this process with such persistence, which, apparently, was poorly motivated by the insignificant amount that constituted Hume's salary from the Annendales. This surprised Hume’s friends all the more because the process dragged on until 1761, and at that time our philosopher was already a well-to-do man, and anyone else in his place would have long ago given up on such an insignificant lawsuit. But Hume had a highly developed sense of legality and justice - that feeling that keeps a person from encroaching on everything that does not belong to him, but also encourages him to steadily defend his legal rights. Regarding the litigation with the Annendels, it is not even known whether Hume received the money due to him; but he won his case, that is, he defended his rights before the law, which was his main goal.

Chapter III

Military expedition of General Saint Clair. - Hume's Travels through Europe. - Publication of “Philosophical Experiments on the Human Mind.” - Death of Mrs. Hume. - Hume's Life in Edinburgh. - Publication of “An Inquiry into the Principles of Morality” and “Political Speeches.” - Election of Hume to the post of librarian of the Bar Society in Edinburgh. - Historical works of Hume. - Publication of the first volumes of the History of England. - Moving to London and returning to Edinburgh.

In 1746, General Saint-Clair, the head of a military expedition departing from England to Canada (but in fact limited to cruising around the coast of France), invited Hume to take the place of his secretary and legal adviser. Hume almost without hesitation accepted Saint-Clair's offer and thus joined the expedition, which pursued essentially dishonorable goals: raids on peaceful coastal residents and the destruction of their villages. The only benefit that Hume could derive from his participation in such an enterprise was the acquisition of experience in legal and political matters, which would later be very useful to him as a historian. In his letters to his sister and brother, Hume expresses his pleasure at being able to see a real “campaign”; but soon the philosopher became bored in his new surroundings, and he was strongly drawn to return to his dear book friends, to rural leisure and solitude.

At the end of the expedition, Hume returned to his relatives, who greeted the youngest member of their family with great cordiality, giving him complete opportunity to rest and freely engage in his favorite labors.

In 1748, the peaceful village life of Hume was disrupted for the second time by the invitation of Saint Clair. This time the general received an important military mission at the courts of Vienna and Turin; Having retained the best memories of Hume as an intelligent and active secretary, Saint-Clair urgently asked him to take up this position again. At first, Hume hesitated: he had to again part with a quiet refuge and his favorite books; but the consideration soon prevailed that for the intended historical works it would be extremely useful to become acquainted with what was happening in the courtly and diplomatic spheres, and Hume was once again distracted from scientific works in order to take an official position at the military embassy. Since Saint Clair soon appointed Hume as his adjutant, the philosopher had to wear a military uniform, which, according to contemporaries, did not suit his clumsy, corpulent figure at all.

Hume's journey with General St. Clair lasted about a year, and they managed to visit Holland, ride along the Rhine, visit Frankfurt, Vienna and then travel through the Tyrol to Turin. In the diary and letters that Hume sent from abroad to his brother, the philosopher remains true to himself: neither the beauty of nature, nor the majestic remains of medieval culture, nor wonderful works of art attracted the attention of Hume, who never said a single word about the miracles he saw . But he makes accurate and accurate observations of the life and life of those states through which his path lay. For example, about Germany he said: “If it ever unites, it will become the most powerful power.” This opinion turned out to be a real prediction of the events of modern history. According to Hume's historical and critical views, his trip with Saint Clair had an undoubted and, moreover, beneficial influence. Relations with other people's courts and familiarization with real political life showed Hume how much their internal forces meant in the life of a people; he became convinced that it was these forces, and not accidental successes on the battlefield, that created true development and progress in public life.

During Hume's stay in Italy, in 1748, his “Philosophical Essays concerning Human Understanding” were published, which later (in the third edition) received the title “An Inquiry concerning Human Understanding.” Human Understanding"), by which they are still known. The first edition of this work was anonymous; in the second edition, Hume gave his name, and later added a preface to this work, in which he expressed the desire that readers only look at this “Investigation” as a work expressing the feelings and philosophical principles of the author, and that it completely take the place of the “Treatise” , which, thus, was doomed to complete oblivion by the author himself. Here we encounter a very strange, but often repeated phenomenon: the author reveals both a lack of understanding of the true merits of his best work, and an inexplicable preference that he gives to another work, incomparably weaker. "An Inquiry Concerning the Human Mind" is an extract from the Treatise made by Hume in order to increase the popularity of his ideas. True, in terms of literary, accessible, and even elegant form, the Inquiry is superior to the Treatise; but this is the whole advantage of the former over the latter. In letters to his friend Gilbert Elliott, Hume says: “I think that the Philosophical Essays contain all the most important observations that you could find in the Treatise.” So I would ask you not to read this last one. By shortening and simplifying the arguments in it, I, in essence, make them more complete. “Addo dum minuo” (“by shortening, I add”). The philosophical principles are the same in both books.”

Hume was a thousand times wrong in this disdain for the Treatise and in his desire to replace it with an Inquiry, which, precisely as a philosophical work, is significantly inferior to Hume’s youthful work. Of course, it expresses both the feelings and philosophical principles of Hume, but this work is devoid of the methodological and scientific character that is so strictly maintained in the Treatise. Hume's thoughts in the Inquiry are expressed in scattered passages; they suffer from poverty and underdevelopment; their full importance will be felt only after reading the Treatise, which is captured with all the sincerity, all the originality and depth of the first work. “Philosophical Essays” were written by Hume in order to make his philosophical system as accessible to understanding as possible, that is, to vulgarize it, and with such an adaptation to the mental level of most readers it is necessary to sacrifice many, sometimes the best, features of scientific work. That is why, according to Pillon, Hume’s “Philosophical Essays” cannot in any way serve as a replacement for his “Treatise”; they should be considered only as an addition to it - an addition, it is true, very valuable in some respects.

The fate of Hume's new philosophical work was little better sad fate his "Treatise", and the author regrettably had to realize that he had not been able to erase the memory of his first work. Thus, Hume’s plans to revolutionize the world of thought failed; Hume’s contemporaries so poorly appreciated the works of genius that later brought him both worldwide fame and great significance in the history of philosophy.

Upon his return from a trip abroad in 1749, Hume settled in London, but the unexpected news of his mother’s death forced him to leave the capital of England and move back to his estate. Carlyle and Boyle, who witnessed the impression that the death of his mother made on Hume, say that the philosopher’s grief was very great and that they found him “shedding streams of tears.” Apparently, scientific studies did not dry out Hume’s heart, did not make him callous and incapable of tender feelings; The philosopher was only alien to that expansive lyricism that forces a person to understand his feelings, delve into their smallest shades and talk at length about each of these observations. Hume probably had a different opinion about such a disclosure of his intimate feelings; it must have seemed to him both useless and inappropriate; that is why in his autobiography he mentions his bereavement only in the following brief words: “In 1749, on the occasion of the death of my mother, I moved to my brother’s estate and lived there for two years.”

All this time Hume carried on a lively and extremely interesting correspondence with his friends, the most remarkable of whom was Gilbert Elliot; Despite the difference in philosophical views, Hume and Elliot were very friendly, and the exchange of their thoughts in letters constitutes a sample of remarkably interesting correspondence. Living in the village, Hume did not waste time; Taking advantage of the freedom and leisure afforded him, he wrote three remarkable essays: “Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals”, “Political Discourses”, “Dialogues concerning Natural” Religion"); the first two works were published in 1751, and the last was published only after the death of the author.

A two-year stay in the village this time led Hume to the conviction that the city is a real arena of activity for a scientist, as a result of which the philosopher finally left the village and moved to Edinburgh. Here he settled in Lawnmarket, renting an apartment in one of those old multi-storey buildings that to this day rise on both sides of the streets of old Edinburgh and attract the attention of tourists with their original appearance.

The most cheerful, bright mood of spirit accompanied this move of Hume to live in the capital of Scotland. This is what he wrote to Ramsey at that time: “Perhaps I, like others, could complain about my fate, but I will not do this, and if I did, I would consider myself very unreasonable. If my income does not change, then I will have 500 rubles* per year; In addition, I have a library worth 1000 rubles, a large supply of linen and dresses, and about 1000 rubles in my wallet. Add to this order, temperance, a spirit of independence, good health, good spirits and insatiable love to learning. Thanks to all this, I can count myself among the lucky ones and the darlings of fate; Thus, I am far from wanting to take out another ticket in life’s lottery, for there are few lots for which I would agree to exchange my own.”

* The Russian monetary unit is used here as the equivalent of the Scottish one at the then (1893) exchange rate. - Ed.

The very first winter Hume spent in Edinburgh was marked by a new defeat of his candidacy for the professorship. At the University of Glasgow, the chair of logic became vacant due to the appointment of Adam Smith as professor of ethics. Hume was a contender for the vacated seat, but again was not chosen, probably because it was not considered possible for such an outspoken atheist and skeptic to be entrusted with the education of youth. In the same year, that is, 1751, Hume published two works that he had written in the village: “An Inquiry into the Principles of Morals” and “Political Speeches.” The author expressed himself about the first of them as follows: “In my opinion, this is the best of all my historical, philosophical or literary works.” This work was not appreciated by Hume’s contemporaries, who did not share the philosopher’s views on benefit as a measure of moral acts, and it is precisely this defense of benefit that the “Inquiry into the Principles of Morals” is devoted to. This was not the fate of “Political Speeches” - this work gained quick and wide popularity; There have been several translations of it in French, which were published in Amsterdam, Berlin and Paris. In general, in Europe, “Political Speeches” created a great sensation and even caused the appearance of other works, among other things, Mirabeau’s book “The Friend of the People.” Burton says that Hume's Political Speeches may justly be called "the cradle of political economy," and that they contain the first, simplest, and most concise statement of the principles of that science.

In 1752, the Edinburgh Law Society elected Hume as its librarian; This title, willingly accepted by Hume, did not represent significant material benefits, since it was paid with only 400 rubles of an annual salary; but now Hume had at his disposal an extensive library (about 30,000 volumes), especially rich in books of historical content - a circumstance that was extremely important for Hume, who decided to write the history of England and actually did this work for eleven years. The circumstances that accompanied Hume's election to the position of librarian are interesting. As soon as word spread about the possibility of granting Hume this humble position, indignant outcries arose in Edinburgh society against the candidacy of such a wicked man. Nevertheless, Hume was elected by a huge majority. This is what he wrote about this to Dr. Klefen in a letter dated February 4, 1752: “The most surprising thing is that accusing me of evil spirits did not prevent the ladies from decisively speaking out for me; I owe much of my success to their intercession... On all sides they insisted that a competition was taking place between deists and Christians; when the first news of my success spread in the theater, everyone whispered that the Christians had been defeated.” Hume's opponents, dissatisfied with the success that had befallen him, began to slander him, accusing him of self-interest, which supposedly was the only thing that prompted him to accept the position of librarian; Hume most generously refuted this accusation, donating his entire salary in favor of the born blind poet Blacklock.

Having finally settled in Edinburgh, dividing his work between activities related to his new position, reading and processing the history of Great Britain, Hume also found time to communicate with his friends, who formed a close and very select circle around him. One of the most remarkable people among them was, without a doubt, Adam Smith. His acquaintance with Hume arose during the school years of the later famous political economist, at a time when he was no more than seventeen years old. A professor at the University of Glasgow, Hutcheson, drew attention to A. Smith as the most outstanding student in his class, and told Hume about him, saying that he would do well if he sent this talented young man a copy of his “Treatise”; Hume listened to this advice, and thus first an acquaintance and then a friendship began between two remarkable thinkers of the 18th century.

Hume himself gives a very interesting description of his life situation and his aspirations at the described time in a letter to Dr. Klefen. “It has been seven months since I started my own hearth and organized a family consisting of its head, that is, me, and two subordinate members - a maid and a cat. My sister joined me and now we live together. Being moderate, I can enjoy purity, warmth and light, prosperity and pleasure. What else do you want? Independence? I possess it to the highest degree. Glory? But it is completely undesirable. Have a good reception? It will come in time. Wives? This is not a necessary need of life. Books? These are really necessary; but I have more of them than I can read. In short, there is no essential good that I do not possess to a greater or lesser extent; therefore, without much philosophical effort, I can be calm and content...

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--

Since there is no happiness without work, I began work to which I will have to devote several years and which gives me great pleasure. This is “British (Scottish prejudices did not allow Hume to say English. - M.S.) history,” from the union of the kingdoms to the present. I have already finished the reign of King James. My friends assure me that my work is successful. You know, of course, that in English Parnassus the most vacant place is the place of history. Style, assessment, impartiality, diligence - our historians leave all this to be desired; As for me, I write my essay very concisely, following the model of ancient historians...”

In his autobiography, Hume says the following about his historical works: “I set out to write English history, but was frightened by the thought of writing such a history that begins 1700 years ago; therefore I began it with the accession to the throne of the house of Stuart, that is, from such a time when it seemed to me that the tendency to indignation especially contributed to the destruction of prejudices and errors. I confess that I was full of hope about the success of this work, thinking to be the kind of historian who pays no attention to either the strength or the noise of popular prejudices. And since these intentions could be understood by everyone, I expected that my essay would be approved by all people. But in these hopes I was inhumanly deceived, since a nationwide rumor arose against me, discrediting my work.”

Both of the above extracts are extremely typical. From them it is clear that, no matter what work Hume undertook, all his efforts were directed towards one goal - the possibility of such a beneficial effect on the minds of readers, which would achieve the eradication of prejudices, incorrect views, preconceived opinions and superstitions - in a word, everything that the correct development of thought is inhibited, which clouds common sense and clear concepts. For this purpose, Hume began his history precisely from that era, which, in his opinion, was characterized by the first unrest and excitement against mental routine; because of the same considerations, he ended the third and last volume of the history with the accession to the throne of the Hanoverian dynasty. “I dare not come closer to the present time,” says Hume. Of course, further approach was dangerous and even impossible for the historian, who did not limit himself to a simple presentation of facts, but with the merciless severity of an insightful critic pointed out the dark sides of state and public life. Also interesting is Hume’s remark, which refers, in fact, to the form of his historical work: “I write concisely, following the model of the ancient historians.” How did those youthful delights with which sixteen-year-old Hume read Plutarch and Tacitus... The authors chosen by his leaders in that early era, Hume considers models even in adulthood, with the full development of his rich mental abilities. You don’t know what to be more surprised about here: whether the young men’s ability to choose the most suitable and suitable material for future independent work; or the constancy of a philosopher who remains faithful for decades to those drives that arose in him from the first years of his conscious mental life!

The first volume of the History of Great Britain, containing the reigns of James I and Charles I, was published by Hume in 1754. The sale of this book, especially in Edinburgh, was not bad, and if the only desire of the author was to gain more and more fame, then he could consider his goal achieved. But this was not enough for Hume: as we have already seen, he wanted to be understood and approved, and in this regard he was bitterly disappointed. In Hume’s autobiography we find the following lines relevant here: “I was greeted with cries of censure, anger and even hatred; English, Scots and Irish, Whigs and Tories, clergy and sectarians, free thinkers and saints, patriots and court flatterers - all united in their rage against the man who was not afraid to shed a tear of regret over the death of Charles I and the Earl of Strafford. When the first fervor of their anger cooled down, something even more murderous happened: the book was consigned to oblivion. Miller (publisher) informs me that within twelve months he sold only 45 copies. Really, I don’t know if in all three kingdoms there is at least one person prominent in position or in science education, who would treat my book with tolerance. However, I must make exceptions in favor of the primates of England, Dr. Gerring, and Ireland, Dr. Stone - amazing exceptions. These high-ranking clergy honored me with messages of a far from discouraging nature.”

*Meaning political parties- Whigs and Tories, on the basis of which in the 19th century the Liberal and Conservative parties were formed, respectively. - Ed.

It may indeed seem strange that David Hume received the approval and praise of two bishops. However, this fact is not as incomprehensible as it seems at first glance; the matter is explained by the fact that Hume was not such an impartial, objective historian as he characterizes himself when he says: “I have the audacity to think that I do not belong to any party and do not pursue any tendency.” It was precisely this tendency that he had: having come to the conviction that democracy is less intelligent than aristocracy, and that popular undertakings, rooted only in incoming enthusiasm, are often inconsistent with either the nature of things or the demands of reason, Hume gradually began to give his sympathies with the party of aristocrats and finally became an open royalist. Here is the opinion of the famous Macaulay about Hume as a historian: “In Hume’s historical paintings, despite the fact that they represent a delightful work of a master’s hand, all the light colors belong to the Tories, and all the shadows belong to the Whigs.”

In 1756, Hume published the second volume of his History, and a year later began work on its third volume. Notifying his publisher Miller about these activities, Hume rejoices that he has finally reached the reign of Henry VII, from which, in fact, a new story begins. “It’s a pity,” he says, “that I didn’t start my work precisely from this era: then I would have avoided many of the criticisms raised about its first two volumes. In the same year (1757), Hume published four dissertations: “Four Dissertations: the Natural History of Religion, of the Passions, of Tragedy, of the Standard of Taste.” .

Soon afterwards Hume wrote a rather laconic letter to the Dean of the Edinburgh Law Society, informing him that the position of librarian was not so suited to his habits and tastes that he could remain in it; moreover, she made him, if not enemies, then opponents in the community of lawyers.

Freed from his duties as a librarian, Hume began to worry about leaving Edinburgh and moving to London, “probably forever,” he wrote to his friend Clephen. It is quite difficult to understand what reasons prompted Hume to part with his beloved homeland and exchange it for England, for which he felt strong antipathy. From Hume's correspondence with Robertson dating back to this time, it is clear that the philosopher's departure from Scotland had a great connection with his brother's wedding and that, despite all his desire to avoid a trip to London, Hume could not stay at home. However, not for long more than a year, he lived in the capital of England; Probably, time took its toll, the reasons that caused Hume’s departure from Edinburgh little by little lost their strength, and love for his homeland and longing for it finally prompted him to return home. In November 1759 we see Hume again in Edinburgh, busy revising and correcting the first volumes of his History. Meanwhile, the latest works of the Scottish philosopher, mainly his historical works, were gaining more and more popularity abroad. In France, they appeared in several translations and found fine connoisseurs among educated representatives and representatives of Parisian salons. Madame Bufflet, who had the fame of the first beauty of Paris, became one of Hume's ardent admirers. Having read the history of the House of Stuart written by Hume, this Parisian lioness was so delighted that she wrote a fiery message to the author, in which she characterized Hume’s book as “a terra fecunda * of morals and teachings.” Hume answered his admirer very kindly, but with restraint; In response to Madame Bufflet’s request to come to Paris, he expressed the hope that over time he would take advantage of this invitation. The main occupation during this period of Hume's stay in his homeland was the correction and continuation of historical works; in March 1763 he reported to Gilbert Elliot that he had succeeded in acquitting James I of the charge of persecuting the Puritans and that he had restored the reputation of James II and the English court. That same month, Hume informed Miller that he did not abandon his intention to continue his History.

* Fertile soil (lat.). - Ed.

Chapter IV

Hume's life in Paris as secretary of the embassy. - Acquaintance with J. J. Rousseau. - Homecoming. - New administrative post given to Hume. - Last years of life in Edinburgh. - Illness and death of Hume

In 1763, a new and very important change occurred in Hume’s fate: from the Marquis of Hertford, appointed to the post of English envoy to France, he received an invitation to take the place of secretary of the embassy. Not knowing Hume personally, the Marquis had heard a lot about his administrative abilities from General St. Clair; and the lasting, albeit slow, success of Hume's philosophical and historical works had by this time made his name known throughout England; Nevertheless, the invitation of the Marquis did not so much please as it surprised Hume: “It is absolutely incomprehensible how it happened that such a post was offered to a philosopher, a writer, a man in no way a courtier and with the most independent spirit,” Hume wrote in one of his letters. At first he rejected the honorable offer of the envoy, but then changed his mind: for a philosopher with an unflattering reputation as an atheist and wicked, it was very important to enter into close relations with the Marquis of Hertford, who was reputed to be a virtuous and pious man. In addition, significant monetary benefits were associated with the position of embassy secretary promised to Hume. Taking everything into account, the philosopher agreed to Hertford's proposal and in September 1763 expressed to Adam Smith the sincere regret with which he exchanged calm, solitude and independence for a life of anxiety, noisy and full of new responsibilities. “I have put down such deep roots in Scotland that I can hardly imagine myself being transported anywhere,” says Hume. In fact, it turned out that such a brilliant reception and honor awaited the Scottish philosopher in Paris, thanks to which the serious thinker imagined himself among people close to him in spirit and convictions. Endlessly admiring the intelligence, development and subtle literary taste of the Parisians, Hume at one time even dreamed of completely exchanging his homeland for hospitable France. This is what he writes about this in his autobiography: “Living in Paris, you experience great pleasure from a community with intelligent, learned and polite people, of whom there are more here than anywhere else in the whole world. Therefore, at one time I intended to remain living there until my death.” This decision of the philosopher, apparently too rash and not characteristic of his reasonable nature, should not surprise us: it has long been known that “our homeland is where we are understood and loved.” Who could appreciate every manifestation of like-mindedness and sympathy, if not Hume, whom his compatriots so long and stubbornly tormented with everything that can be thought of that is offensive and bitter for a person and for a writer - unfair criticism, indifference, oblivion, accusations of the most immoral intentions, finally, just petty gossip and slander. Let's see what determined the completely opposite attitude of the French towards Hume.

In the second half of the 18th century, the high society of Paris represented an original and characteristic mixture of the most heterogeneous elements. The most noticeable, outstanding people in it were ignorant courtesans, along with such representatives of intelligence and genius as d'Alembert, Montesquieu, Diderot, Condorcet and others. The interest of the day focused on the person who managed to attract attention with something new, before This was unprecedented, no matter whether it was an extraordinary good or bad distinction. Aristocratic salons served as a haven of learning and luxury, talent and vulgarity, brilliant cold secularism and Christian philanthropy... All this was incomprehensibly intertwined and huddled under the shadow of a code of the most debauched morality. New sensations, interesting fun - that’s all that the French aristocrats of that time craved; in this arena of emptiness and vanity, a new philosopher appears, marked by the respect of the most learned and famous Parisians (with d'Alembert and Helvetius, Hume was in active correspondence even before arriving in France) ; rumors about the novelty and boldness of his views had already penetrated into Europe; the English Pietists certified him as a disseminator of harmful atheistic teachings - all this was more than enough to arouse the enthusiasm of that nation, which, as Hume aptly put it, “owing to the rebellious spirit constantly living in it, everything is carried to an extreme in one direction or another.”

The Scottish philosopher had to experience in his own person this ability of the French to get carried away to the extreme. His appearance in Paris was marked by a number of the most unexpected ovations. Writers, aristocrats, courtiers, and finally the Dauphin himself (son of Louis XV) competed with each other in honoring the foreigner philosopher. The most distinguished ladies vied with each other to invite Hume to their receptions and celebrated if they managed to appear in public accompanied by a new celebrity. One of the eyewitnesses of these triumphs of Hume, Lord Charlemont, says that “often in the Opera box the broad, insignificant face of fat David was exposed between two lovely female faces.” But all the courtship and ingratiation of the Parisians and Parisian women were in vain: nothing could turn Humu’s head, with his cold temperament and prudence that never left him. In letters to his homeland, he speaks about the first time of his stay in Paris as follows: “During the two days spent in Fontainebleau, I endured as much flattery as was unlikely to befall anyone in such a period of time... I now eat only ambrosia , I revel only in nectar, inhale only incense and trample underfoot only flowers... The luxury and entertainment that surrounds me gives me more trouble than pleasure.”

As might have been expected, however, Hume's triumphs soon came to an end; the visitor managed to lose interest in the novelty, he was left alone, and then, in fact, that period of interesting acquaintances and friendly relations with truly remarkable people began for him, which gave Hume such complete satisfaction and even inspired him with the desire to make France his second fatherland. As if on purpose, it happened that, even while living in Paris, Hume had every reason to be indignant at the ingratitude and injustice towards him of the English government. The fact is that the post of secretary of the embassy to which Hume was invited was, in fact, not vacant: officially it was listed as Mr. Bournby, a very incapable and lazy man, who, while remaining in London, received a significant salary for nothing (12 thousand rubles a year) , while Hume in Paris performed all the duties of secretary of the embassy. The only thing Hertford managed to obtain for Hume as a reward was a temporary pension of 2,000 rubles. per year and a promise to give him the position of secretary as soon as it became available. But since this appointment was very slow, Hume more than once expressed indignation and regret about his disappointed hopes. He wrote the following about this to Gilbert Elliot: “I am used to receiving only insults and troubles from my homeland, but if this continues like this, then ingrata patria ne ossa quidem habebis (ungrateful fatherland, you won’t even have my bones).”

In general, during his stay in Paris, Hume expressed such a preference for the French over his compatriots and so sharply attacked the English for their barbaric attitude towards literature and for their cold temperament that he sometimes provoked rebuff from his old friends at home. So, Elliot wrote to him: “Love the French as much as you want, but above all continue to be an Englishman.” Hume did not leave this advice without objection: “Can you seriously speak in this way? Am I or you English? I am a cosmopolitan, but if I had to choose my own fatherland, I would choose the country in which I live now.” A few years later, Hume changed his mind about Paris, finding life there too disturbing and unsuitable for an elderly person, so that the Scottish philosopher, without regret, subsequently exchanged the brilliant Parisian light for the modest circle of his Edinburgh friends; but antipathy, or rather, some kind of hatred for the British, and especially for the residents of London, remained in him throughout his life. It's hard to even explain this feeling; partly it could be caused by resentment, hidden but not forgotten by the proud author after the poor reception of his works; but there is no doubt that a significant amount of bitterness in this case should be attributed to Hume’s provincialism, to the fact that he was brought up and lived in simple conditions, free from those decencies and restrictions that are so abundant in the code of London secularism. That is why he always felt awkward among the inhabitants of the English capital and why, on the contrary, he liked the freedom and ease in the way Parisians treated him.

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--

In 1765, Hume was finally approved as secretary of the embassy and subsequently replaced even the envoy, since Lord Hertford received another appointment and left for England. Sincerely loving his secretary and appreciating his abilities, the former envoy procured for him a very advantageous and very quiet position; but, to his credit, Hume flatly refused to accept such a sinecure, which “smacks of greed and predation.” Having stayed in Paris until the beginning of 1766, Hume left for his homeland, which he did not leave until his death.

One cannot pass over in silence an episode relating to the time we are describing in Hume’s life - namely, his acquaintance with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Back in 1761, Lord Marshall, having met with Rousseau in Neuchâtel, advised him to change the place of his exile to England and asked Hume to take part in the poor emigrant. Madame Bufflet, for her part, wrote to Hume about Rousseau as a remarkable person. Following these requests, as well as the impulse of his own kind heart, Hume wrote to Rousseau, cordially inviting him to his fatherland and offering him shelter in his home. But Rousseau's move to England took place only a few years later. In 1766, Hume met Rousseau in France and, leaving there at the end of his service at the embassy, ​​took with him French philosopher. At first, Hume was completely fascinated by his new friend and compared him with Socrates, finding at the same time that Rousseau was even more brilliant than the ancient Greek philosopher. In February 1766, Hume wrote to his brother: “Rousseau is the most modest, meek, well-bred, generous and warm-hearted man I have ever met in my life.” He further described Rousseau as the most wonderful person in the world and added that he “loved him very much.” But soon Hume realized who he was dealing with. Despite his undoubted talent, Rousseau was far from being a modest, well-mannered, or generous person. In a strange way, he combined originality of mind and flashes of real madness, brilliant abilities and petty vanity, subtle insight and pompous arrogance of views. All this was far from consistent with Hume’s ideal idea of ​​him.

Upon arrival in England, Hume began to work on setting up a shelter for his new friend and finally found him refuge in one of the cities of Derbyshire. However, Rousseau was not content for long with the comforts and peace provided to him. In essence, he was looking in England not for peaceful solitude, but for fame, a ceremonial reception, the opportunity to become the hero of the day. Finally convinced that all these were vain, unrealizable hopes, Rousseau, with all the vehemence of an irritable man, attacked Hume, the culprit behind his unsuccessful resettlement to England. Rousseau accused Hume of hostility towards him, and even of a conspiracy with other persons, allegedly drawn up for the purpose of ruining the defenseless emigrant. Hume endured all these antics of the vain Frenchman with amazing patience, considering him rather an abnormal person than a worthless person. Later, Rousseau attempted a weak justification, but what kind? - Instead of repenting of his behavior, he attributed it to the influence of the foggy climate of England. This is how the friendship of these two thinkers, who were too different both in temperament and in convictions, ended sadly so that sooner or later a clash and even a complete rupture did not occur between them. But one cannot help but admit that the best role in this sad story fell to the lot of a good-natured, reasonable, honest and compliant Scot in his sympathies, and the worst fell to the lot of a vain, irritable and eccentric Frenchman.

Upon Hume's return from France, a new invitation to a prominent administrative post in London awaited him: the philosopher was offered the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Scotland. Hume served for about two years in this new position, which was accompanied by not particularly burdensome duties; This is what he wrote about these activities: “My way of life is very monotonous, but not at all unpleasant. From ten to three hours I am at the secretariat; At this time, dispatches are received telling me all the secrets of not only our kingdom, but also of Europe, Asia, Africa and America. I almost never have anything to do in a hurry, and I always have enough free time to pick up a book, write a letter, or chat with a friend who is visiting me; Finally, from lunch until the night, I am the complete master of my time. If you add to this that the person with whom I have chiefly, if not exclusively, to deal is the most reasonable man imaginable, then you will understand, of course, that I have no reason to complain. Nevertheless, I will not regret when this service comes to an end, because my highest happiness, my complete satisfaction lies in reading, walking, dreaming, thinking.”

Hume's service soon came to an end, and in 1769 we see him again in Edinburgh, happy with his return to his homeland and intending to spend the rest of his life in calm and pleasant contentment, enjoying all the benefits that a significant fortune could bring him (10,000 rubles of annual income ), acquired by him by this time. Having settled in Edinburgh and finally deciding to live here until his death, Hume began building a house for himself to his liking. This building was erected in a part of the city that was barely being developed and was located right at the beginning of a new street; one witty Edinburgh young lady inscribed the words “St. David’s Street” on Hume’s house, thus the name of this hitherto nameless street was christened. They say that when the maid Yuma complained to her master about this trick of the flighty miss, the philosopher replied: “It doesn’t matter, my dear, in the old days many good people were made saints.” For the next six years, the house in St. David's Street served as the center of unity for the most refined and brilliant Edinburgh society. If we remember that the members of this circle were, among other things, Adam Smith, Gilbert Elliott, Mackenzie, Henry Home and other true and enlightened friends of the famous Scottish philosopher, then it will become clear to us why he recalled without regret the more brilliant, but less close and friendly circles in London and Paris.

The last years of Hume’s life passed quietly, but at the same time joyfully, and a fatal illness crept up on him unnoticed. In 1775, the philosopher felt that his health had deteriorated greatly and that he could no longer get rid of the illness that had taken hold of him. With complete self-control, he set about those matters with which he was supposed to complete his earthly calculations. First of all, Hume wrote a spiritual will, with which he refused the main part of his fortune (60,000 rubles) to his brother, sister and nephews; in addition, he left significant sums to his friends: Adam Smith, Ferguson and d'Alembert; He appointed Adam Smith as his literary executor, instructing him to publish “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.” Having completed his will, Hume set about implementing his long-standing intention - to autobiography. A curious document came out this time from the pen of a philosopher: this work bears the stamp of such objectivity, which can hardly be found in the author’s message about himself. Hume always limits himself to a strict and very concise presentation of facts, occasionally explaining them laconically meaning; but about feelings, about lyrical digressions, in a word, about anything exclusively subjective, there is no mention in this entire work. Even the very desire to write his autobiography seems to Hume an unforgivable pretension and vanity, and at the very beginning of it he explains to the readers the reasons that brought her into the world: “It’s hard to talk about yourself for a long time without boasting, so I describe my life only briefly. True, one can mistake the very intention of writing my autobiography as a certain kind of vanity, but this story will contain nothing more than the history of my writings. In fact, almost my entire life was spent in scientific works and studies.” As Hume reflected in this, he put the highest interest and main goal of his life in serving science. Only because he dares to talk briefly about himself is that all his forces, his whole life were devoted to society, constitute his property, and therefore Hume’s “history of writings,” in the opinion of the author himself, is of interest both to his contemporaries and to posterity. There is something touching and majestic in this reasoning of a remarkable thinker who deliberately obscures his personal self, exposing his major contribution to science, and does this only because he clearly understands all the benefits that a reminder of the remarkable philosophical and literary works of a dying writer.

No less interesting and characteristic is the end of Hume's autobiography, which represents the most reasonable and philosophically calm farewell to life that one has ever read. “Despite the obvious exhaustion of my body,” writes Hume, “I never, not for one minute, felt despondency in my soul; Thus, if I had to say what time I consider to be the best in my life, then I would point precisely to this last period... In fact, I have never experienced more fervor in my studies, nor more gaiety in a pleasant company. Nevertheless, I find that a man who dies at 65 years of age is only freed from a few years of decrepitude; and although under some circumstances I could hope that I would see my scientific glory in greater splendor than it has been so far, I know that I would not enjoy this happiness for long, which is why it is difficult to find a person who would be attached to life smaller than me."

Meanwhile, Hume's illness intensified, and Edinburgh doctors decided that he should change his lifestyle and experience the effects of mineral waters. Hume listened to this advice and went to the town of Bath, located near London and famous for its healing springs. However, the treatment did not help, and in June 1776 Hume wrote from Bad: “In a few days I am leaving here, since the waters did not bring me relief ... The real cause of my illness is now discovered - it is my liver.” Soon Hume returned to Edinburgh, gathered his best friends for the last time for the evening and wrote the following letter to his brother: “Dear brother, Dr. Black told me with regret, as befits a sensitive person, that I would soon die; this was not unpleasant news for me.” Adam Smith and doctors Kelen and Black testify that Hume spoke about death calmly, even cheerfully, and did not reveal the slightest impatience or murmur. Hume died on August 25, 1776, and a few days later his body, accompanied by a huge crowd, attracted partly by curiosity, partly by deep sympathy for the deceased, was buried in the old cemetery, located on the southern slope of the hill, from the top of which there is a wonderful view of Edinburgh and its neighborhood. In the east flows the River Forth, and beyond it are the blue ridges of the Scottish mountains. From the west stands the bold outline of Castle Rock with the old part of Edinburgh, and at the foot of the hill, from the labyrinth of cramped streets, comes the dull noise: the response of the active city population. Feeling the approach of death, Hume himself chose this cemetery as the place of his burial; It is unlikely that his choice was accidental - it seems to us that Huxley’s guesses are fair that the brilliant philosopher and historian deliberately chose for eternal peace that place where the kingdom of nature and the kingdom of man are so surprisingly close and juxtaposed, constituting something unified - the whole local world, in which everything is subject to the same laws, and everything in its essence remains a mystery, despite the bold attempts of the human mind to penetrate into it.

Hume bequeathed the following inscription on his tombstone: “David Hume. Born April 26, 1711, died August 25, 1776." “I leave it to posterity,” he said, “to add the rest.” A remarkable thinker and an impeccably moral person - this is how we would complement the modest epitaph on the monument to the great Scot.

Chapter V

The influence of Locke, Bacon, the ancient skeptics and Newton on Hume's philosophy. - Hume's doctrine of the origin of knowledge. - Hume's ethics. - His political and economic views. - Characteristics of Hume’s historical works. - Personality characteristics of Hume

In the 17th and especially the 18th centuries, one of the favorite philosophical questions was the question of the origin of ideas, and then the origin and meaning of knowledge. The Englishman Locke, who lived from 1632 to 1704, worked a lot to resolve these important issues. In his main work, “An Essay concerning human understanding,” he makes an attempt to investigate the beginning of human knowledge. Let us briefly summarize the essence of these arguments, since only after becoming familiar with Locke’s teachings will we understand the reasons that gave rise to the emergence of Hume’s philosophical doctrine.

Locke argued that the mind itself is empty, like an empty room; all he possesses is the ability to receive impressions from the external world; thus, our life begins with sensations. Slowly, as a result of prolonged exposure to sensations, we learn to relate them to external objects and accept these objects as the causes of the impressions themselves. Consequently, all our knowledge comes from sensations; innate ideas do not exist at all. As a matter of fact, according to Locke’s teaching, there are two direct sources of acquiring knowledge: sensation, or sensory perception, and reflection, or internal perception; in the first case, we perceive external objects through sensory sensations; in the second case, knowledge, or the acquisition of an idea, is the result of our internal observations of the sensations that we experience. Thus, the idea of ​​reflection arises from the idea of ​​sensation, and this latter comes directly from sensation. Locke expressed it in these words: “No idea can come into the mind until the senses bring it there.” Ideas can be simple or complex; Some of the simple ideas, for example, the idea of ​​color, smell, are introduced into the mind by one sense; others, such as the idea of ​​extension, by several senses; some, for example, the idea of ​​thinking, wanting, are acquired by us solely through reflection; others, such as the idea of ​​force, by combining sensation with reflection. These simple materials of knowledge can enter into infinitely varied connections with each other, then complex ideas are formed, which are divided into three classes: modifications (modes), substances and relationships. What is especially important for the philosopher is how Locke explains the idea of ​​substance; he says: “Not being able to imagine how they can simple ideas exist in themselves, we are accustomed to presuppose a certain substratum in which they exist and which we therefore call substance.” This substance, according to Locke’s teaching, is outside of us, but its essence is unknown to us. The assumption of this independent objective meaning of substance is a great inconsistency on Locke’s part, introducing a bifurcation into his theory of the origin of ideas.

Locke's merits should be recognized as especially important for empirical psychology; the very expulsion of “innate ideas” was a bold step towards clearly recognizing the limits of human knowledge and getting out of the vague philosophical concepts of the past. According to Locke's teachings, the human soul, which in early childhood represents a “tabula rasa” (blank slate), perceives throughout life a whole series of impressions, as if imprinted on this slate. The perception of these impressions is a process that occurs without our participation; but this passivity will serve no purpose if we want to understand the impression received, interpret it or remember it. This requires active exercise of the mind. If we do not make this effort, then our knowledge will be completely chaotic.

From a summary of Locke's doctrine of knowledge it is clear that great value has experience for it: based on it, a person begins to understand where those sensations come from, which by their influence on him create his entire inner world of knowledge; This is why Locke's teaching is called empiricism, and his psychology is called empirical.

Hume inherited this experimental direction of philosophy from Locke, but developed it with greater completeness and consistency, eliminating the contradictions of his predecessor and completing his thoughts that were not fully expressed. We should not forget, however, that if Hume is called the direct successor of Locke’s teachings and, as it were, his spiritual son, yet other predecessors of the Scottish philosopher had an undoubted and great influence on him. The great Bacon, with his introduction of the experimental method into the field of natural science, gave Hume the idea to apply this method in the field of speculative sciences; This is why Hume, from his youth, has been thinking and talking about the need to study human nature; that is why he bases his philosophy on psychology and argues that all research into the processes of thinking should be carried out according to the same rules that are observed in purely physical research. Only under this condition, according to Hume, is it possible to achieve results in moral philosophy that are as accurate and lasting as the conclusions related to the philosophy of nature. The very title of Hume's first philosophical work ("A Treatise of Human Nature, or an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method into Questions of Morality") clearly indicates how Hume intended to begin to resolve the philosophical problems ahead of him.

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--

Let us also remember those teachers of Hume who captivated him from the very first steps on the path of self-education - let us remember the ancient skeptics. If, returning to Locke, we can note the undoubtedly critical direction of his thought, expressed among other things in his relation to Descartes (denial of innate ideas), then Hume went further, much further than his famous predecessor on the path of strict verification of every position, every concept and in its denial of the possibility of knowing the essence and causality of things. In this respect, Hume should be considered a student of the ancient skeptics and a restorer of their teaching.

Finally, we cannot completely ignore Locke’s contemporary, the famous Isaac Newton, who especially took up arms against the Cartesians (followers of Descartes) for the hypothetical and unproven nature of their ideas and theories. Turning to physics, Newton exclaims: “Beware of metaphysics!” - and requires that analytical consideration always be preceded by synthetic consideration. How much he has in common with Hume, who wrote about the dangers of inventions (hypotheses) from which philosophers so love to start, and who began his studies precisely with analysis, with the analysis of previous doctrines in order to then combine the conclusions thus obtained into his own theory.

So, here, in general, large outlines, are the materials accepted by Hume as a spiritual inheritance from his philosophical predecessors; Let's see what and how he changed them and what he used to found his own philosophical principles.

Hume begins by completely rejecting the second source of knowledge according to Locke, that is, reflection. The whole content of the mind, says the Scottish philosopher, consists of perceptions, which fall into two classes: impressions and ideas; impressions are nothing more than sensations, emotions, even passions at their first appearance in our soul; ideas are weak, pale copies of impressions; they occur through memory and imagination of the impressions we have experienced. Thus, impressions and ideas differ not in their essence, but only in the degree of intensity and brightness. Both of these classes of perceptions can be simple if they cannot be broken down into parts, or complex if they consist of several elements. Ideas always originate from impressions that preceded them, but at the same time they can reproduce these impressions with the same vividness and in the same order as were inherent in the impression itself - this will be the idea of ​​​​memory; or ideas renew our impressions with less vividness and in a new order - in this case we are dealing with ideas of the imagination.

This theory, at first glance very simple and clear, suffers from a contradiction with the very experience on which it is based; the fact is that sensation does not exist and cannot exist without a subject who is aware of this sensation. Locke's tabula rasa cannot replace consciousness, since once conscious life begins, leaving its traces on the human soul, then this soul ceases to be a “blank slate”. In a word, ideas arising from impressions certainly raise the question of that independent being that perceives impressions and consciously relates to them. Hume does not answer this question. In addition, Hume was in vain to think that the difference between an idea and an impression consists only in the degree of sensation delivered by them; These concepts are essentially different, and if Hume’s efforts not to confuse them can be considered a great merit in the field of psychology, then the production of ideas from impressions constitutes a fallacy of the philosopher.

After distinguishing and defining the elements of knowledge, Hume distinguishes and defines those laws by means of which ideas are brought into connection with each other and introduced into the mind. These principles, or laws of association, are, as it were, manifestations of the force of mutual attraction between ideas, just as the laws discovered by Newton are expressions of attraction between bodies. According to Hume, through observation we can establish three such laws: similarity, contiguity (in place and time) and causation. The remarkable criticism of this last principle constitutes both Hume's main philosophical merit and the triumph of his skepticism.

Hume was the first of the philosophers to discuss the question of where the concept of causality comes from, and attributed it directly to the sphere of experience. Here, in brief, is the essence of his reasoning on this issue. No research this phenomenon, no matter how carefully and subtly it is produced, cannot give us the idea that this phenomenon is the cause of other phenomena, unless we know this from experience. We cannot, for example, find out by any a priori reasoning that magnetism is the cause of the approach of iron to a magnet, or that the weight of a stone thrown upward causes it to fall to the ground. So, reason, on the basis of logical conclusions alone, that is, in a purely intuitive way, cannot explain to us the ideas of causality. It remains to turn to experience; but every experienced idea, in order to become a real idea, must be a copy of some impression; by observation we are convinced that the cause, the force that produces the phenomenon, in itself does not make any impression on us; it occurs only when this cause causes a certain effect; Thus we get the idea of ​​experimental consequence, that is, the concept that one or another cause caused a certain phenomenon that made a certain impression on us. Let's imagine that whole line observations convinces us of the necessary consequence of the same phenomenon for the same cause; Let us imagine that, with unwavering constancy, experience reveals to us the dependence of phenomenon A on phenomenon B, consisting in A following B, - in this case, a feeling of expectation of phenomenon A after phenomenon B gradually arises in us; this feeling is nothing more than the impression we received in this case from the noticed uniformity of phenomena, and a copy of this impression is the idea of ​​​​causality, which, upon closer examination, turns out to be a simple habit. The entire edifice of our experimental knowledge stands on this basis.

One can only marvel at the strength of Hume's argument in this argument; one can only rejoice that with the power of his brilliant criticism he destroyed the mysterious connection erected by the imagination between cause and effect. It would not be an exaggeration to say that by denying the idea of ​​causality, Hume created the positive side of his philosophical system.

Based on the main provisions of his theory, Hume consistently came to the conclusion that the existence of God and the immortality of the soul - as concepts lying outside the sphere of experience - cannot be proven, therefore religious truths cannot be known; you can only believe in them. As for substance (that is, being unchangeable and independent of any other being), Hume decisively denies it, as something of which we cannot receive any impression. “We have clear ideas only of impressions,” says Hume, “substance is something completely different from impressions; This means we have no knowledge of substance.” Thus, Hume refuses the possibility of knowing both the essence and the cause of things; but it was not easy for him to come to terms with these sad results of skeptical philosophy. At the end of the first book of his Treatise on Human Nature, Hume eloquently describes to us the difficult mental state in which he was after the final development of his philosophical system. Let us give several excerpts from this characteristic passage in Hume’s work.

“The contradictions and imperfections of the human mind have such an effect on me and have so heated my brain that I am ready to abandon both reasoning and faith, for I cannot consider any opinion even more probable or plausible than another. Where I am? What am I? To what reasons do I owe my existence and to what conditions will I be returned?.. What kind of creatures surround me; Who do I influence and who influences me? All these questions confuse me, and I begin to imagine myself placed in the most deplorable conditions imaginable, surrounded by thick darkness and deprived of the use of my limbs and faculties... I dine, play backgammon, talk and amuse myself with my friends, but when after After three or four hours of such rest, I decide to return to my thoughts, then they seem so cold, violent and strange to me that I absolutely do not have the heart to take up them again.”

Further, Hume says that he is destined to live, speak, act like other people, but that if he should be the same madman as those who think about something or believe something, then at least he madness will be pleasant and natural. “I think with regret,” Hume continues, “that I like one thing and not another; that I find one thing beautiful and another ugly; that I pronounce my decisions on true and false - all this without knowledge of the principles from which I start.” In conclusion, Hume adds: “The true skeptic is as distrustful of his doubts as of his philosophical convictions.”

The above words of Hume speak more eloquently than any explanation that this skeptic philosopher, despite all his prudence, despite the strength of his critical attitude towards human abilities, despite, finally, the desire to indicate to thought those limits that it cannot transgress, if one does not want to soar in the sphere of unsubstantiated inventions, there is still an impulse to recognize the incomprehensible, not amenable to any experience, not manifested by any impressions and constituting that mysterious “beginning of all actions”, to the knowledge of which thinkers of all eras and directions strive. The futility and impossibility of these desires are clear to Hume as clearly as possible, and, as a result of this dissatisfaction, calm, dispassion and impartiality leave the judicious philosopher, who at times thinks that it is better not to reason at all if you do not know the principles from which you have to start. Such difficult moments, such a depressed state of mind, were experienced by this thinker, who is generally considered a cold skeptic, almost a nihilist, who denied everything for the very pleasure of destroying and destroying. Hume's skepticism is undeniable, but we should not forget that even if his philosophy was composed mainly of negations, then these negations were not only consistent, but also fruitful - in such opponents of Hume as, for example, Kant, they caused great dogmatic statements. That is why Hume’s philosophy cannot be looked at only as a curious phenomenon in the history of human thought; his doctrine represents one of those decisive moments, one of those crises that thought experiences on the path of its evolution. One can imagine how difficult the work was that fell to the lot of the thinker who was the spokesman for this crisis and characterized it with his method and direction; but Hume was not one of those who retreat from difficulties and troubles; He made it his task to control thought, constantly discuss it and prove it, in order to come to knowledge this way. Although Hume admits that this kind of research is very difficult and tedious, he adds that there are such natures who have a strong enough mind to endure what would be an unbearable burden for most people. For what purpose, however, do they carry out these works? Hume responds to this like this: “Darkness is no less disgusting to the mind than to the sight; nothing can give us such pleasure as the opportunity to change darkness into light, no matter how hard it costs.”

The author of the above words was precisely that strong nature who is capable of enduring incredible work, just to go forward, just to master knowledge, turning darkness into light. It was this unselfish love for truth, for the light of truth, that we had in mind when, in the introduction, we compared Hume with the ancient skeptics, highlighting the greater philosophical significance of the former.

Let us now turn to the ethical side of Hume's teaching, which is contained partly in the third book of his Treatise, but mainly in the Inquiry into the Principles of Morals - in Hume's opinion, the best of all his works. It is interesting that in the sphere of morality Hume bases everything on feeling. Reason and thinking in themselves cannot be the sources of actions; they only give us a judgment about true and false, they only teach us whether our actions are harmful or useful; the very actions of people are caused by feelings of pleasure and displeasure. When asked why certain actions are liked, Hume replies that we like them because they are useful, and, moreover, useful not only to us personally, but to humanity in general. in a broad sense; in other words, one likes those actions that lead to general well-being. From this utilitarian point of view Hume continues to treat morality, examining and discussing human behavior through the same cold analysis with which he approached questions about the origin of knowledge or about our relations to the external world; one might say that for Hume ethics was a kind of natural history. Virtue in Hume’s eyes has value only insofar as it contributes to the happiness of people, and in general “in all definitions of morality, the main thing to keep in mind is the social benefit.” Further, in the chapter “On Justice,” Hume again argues that “ public benefit is the only source of justice." It presupposes a state of affairs in which everyone would receive what he wanted or needed without any difficulty. Then people will have no sense of property, there will be neither mine nor yours, and “justice will turn out to be an empty ceremony and will not occupy a place in the list of virtues.” Consequently, justice is, so to speak, an artificial product, in which, given the state of affairs, there is no need. But there must be some natural feeling that makes us prefer useful aspirations to harmful ones. This feeling is sympathy, that is, love for one’s neighbors; it inspires us with joy at the sight of people's happiness and grief at the sight of their suffering. Sympathy generates disinterested approval of that which contributes not to ours, but to someone else’s good, and disapproval of the opposite. That is why it is impossible to make egoism alone a moral principle. It must be added, however, that Hume’s importance as a moralist is far from equal to his importance as a researcher in the field of thought. His reflections on passions and morality represent a rather superficial sketch, in which, more than anywhere else, Hume’s lack of knowledge in the field of psychology is felt.

Hume rendered a tremendous service to political economy by first arousing interest in its issues and trying to resolve them. His “Political Speeches” are considered the cradle of political economy - and for good reason: Adam Smith borrowed a lot from them for his famous work “The Wealth of Nations.” In his political and economic reasoning, Hume often relied on the experience he gained from his practice as an administrator and statesman, which, of course, only increases the significance of his writings.

In several experiments devoted to economic issues, Hume argues with his characteristic logic and clarity. He is never seduced by the sophisms and prejudices of supporters of the mercantile theory. He had too high a point of view and too much insight to avoid those mistakes that are so common to ordinary businessmen of the commercial world. Hume clearly understood and excellently expressed the idea that trade is nothing more than business relations between different classes and different districts of the population, forced to meet mutual needs. These principles apply not only to individual provinces of the same country, but also to different nationalities and states. The mercantile theory, which sets as its desired goal the accumulation of money, essentially strives for the same unattainable result as, for example, the intention to raise water above it would be. normal level. Based on these principles, Hume strictly condemned the establishment of customs and duties, with which all European states, not excluding England, encourage local industry due to an overzealous desire to save money and due to an unfounded fear of reducing its value. According to Hume, if anything can ruin us, it is precisely such undertakings. Nothing but evil comes from the order of things, thanks to which neighboring peoples are deprived of the possibility of free communication and exchange, so necessary for areas with different soil, climate and other natural conditions. He further proves that all these restrictions arise from a very unreasonable jealousy of nations towards each other, and he ventures to confess that not only as a man, but also as a British subject, he prays for the prosperity of trade in Germany, Spain, Italy and France. Hume's political and economic views at one time had a great influence on the statesmen of England, among other things on the famous William Pitt (the younger). Fortunately, the practical direction and businesslike spirit of Hume’s compatriots did not allow them to become too carried away by the philosopher’s political beliefs, as a result of which his economic doctrine underwent the necessary changes and was then revived in the famous teaching of Adam Smith.

Hume's historical views are recognized, generally speaking, as one-sided; the main conviction with which he was imbued when writing his story was the following: “The world is a stage, and people are actors.” He considered it the duty of a historian to narrate everything that manifests itself in a visible way, that is, about the external side of life. Sometimes, after a superficial study, he created for himself a concept about this or that historical person, deducing from the first impression an idea about this person, and then, instead of changing his idea, illuminating it with the light of other stories obtained from various sources, he began to interpret everything the actions of this linden are in accordance with their first impression. In other words, in the History of England, Hume is more of an advocate for his philosophical views than a scientist dealing with facts and events. Hume is especially antipathetic towards some types: for example, he hated fanatics of all ages and very sharply condemned them; In the same way, he had a negative attitude towards the people’s struggle for freedom, preferring loyal obedience to the existing authorities. Perhaps an early aversion to jurisprudence and little acquaintance with it were the reason why Hume developed such a view of historical development laws and constitutional institutions of his homeland.

As for the more external qualities of Hume's History, they are undoubtedly brilliant and were the main reason for the success that this book had both in England and abroad. Hume's style is excellent: a clear and lively presentation, presenting pictorial descriptions, sparkles with witty characterizations and many interesting comments. With these merits of his historical work, Hume strongly bribed his contemporaries in his favor. Helvetius admired the philosophical spirit and impartiality of the Scottish historian and persuaded Hume to carry out his idea of ​​writing a history of the church. “The plot is worthy of such an author, and the author is worthy of such a plot,” wrote Helvetius. D'Alembert had the same high opinion of Hume's History.

In conclusion, we add that if Hume’s “History of England” is now little read, due to the fact that in terms of interest and correctness of views it is inferior to other, more recent works, yet this book will forever remain a wonderful literary monument and an excellent illustration of Hume’s philosophical opinions and tendencies.

The legacy left by Hume in the field of philosophy is so significant and important that the famous Scottish philosopher has every right to the attention and interest of us, people of the 19th century. With his skeptical method, his efforts to check, justify and prove everything, Hume created a real revolution in the speculative sciences and laid the foundation for a new philosophical school, which still counts among its followers the great names of the most outstanding philosophers and psychologists. To confirm what has been said, it is enough to mention John Stuart Mill, Ben, Herbert Spencer, the so-called sensualists - in England; representatives of positivism Auguste Comte, Littre and Lafitte - in France; finally, Kant, the creator of the critical method, in Germany. True, the “great sage of Königsberg” (Kant) is usually considered an opponent of Hume, due to the fact that he refuted the theory of causality established by the Scottish philosopher; but there is no doubt that both the content and the method of presentation of Hume’s philosophy prompted Kant to create his doctrine; Moreover, much in common can be found in the teachings of both philosophers. The very purpose of Kant’s main work, “Critique of Pure Reason,” is essentially the same as Hume’s “Treatise of Human Nature.” Kant's criticism and Hume's skepticism, diverging in particulars, agree on the main thing - in the desire to indicate the limits of our knowledge in the world of phenomena that is revealed to us through experience. Isn’t the echo of Hume’s most cherished thoughts clear in the following words, for example, by Kant: “The greatest and, perhaps, the only benefit of any philosophy of pure reason is an exclusively negative benefit, since this philosophy is a tool not for the expansion of knowledge, but for its limitation; instead of revealing truths, it is content with the humble merit of preventing errors” (Kant, “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”).

Is it easy to be content with such a role as a judge and critic, steadily revealing all the beautiful self-delusions of people and warning them against further harmful dreams? This is another question. We have already cited from Hume’s Treatise those heated lines in which the young philosopher complains about the impossibility of calming his mind with anything positive, heated and exhausted by the need to only refute and deny... Seeing things in their true light, destroying illusions, not being able to dizzying hobbies that lift us beyond the limits of the possible - all this is extremely useful and fruitful, but not cheap and these precious qualities come at a cost to those who develop such a critical attitude towards the world around them.

Hume, by his very nature calm, prosaic, inquisitive, insightful, consistent and truthful, fits perfectly into the role of an analyzer of thought, delving into everything and not getting carried away by anything. According to the properties of his mind, he was not one of those who say about themselves: “The darkness of bitter truths is dearer to us than the deception that elevates us.” Deception and lies were for him that darkness that “is disgusting to the mind, as well as to the sight.” For the mental enlightenment of himself and his neighbors, Hume worked all his life and created an unforgettable characterization for himself, excellently expressed in the following words of Adam Smith: “In general, both during his life and after his death, he seems to me to be a person so close to the ideal of the truly wise and a virtuous person, as far as is possible for weak human nature.”

If the task of a critic is to understand and then explain to readers the literary work he is analyzing, then about the biographer we can say that the essential goal of his work should be to try to fully understand the moral character of the figure he describes and answer the question: why exactly those, and His life was characterized by no other aspirations and labors. Then, in the eyes of readers, the entire spiritual heritage left to us by the great man will take on the character of something inevitable, reasonable and understandable, and not accidental and causing only extreme amazement; then there will be greater trust in the biographer himself, and greater interest in his words and assessment than in the case when he puts an end to where the presentation of the facts he has obtained ends and refrains from commenting on them.

That is why we would like to make a feasible attempt to explain what kind of type we have in the person of David Hume, and since his activity, imbued with a very definite and integral character, was determined by his temperament, inclinations, tastes - everything that is called the spiritual nature of man.

We have already had to mention the annoying gap that encounters the biographer who turns to Hume's childhood and initial upbringing; Thus, bypassing in silence the first life impressions and conditions of development of the child Davy, we directly turn to that young man, deep in his thoughts and passionately devoted to book studies, as Hume was at the age of 16-17. He was a strange and at the same time simple guy! What is most striking about young David is his dry prudence beyond his years, the desire to think and not to dream, the impulses towards philosophy rather than poetry, and finally, such an inability to get carried away, admire and admire that this trait brought Hume to complete indifference to everything beautiful. Let this be a shortcoming, let such a nature be called ungrateful and pathetic in an aesthetic sense, but the energetic, strong temperament is all the brighter and more noticeable in another area. Hume was not capable of the work of imagination, which often, barely clinging to reality, then rises above it and, as a result, creates something beautiful, but sometimes unnecessary, deceptive and therefore harmful. His inquisitive mind did not direct David towards this: reality was for him, first of all, a subject of study; he wanted to sort everything out, understand, prove, firmly substantiate and therefore - a wonderful thing - at the age of seventeen or eighteen he protests against hypotheses and inventions that too often appear in the field of science. If Hume were a poorly gifted, ordinary person, the coldness of his temperament, lack of imagination and aesthetic inclinations would seem to be a manifestation of lethargy, impersonality and complete uninterestingness of the subject. But in the original and strong nature of the future philosopher, his abilities did not stall or freeze; they only took an unusual direction for a young age in order to more or less constantly adhere to this direction all his life. If Hume had not been so prosaic, calmly reasonable and observant, it is unlikely that he would have written a wonderful philosophical treatise at a relatively early age; If he had not been so incapable of being deluded and admired without checking his impressions, it is unlikely that he could have so consistently and unswervingly held the same views throughout his entire life, almost exclusively devoted to philosophical pursuits; finally, Hume’s insight and observation served him great service in his relations with people. Isn’t it amazing, in fact, the directness, unwavering honesty, steadfastness and strength of sympathy that characterize all of Hume’s relationships with people close to him? Without admiring beyond measure, without creating romantic illusions at the beginning of acquaintance, he thereby got rid of sad disappointments and complaints later; the only exception is his clash with Rousseau, and even then, in this case, the exceptional, dazzling talented person Rousseau.

Wonderful moral qualities Yuma was also kind and warm. Acquaintance with the biography of this thinker convinces us that he had a heart capable of deeply and selflessly loving; that he was responsive to other people's misfortunes and inclined to feel sorry for people rather than condemn them. Let us remember his warm response to his mother, his bitter mourning of her death; Let us remember the help provided to the poor blind poet; Let us finally remember the noble, magnanimous attitude towards Rousseau’s deceitful act. In our opinion, much of this good nature and this somewhat naive cordiality of Hume is explained by his very nationality. Our philosopher was a Scot, a native of the northern highlands, with its difficult conditions, harsh climate, and inhospitable nature. It’s a strange thing, but it is precisely in such and such circumstances that the inhabitants of the country develop greater sincerity, gentleness of character, warmth of feelings - in general, what is called humanity. On the contrary, under the bright sun of the south, among the riches and luxury of nature, which endows a person with not only the necessary, but even the superfluous, cruelty, unbridled impulses and heartlessness nest and develop in his soul that are truly amazing.

So, Hume, in his spiritual qualities, represented only a typical son of his homeland and, moreover, proved by his example that neither books nor the writing of learned treatises harden a person, do not make him selfish, a vain egoist, unless these qualities are so inherent in him , that they would have manifested themselves completely independently of his occupation.

But in all of Hume’s whole and characteristic appearance, the most sublime, most beneficial feature should be recognized as his steady desire for truth, for what he himself called the light that irresistibly attracted him and illuminated all his activities, both social and scientific. Hume never deviated from the path of research he had outlined, never fell into the temptation of deception or self-deception, and was one of those unchanging servants of a great and strict idea, the very image of which is a precious testament and teaching for posterity.

HUMPHRY DAVY

IN At a very early age he showed extraordinary talent. At just over two years old he spoke quite fluently. At the age of six he could read and write. At the age of seven he entered high school in his hometown of Truro (Cornwall).
The family did not have material wealth, and Humphry Davy never received higher education. In 1795, he graduated from the Grammar School (such an educational institution existed in England at that time). Perhaps his studies there developed in him a passion for poetry. True, regarding his creations, the biographer noted with some irony: “The feelings he discovered in his poems were very worthy of praise, but the poetic technique barely exceeded the level required of a poet laureate.”
In general, throughout his life, the dreamer Davy felt relaxed in the “humanitarian” spheres. He even created an impressive poetic work, “The Epic of Moses,” a tribute to the author’s deep religiosity. Davy considered the "small Earth as a point that serves as the beginning of development, limited only by infinity.”
Then his life developed like this. He was apprenticed to a pharmacist in the city of Penzance. It is not known how successful Davy was in fulfilling his immediate duties, but it is known that he took up self-education with extraordinary zeal. He drew up a detailed plan, which is so interesting that it makes sense to give it in its entirety. This is the sequence in which the “assault” of knowledge was planned:

1. Theology, or religion, studied through nature.
2. Geography.
3. My profession:
1) botany; 2) pharmacy; 3) zoology; 4) anatomy; 5) surgery; 6) chemistry.
4. Languages:
1) English; 2) French; 3) Latin; 4) Greek;
5) Italian; 6) Spanish; 7) Jewish.
5. Logic.
6. Physics:
1) doctrines and properties of natural bodies;
2) about the operations of nature; 3) the doctrine of liquids;
4) properties of organized matter; 5) about the organization of matter;
6) elementary astronomy.
7. Mechanics.
8. History and chronology.
9. Rhetoric.
10. Mathematics.

Perhaps none of the scientists either before or after Humphrey built such Homeric projects in his youth. And he himself soon realized their fantastic nature. But at first he followed what he wrote with his pen quite punctually.
In January 1798, the pharmacist's apprentice got to chemistry. His textbooks were A. Lavoisier’s “Course of Chemistry,” just translated into English, and W. Nicholson’s “Chemical Dictionary.” For practical work, he created a home laboratory. Lavoisier's idea regarding the material nature of light fascinated Davy, but it only served as a reason for him to make an erroneous assumption, for which he had to blush all his life: oxygen is a compound of light with an unknown element. An article with this “revelation” was even published. But every cloud has a silver lining... Such an “originally” thinking young man was invited to the Pneumatic Institute in Bristol in October 1798. There, in particular, studies were carried out on the physiological effects of various gases.

IN Bristol Davy made his first real discovery: he discovered the intoxicating effect of “laughing gas” (nitrous oxide) on humans. At the turn of the century (1799–1801), he developed a vigorous activity: he determined the composition of nitrogen oxides, nitric acid, ammonia and began experiments with a source of electric current - a galvanic battery, which was the beginning of his future remarkable discoveries. Over the course of two years, he published about a dozen articles.
Davy's experimental talent quickly emerged. The “ideology” of his work prioritized the accumulation of facts rather than the development of theoretical concepts. Although his electrochemical theory is an exception to this rule.
The first publications of the results of his work made Davy's name widely known in England. In February 1801, he was invited to the Royal Institution of London as an assistant lecturer and head of the chemical laboratory, and the following year he filled the vacancy of a professor. His brilliant lectures were extremely popular. In 1803, Davy became a member of the Royal Society, in 1807–1812. serves as his secretary, and in 1820 he is elected president.
Davy entered the history of science as one of the founders of electrochemistry. While still at the Pneumatic Institute, he conducted research on the effect of electric current on various objects. He was one of the first to carry out the electrolysis of water and confirmed the fact of its decomposition into hydrogen and oxygen (1801).
Such research was especially widespread at the Royal Institution. He presented their preliminary results in a lecture given on November 20, 1806. In it, he developed ideas, although not always clear enough, which later formed the basis of the “electrochemical theory.” In particular, he explained the chemical affinity of bodies entering into compounds by the energy of their electrical (positive and negative) charges: “Among the bodies that give chemical compounds, all those whose electrical energies are well known turn out to be oppositely charged; examples include copper and zinc, gold and mercury, sulfur and metals, acidic and alkaline substances... we must assume that these bodies will attract each other under the influence of their electrical forces. At current state From our knowledge, it would be useless to attempt to draw conclusions as to the source of electrical energy, or as to the causes by which bodies brought in contact become electrified. In any case, the connection between electrical energy and chemical affinity is quite obvious. Perhaps they are identical in nature and are the basic properties of matter?
These considerations cannot yet be considered the complete foundations of the electrochemical theory, because Davy rejects the very possibility of current arising as a result of chemical reactions. And it is quite logical that his “electrochemical achievements” primarily lay in the field of practice.
P Perhaps Davy's most significant achievement was the isolation of alkali and alkaline earth metals - the result of the electrolytic decomposition of alkalis. Thus, one of the most important chemical problems was resolved.
Back at the end of the 18th century. It was believed that barite and lime contained metallic bases, while caustic alkalis were generally considered simple substances. True, Lavoisier himself assumed that they too would be decomposed over time.
What conventional chemical operations were powerless to overcome was possible thanks to electric current.
Initially, Davy took the wrong path. He tried to isolate metals from solutions and melts of alkalis. Dozens of experiments did not lead to success. Then an idea arose: to test the effect of electric current on solid alkali: “Kali, completely dried by heating, is not a conductor, but it can be made so by adding a minimal amount of moisture, which does not noticeably affect its state of aggregation, and in this form it easily melts and is decomposed by powerful electrical forces..." During the experiments, "small balls with a strong metallic luster appeared... These balls consist of exactly the substance that I was looking for and which is the highly flammable base of potassium." Davy reported this to the Royal Society on October 19, 1807.
Davy obtained sodium in a similar way. He proposed for free alkali metals - new chemical elements - the names "potassium" and "sodium" (from the English words "potach" And "soda"); Latin names These elements are written as "potassium" and "sodium".
The release of alkali metals in free form can rightfully be considered one of the greatest chemical discoveries. early XIX V. and as one of the first practical triumphs of electrochemistry.

In 1808, Davy electrolytically decomposed the alkaline earths and obtained the free alkaline earth metals - barium, strontium, calcium and magnesium. However, he had to fundamentally change the experimental methodology, since dry alkaline earths did not conduct current and became conductors only in melts.
Davy made an attempt to isolate elemental boron from boric acid, for which he built a large electric battery consisting of 500 pairs of copper and zinc plates. But even such a powerful current source did not lead to success.
TO The scientist's greatest achievement is the establishment of the elemental nature of chlorine. K. Scheele, who discovered chlorine in 1774, being an ardent supporter of the phlogiston theory, proposed the name “dephlogisticated hydrochloric acid” for it. A. Lavoisier, relying on his theory of acids, expressed the idea that “acid” contains a special radical - “murium” - in combination with oxygen. In 1785, K. Berthollet, having acted with manganese dioxide on hydrochloric acid, received nothing more than “dephlogisticated hydrochloric acid.” From this he concluded that it is a product of the oxidation of hydrochloric acid, and called chlorine “oxidized hydrochloric acid” ( acide muriatique oxygene). As a result, the hypothesis about the existence of the element “murium” became generally accepted, as well as the name “oxymuric acid” became widespread. Many researchers, including the French chemists J. Gay-Lussac and L. Thénard, tried to figure out its nature, but only Davy, at the end of 1810, as a result of numerous experiments, finally came to the conclusion that “hydroxymuric acid” is of an elementary nature. He gave the new element the name “chlorin” (translated from Greek meaning “yellow-green”). The modern name “chlorine” was proposed in 1811 by Gay-Lussac.
Davy also tried to isolate free fluorine. In 1812, he suggested that hydrofluoric acid and its compounds contained a certain “principle” similar to chlorine. Davy even proposed a name for this hypothetical elemental substance - “fluorine”, by analogy with “chlorine”. However, he did not achieve what he wanted, but was seriously poisoned while working with fluoride-containing products. Trouble never comes alone: ​​the scientist almost lost his sight during experiments with nitrogen chloride.
The year 1812 turned out to be a turning point for Humphry Davy. In the remaining 17 years of his life, he did not make any significant discoveries, and in some matters of chemistry he remained a retrograde. For example, he supported the idea of ​​the complex composition of some elementary substances (nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, carbon, etc.). In fact, he was indifferent to Dalton’s chemical atomism, calling it “an ingenious conjecture.” However, he used Dalton atomic scales, calling them proportions. In the same year he published the book Elements of Chemical Philosophy. Davy considered it only as the first part of a large work he planned, which should cover all of chemistry. This work remained unfinished.
Davy left a good memory of himself with the invention of a safety lamp for miners in 1815. It was used in mines for over a century until electric lighting was introduced.
The scientist died on May 29, 1829, having barely crossed the half-century mark. The obituary noted: “Davie...represented shining example what the Romans called a man favored by happiness. His success, however, even from this point of view was not a matter of chance, but he owed it to his profundity, foresight of the future when creating his plans and the talent and perseverance with which he brought them to a successful end ... "
P Let us repeat that Davy went down in the history of science as one of the founders of electrochemistry, who actually created the first electrochemical theory. He confirmed the fact of electrolytic decomposition of solutions of complex substances and the fact that hydrogen, metals and alkalis are released at the negative pole, and oxygen and acids at the positive pole. He concluded that chemical compounds are the product of electrical neutralization of oppositely charged substances that interact. J. Berzelius embodied this postulate in his dualistic theory.
It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that Davy was “programmed for more.” Unfortunately, illness decimated him in his prime. The scientist's character was by no means easy: ambition and pride were clearly expressed in his nature. That is why he essentially had no students left, except for Michael Faraday, who played a significant role in Davy’s fate. By the way, they met in 1812.
Faraday acquired knowledge on his own. While working as a bookbinder's apprentice, he carefully became familiar with the contents of books. He was especially interested in books on chemistry. Michael attended Davy's popular lectures at the Royal Institution. Then he rewrote them completely, provided them with drawings and sent them to the venerable scientist with a request to accept him as an assistant for laboratory work. Davy soon became convinced of the brilliant abilities of the young employee and even took him with him as an assistant on a trip to Europe in 1813–1815.
Over the years, Faraday became increasingly independent. He performed several noteworthy works in chemistry and already in 1821 was elected a member of the Royal Society, which Davy, oddly enough, actively prevented. Was it envy of the rapid creative growth of a young colleague or irritability caused by constant ailments? Who knows... After Davy's death, Faraday headed his laboratory and inherited lectures at the Royal Institution.

If Davy stood at the origins of electrochemistry, then Faraday contributed to laying a theoretical foundation for it. He formulated the basic laws of electrolysis and proposed the terms “electrode”, “anode”, “cathode”, “anion”, “cation”, “ion”...
However, Michael Faraday entered the history of science primarily as a physicist, and as one of the greatest physicists of all time. Suffice it to say that he established a connection between electricity and magnetism, which had enormous consequences for the development of natural science and technology.

Numerology of the name Devi

Name number: 4

Number 4 is characterized by such qualities as practicality and reliability. Fours are trustworthy in everything, especially when it comes to relationships with people close to them. Thus, they value their friends and relatives very much and enjoy every minute spent with them.

Fours analyze everything that happens around them. Knowledge about the structure of mechanisms is important for them; they love science. Since Fours do not like to fantasize, their ideas are always realistic.

Meaning of letters in the name Devi

D- stubbornness, pride, isolation, complexes and limitations. These people, before doing something, think everything over several times. In all actions they are guided by common sense and logic. They will always help in difficult situations. They are characterized by excessive talkativeness. They do not accept criticism, they very rarely listen to other people’s opinions and therefore often make serious mistakes.

E- curiosity, insight and sociability. These people love good company. They have great abilities in the field of literature and journalism. Also among them there are a lot of individuals who work in areas where intuition should be well developed, for example: medicine, police, etc. It is very difficult for these people to find their soulmate.

IN- sociability, optimism, love of nature and art. People with names starting with "V" choose professions related to creativity. They are excellent musicians, artists, fashion designers and writers. Despite their passion, they approach the choice of a partner extremely responsibly and are able to live their entire lives with one person.

AND- subtle mental organization, romance, kindness, honesty and peacefulness. Representatives of the fair sex pay a lot of attention to their appearance, while men focus on internal qualities. Much success they manage to achieve in science and working with people. Very economical and prudent.

Name as a phrase

• D- Welcome
• E- (YE = E) Esi
• IN- Lead
• AND- And (Union, Connect, Union, UNITY, One, Together, “Together with”)

Name Davy in English (Latin)

Devi

When filling out a document in English, you should first write your first name, then your patronymic in Latin letters, and then your last name. You may need to write the name Davy in English when applying for a foreign passport, ordering a foreign hotel, when placing an order in an English online store, and so on.

Useful video

(1806, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1826)
Rumfoord Medal (1816)
Royal Medal (1827)

Signature:

Sir Humphry Davy(or Humphry Davy, (English) Humphry Davy, December 17, Penzance, - May 29, Geneva) - English chemist, physicist and geologist, one of the founders of electrochemistry. Known for the discovery of many chemical elements, as well as for his patronage of Faraday at the initial stage of his scientific activity. Member (since 1820 - president) of the Royal Society of London and many other scientific organizations, including a foreign honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1826).

Biography

Born in the small town of Penzance in southwest England. His father was a woodcarver, he earned little, and so his family had difficulty making ends meet. In 1794, his father died, and Humphrey went to live with Tonkin, his mother's father. Soon he became an apprentice to a pharmacist and began to take an interest in chemistry.

One of the scientists with whom Devi corresponded on various issues of physics and chemistry, Dr. Beddoe, amazed by his enormous talent, became interested in the young researcher. Beddoe decided to give Devi the opportunity to work in an environment where he could grow and develop his full potential. The venerable scientist invites Devi to work as a chemist in his company, where Humphrey becomes a chemist in 1798. As an assistant, and as a professor. In 1803, Devi was elected a member of the Royal Society, and from year to year he worked as the secretary of this society. During this period, Devi’s research and teaching activities acquired a special scope. Devi attaches great importance to research and experimental work in the field of chemistry and physics. In his notes he writes:

“It is much more difficult to collect facts than to engage in speculative speculation about them: a good experiment is of more value than the profundity of such a genius as Newton.”

M. Faraday studied with Davy and began working in 1812.

In 1812, Davy, at the age of 34, was knighted for his scientific work. He married a young, wealthy widow, Jane Apries, a distant relative of Walter Scott. In 1813, Devi went to travel around Europe, refusing a professorship and service in the Royal Society, as inappropriate for his new social position. Returning to England, Devi no longer engaged in serious theoretical work. He addresses himself exclusively to the practical issues of industry.

In 1819 Davy was created a baronet.

In 1826, Davy suffered his first stroke of apoplexy, which left him bedridden for a long time. At the beginning of 1827, he left London for Europe with his brother: Lady Jane did not consider it necessary to accompany her sick husband. On May 29, 1829, on his way to England, Davy suffered a second stroke, from which he died in his fifty-first year in Geneva. He was buried in Westminster Abbey in London, the burial place of prominent people in England. In his honor, the Royal Society of London established an award for scientists - the Davy Medal.

Scientific activity

Already at the age of 17, Davy made his first discovery, discovering that the friction of two pieces of ice against each other in a vacuum causes them to melt, on the basis of which he suggested that heat is special kind movement. This experiment refuted the existence of thermal matter, which many scientists were then inclined to recognize.

In 1799, while studying the effect of various gases on human body At the Pneumatic Institute, Davy discovered the intoxicating effect of nitrous oxide, called laughing gas. Davy also noticed that when large quantities of the gas were inhaled, it acted like a drug. By chance, he discovered the anesthetic properties of nitrous oxide: inhaling the gas stopped toothache.

In the same year, having read the work of Nicholson and Carlisle “Decomposition of water by electric current of a galvanic cell,” he was one of the first to carry out the electrochemical decomposition of water using a voltaic column and confirmed the hypothesis of A. Lavoisier that water consists of oxygen and hydrogen.

In 1800, Davy put forward the electrochemical theory of affinity, later developed by J. Berzelius, according to which, when chemical compounds are formed, the charges inherent in simple bodies mutually neutralize; Moreover, the greater the charge difference, the stronger the connection.

In 1801-1802, Davy was invited to, where he worked as an assistant in chemistry to B. Rumfoord, director of a chemical laboratory and assistant editor of journals; in 1802 he became professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution. During these years, he gave public lectures on pneumatic chemistry, agrochemistry and galvanic processes. According to eyewitnesses, the lectures attracted up to five hundred listeners and received enthusiastic responses. In November 1804, Davy became a fellow of the Royal Society, of which he later became chairman.

In 1808-1809 he described an electric arc discharge between two carbon rods connected to the poles of a powerful electric battery of 2 thousand galvanic cells.

In 1803-1813 he taught a course in agricultural chemistry. Davy suggested that mineral salts are necessary for plant nutrition, and pointed out the need for field experiments to resolve agricultural issues. The lectures he gave on agricultural chemistry were published as a separate book, which served as a generally accepted textbook on this discipline for more than half a century.

In 1815, Davy designed an explosion-proof mine lamp with a metal mesh, thereby solving the problem of dangerous "mine gas". Davy refused to patent the lamp, thereby making his invention publicly available. For his invention of the lamp, he was created a baronet and awarded the Rumford Medal in 1816, and in addition to this, wealthy English mine owners presented him with a silver service.

He established the dependence of the electrical resistance of a conductor on its length and cross-section and noted the dependence of electrical conductivity on temperature.

Relationship with M. Faraday

In 1812, Davy's public lectures were attended by 22-year-old bookbinder's apprentice Michael Faraday, who recorded and bound four of Davy's lectures in detail. Davy received them along with a letter asking him to take a job at the Royal Institution. This, as Faraday himself put it, “ a bold and naive step" had a decisive influence on his fate. Davy, who himself began his life as a pharmacist’s student, was delighted with the young man’s extensive knowledge, but at that moment there were no vacancies at the institute. Michael’s request was granted only a few months later: at the beginning of 1813, Davy, due to vision problems, invited the young man to fill the vacant position as a laboratory assistant.

Faraday's responsibilities included mainly assisting professors and other lecturers of the Institute in preparing lectures, accounting for material assets and caring for them. But he himself tried to use every opportunity to supplement his education, and first of all, he carefully listened to all the lectures he prepared. At the same time, Faraday, with the benevolent assistance of Davy, conducted his own chemical experiments. Faraday performed his official duties so carefully and skillfully that he soon became an indispensable assistant Davy.

In 1813-1815, traveling with Davy and his wife across Europe, Faraday visited laboratories in France and Italy (with Faraday serving not only as an assistant, but also as a secretary and servant). Davy was hailed as a world-class celebrity by many outstanding scientists of the time, including A. Ampère, M. Chevreul, J. L. Gay-Lussac and A. Volta. While in Florence, in a series of experiments carried out with the assistance of Faraday, Davy succeeded in burning a diamond using sunlight, proving that it consisted of pure carbon. After returning to England, Faraday's scientific activity took place within the walls of the Royal Institution, where he first assisted Davy in chemical experiments and then began independent research, eventually becoming a famous and influential scientist, which allowed Davy to call Faraday " his greatest discovery».

In 1824, despite the opposition of Davy, who claimed the discoveries of his assistant, Faraday was elected a member of the Royal Society, and in 1825 he became director of the laboratory at the Royal Institution. The student's success aroused Davy's jealousy and Faraday's accusations of plagiarism, as a result of which he was forced to stop all research on electromagnetism before the death of his mentor.

Bibliography

• Davy H. Researches, Chemical and Philosophical. Bristol: Biggs and Cottle, 1800.
• Davy H. Elements of Chemical Philosophy. London: Johnson and Co., 1812.
• Davy H. Elements Of Agricultural Chemistry In A Course Of Lectures. London: Longman, 1813.
• Davy H. The Papers of Sir H. Davy. Newcastle: Emerson Charnley, 1816.
• Davy H. Discourses to the Royal Society. London: John Murray, 1827.
• Davy H. Salmonia or Days of Fly Fishing. London: John Murray, 1828.
• Davy H. Consolations in Travel or The Last Days of a Philosopher. London: John Murray, 1830.

Translations into Russian

• Devi G. Fundamentals of agricultural chemistry. St. Petersburg. 1832.
• Devi G. About some chemical actions of electricity. Moscow, 1935.

Memory

The following are named after Humphry Davy:

• Medal of the Royal Society of London, awarded "for discoveries of extraordinary importance in any branch of chemistry"
• Crater on the Moon (diameter 34 km, coordinates 11.85S, 8.15W)
• University College building in Plymouth (England)
• Humphry Davy Street is in the German city of Cuxhaven (Humphry) [ ]
• Mineral Davin was opened in 1825 in Italy

Write a review of the article "Davie, Humphrey"

Literature

• Mogilevsky B. L. Humphrey Devi. Series “The Lives of Remarkable People” (Issue 112). - Magazine and newspaper association, Moscow, 1937. - 168 p.
• Volkov V. A., Vonsky E. V., Kuznetsova G. I. Outstanding chemists of the world. - M.: Higher School, 1991. - 656 p.
• // Foreign members Russian Academy Sci. XVIII-XXI centuries: Geology and mining sciences. M.: Science. 2012. pp. 74-77.
• Khramov Yu. A. Davy Humphry // Physicists: Biographical Reference / Ed. A. I. Akhiezer. - Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional - M.: Nauka, 1983. - P. 108. - 400 p. - 200,000 copies.(in translation)

see also

Notes

Scientific and academic posts
Predecessor: William Hyde Wollaston	President of the Royal Society 1820-1827	Successor: Davis Gilbert

Excerpt characterizing Davy, Humphrey

Near the middle of the Arbat, near St. Nicholas the Revealed, Murat stopped, awaiting news from the advance detachment about the situation of the city fortress “le Kremlin”.
A small group of people from the residents remaining in Moscow gathered around Murat. Everyone looked with timid bewilderment at the strange, long-haired boss adorned with feathers and gold.
- Well, is this their king himself? Nothing! – quiet voices were heard.
The translator approached a group of people.
“Take off your hat... take off your hat,” they said in the crowd, turning to each other. The translator turned to one old janitor and asked how far it was from the Kremlin? The janitor, listening in bewilderment to the alien Polish accent and not recognizing the sounds of the translator's dialect as Russian speech, did not understand what was being said to him and hid behind others.
Murat moved towards the translator and ordered to ask where the Russian troops were. One of the Russian people understood what was being asked of him, and several voices suddenly began to answer the translator. A French officer from the advance detachment rode up to Murat and reported that the gates to the fortress were sealed and that there was probably an ambush there.
“Okay,” said Murat and, turning to one of the gentlemen of his retinue, he ordered four light guns to be brought forward and fired at the gate.
The artillery came out at a trot from behind the column following Murat and rode along the Arbat. Having descended to the end of Vzdvizhenka, the artillery stopped and lined up in the square. Several French officers controlled the cannons, positioning them, and looked into the Kremlin through a telescope.
The bell for Vespers was heard in the Kremlin, and this ringing confused the French. They assumed it was a call to arms. Several infantry soldiers ran to the Kutafyevsky Gate. There were logs and planks at the gate. Two rifle shots rang out from under the gate as soon as the officer and his team began to run up to them. The general standing at the cannons shouted command words to the officer, and the officer and the soldiers ran back.
Three more shots were heard from the gate.
One shot hit a French soldier in the leg, and a strange cry of a few voices was heard from behind the shields. On the faces of the French general, officers and soldiers at the same time, as if on command, the previous expression of gaiety and calm was replaced by a stubborn, concentrated expression of readiness to fight and suffer. For all of them, from the marshal to the last soldier, this place was not Vzdvizhenka, Mokhovaya, Kutafya and Trinity Gate, but this was a new area of ​​a new field, probably a bloody battle. And everyone prepared for this battle. The screams from the gate died down. The guns were deployed. The artillerymen blew off the burnt blazers. The officer commanded “feu!” [fallen!], and two whistling sounds of tins were heard one after another. Grapeshot bullets crackled against the stone of the gate, logs and shields; and two clouds of smoke wavered in the square.
A few moments after the rolling of shots across the stone Kremlin died down, a strange sound was heard above the heads of the French. A huge flock of jackdaws rose above the walls and, cawing and rustling with thousands of wings, circled in the air. Along with this sound, a lonely human cry was heard at the gate, and from behind the smoke the figure of a man without a hat, in a caftan, appeared. Holding a gun, he aimed at the French. Feu! - the artillery officer repeated, and at the same time one rifle and two cannon shots were heard. The smoke closed the gate again.
Nothing else moved behind the shields, and the French infantry soldiers and officers went to the gate. There were three wounded and four dead people lying at the gate. Two people in caftans were running away from below, along the walls, towards Znamenka.
“Enlevez moi ca, [Take it away,” said the officer, pointing to the logs and corpses; and the French, having finished off the wounded, threw the corpses down beyond the fence. No one knew who these people were. “Enlevez moi ca,” was the only word said about them, and they were thrown away and cleaned up later so they wouldn’t stink. Thiers alone dedicated several eloquent lines to their memory: “Ces miserables avaient envahi la citadelle sacree, s"etaient empares des fusils de l"arsenal, et tiraient (ces miserables) sur les Francais. On en sabra quelques "uns et on purgea le Kremlin de leur presence. [These unfortunates filled the sacred fortress, took possession of the guns of the arsenal and shot at the French. Some of them were cut down with sabers, and cleared the Kremlin of their presence.]
Murat was informed that the path had been cleared. The French entered the gates and began to camp on Senate Square. The soldiers threw chairs out of the Senate windows into the square and laid out fires.
Other detachments passed through the Kremlin and were stationed along Maroseyka, Lubyanka, and Pokrovka. Still others were located along Vzdvizhenka, Znamenka, Nikolskaya, Tverskaya. Everywhere, not finding owners, the French settled not as in apartments in the city, but as in a camp located in the city.
Although ragged, hungry, exhausted and reduced to 1/3 of their previous strength, the French soldiers entered Moscow in orderly order. It was an exhausted, exhausted, but still fighting and formidable army. But it was an army only until the minute the soldiers of this army went to their apartments. As soon as the people of the regiments began to disperse to empty and rich houses, the army was destroyed forever and neither residents nor soldiers were formed, but something in between, called marauders. When, five weeks later, the same people left Moscow, they no longer constituted an army. It was a crowd of marauders, each of whom carried or carried with him a bunch of things that seemed valuable and necessary to him. The goal of each of these people when leaving Moscow was not, as before, to conquer, but only to retain what they had acquired. Like that monkey who, having put his hand into the narrow neck of a jug and grabbed a handful of nuts, does not unclench his fist so as not to lose what he has grabbed, and thereby destroys himself, the French, when leaving Moscow, obviously had to die due to the fact that they were dragging with the loot, but it was as impossible for him to throw away this loot as it is impossible for a monkey to unclench a handful of nuts. Ten minutes after each French regiment entered some quarter of Moscow, not a single soldier or officer remained. In the windows of the houses people in greatcoats and boots could be seen walking around the rooms laughing; in the cellars and basements the same people managed the provisions; in the courtyards the same people unlocked or beat down the gates of barns and stables; they lit fires in the kitchens, baked, kneaded and cooked with their hands rolled up, scared, made them laugh and caressed women and children. And there were many of these people everywhere, in shops and in homes; but the army was no longer there.
On the same day, order after order was given by the French commanders to prohibit troops from dispersing throughout the city, to strictly prohibit violence against residents and looting, and to make a general roll call that same evening; but, despite any measures. the people who had previously made up the army dispersed throughout the rich, empty city, abundant in amenities and supplies. Just as a hungry herd walks in a heap across a bare field, but immediately scatters uncontrollably as soon as it attacks rich pastures, so the army scattered uncontrollably throughout the rich city.
There were no inhabitants in Moscow, and the soldiers, like water into sand, were sucked into it and, like an unstoppable star, spread out in all directions from the Kremlin, which they entered first of all. The cavalry soldiers, entering a merchant's house abandoned with all its goods and finding stalls not only for their horses, but also extra ones, still went nearby to occupy another house, which seemed better to them. Many occupied several houses, writing in chalk who occupied it, and arguing and even fighting with other teams. Before they could fit in, the soldiers ran outside to inspect the city and, hearing that everything had been abandoned, rushed to where they could take away valuables for nothing. The commanders went to stop the soldiers and themselves unwittingly became involved in the same actions. In Carriage Row there were shops with carriages, and the generals crowded there, choosing carriages and carriages for themselves. The remaining residents invited their leaders to their place, hoping to thereby protect themselves from robbery. There was an abyss of wealth, and there was no end in sight; everywhere, around the place that the French occupied, there were still unexplored, unoccupied places, in which, as it seemed to the French, there was even more wealth. And Moscow sucked them in further and further. Just as when water pours onto dry land, water and dry land disappear; in the same way, due to the fact that a hungry army entered an abundant, empty city, the army was destroyed, and the abundant city was destroyed; and there was dirt, fires and looting.

The French attributed the fire of Moscow to au patriotisme feroce de Rastopchine [to Rastopchin's wild patriotism]; Russians – to the fanaticism of the French. In essence, there were no reasons for the fire of Moscow in the sense that this fire could be attributed to the responsibility of one or several persons. Moscow burned down due to the fact that it was placed in such conditions under which every wooden city should burn down, regardless of whether the city had one hundred and thirty bad fire pipes or not. Moscow had to burn due to the fact that the inhabitants left it, and just as inevitably as a heap of shavings should catch fire, on which sparks of fire would rain down for several days. A wooden city, in which there are fires almost every day in the summer under the residents, house owners and under the police, cannot help but burn down when there are no inhabitants in it, but live troops smoking pipes, making fires on Senate Square from Senate chairs and cooking themselves two once a day. In peacetime, as soon as troops settle into quarters in villages in a certain area, the number of fires in this area immediately increases. To what extent should the probability of fires increase in an empty wooden city in which an alien army is stationed? Le patriotisme feroce de Rastopchine and the fanaticism of the French are not to blame for anything here. Moscow caught fire from pipes, from kitchens, from fires, from the sloppiness of enemy soldiers and residents - not the owners of the houses. If there were arson (which is very doubtful, because there was no reason for anyone to set fire, and, in any case, it was troublesome and dangerous), then the arson cannot be taken as the cause, since without the arson it would have been the same.
No matter how flattering it was for the French to blame the atrocity of Rostopchin and for the Russians to blame the villain Bonaparte or then to place the heroic torch in the hands of their people, one cannot help but see that there could not have been such a direct cause of the fire, because Moscow had to burn, just as every village and factory had to burn , every house from which the owners will come out and into which strangers will be allowed to run the house and cook their own porridge. Moscow was burned by its inhabitants, it’s true; but not by those residents who remained in it, but by those who left it. Moscow, occupied by the enemy, did not remain intact, like Berlin, Vienna and other cities, only due to the fact that its inhabitants did not offer bread, salt and keys to the French, but left it.

The influx of Frenchmen, spreading like a star across Moscow on the day of September 2, reached the block in which Pierre now lived only in the evening.
After the last two days, spent alone and unusually, Pierre was in a state close to madness. His whole being was taken over by one persistent thought. He himself did not know how and when, but this thought now took possession of him so that he did not remember anything from the past, did not understand anything from the present; and everything that he saw and heard happened before him as in a dream.
Pierre left his home only to get rid of the complex tangle of life's demands that gripped him, and which, in his then state, he was able to unravel. He went to Joseph Alekseevich’s apartment under the pretext of sorting through the books and papers of the deceased only because he was looking for peace from life’s anxiety - and with the memory of Joseph Alekseevich, a world of eternal, calm and solemn thoughts was associated in his soul, completely opposite to the anxious confusion in which he felt himself being drawn in. He was looking for a quiet refuge and really found it in the office of Joseph Alekseevich. When, in the dead silence of the office, he sat down, leaning on his hands, over the dusty desk of the deceased, in his imagination, calmly and significantly, one after another, the memories of the last days began to appear, especially the Battle of Borodino and that indefinable feeling for him of his insignificance and falsity in comparison with the truth, simplicity and strength of that category of people who were imprinted on his soul under the name they. When Gerasim woke him from his reverie, the thought occurred to Pierre that he would take part in the supposed - as he knew - popular defense of Moscow. And for this purpose, he immediately asked Gerasim to get him a caftan and a pistol and announced to him his intention, hiding his name, to stay in the house of Joseph Alekseevich. Then, during the first solitary and idle day (Pierre tried several times and could not stop his attention on the Masonic manuscripts), he vaguely imagined several times the previously thought about the cabalistic meaning of his name in connection with the name of Bonaparte; but this thought that he, l "Russe Besuhof, was destined to put a limit to the power of the beast, came to him only as one of the dreams that run through his imagination for no reason and without a trace.
When, having bought a caftan (with the sole purpose of participating in the people's defense of Moscow), Pierre met the Rostovs and Natasha said to him: “Are you staying? Oh, how good it is!” – the thought flashed through his head that it would really be good, even if they took Moscow, for him to stay in it and fulfill what was predetermined for him.
The next day, with one thought not to feel sorry for himself and not to lag behind them in anything, he walked with the people beyond the Trekhgornaya Gate. But when he returned home, making sure that Moscow would not be defended, he suddenly felt that what had previously seemed to him only a possibility had now become a necessity and an inevitability. He had to, hiding his name, stay in Moscow, meet Napoleon and kill him in order to either die or stop the misfortune of all of Europe, which, in Pierre's opinion, originated from Napoleon alone.
Pierre knew all the details of the attempt by a German student on the life of Bonaparte in Vienna in 1809 and knew that this student had been shot. And the danger to which he exposed his life in fulfilling his intention excited him even more.
Two equally strong feelings irresistibly attracted Pierre to his intention. The first was a feeling of the need for sacrifice and suffering with the awareness of general misfortune, that feeling, as a result of which he went to Mozhaisk on the 25th and arrived in the very heat of battle, now ran away from his home and, instead of the usual luxury and comforts of life, slept without undressing, on on a hard sofa and ate the same food with Gerasim; the other was that vague, exclusively Russian feeling of contempt for everything conventional, artificial, human, for everything that is considered by most people to be the highest good of the world. For the first time, Pierre experienced this strange and charming feeling in the Slobodsky Palace, when he suddenly felt that wealth, and power, and life, everything that people so diligently arrange and protect - if all this is worth something, then only by the pleasure with which you can give it all up.

(1778-1829) outstanding English chemist and physicist

Humphry Davy was born in the small town of Penzance in southwest England. His father was a woodcarver and earned little - the family had difficulty making ends meet. Mother, Gracia Millet, was the adopted daughter of a local Tonquin doctor. The school teachers from whom Humphrey studied unanimously spoke about the boy’s outstanding abilities and advised him to send him further to study. Humphrey did not at all want to part with the rocky shores of Cornwall, but his father’s decision was firm.

His sudden death disrupted all plans. Davy was forced to stop the chemical experiments that he had been so keen on lately: the money that his mother sent was not even enough for food. His chemical laboratory, located in a large chest, was locked.

It was very difficult for the widow Davy to feed her five children. After selling the farm, she moved closer to her adoptive father. After consulting with Mr. Tonkin, she decided to assign the young man to work in the pharmacy of John Borleys, who was considered a good doctor with extensive practice.

Science attracted Humphrey like a magnet and encouraged him to work in the Borles laboratory with full dedication. The young man dreamed of becoming a doctor and read a lot about medicine.

But one day, while digging in the library, he discovered Lavoisier’s chemistry textbook, then the “Chemical Dictionary”, then another and another... Having become acquainted with the works of great chemists, young Davy realized that chemistry was his true calling.

So, G. Davy in 1795-1798. - a pharmacist's student, from 1798 - head of the laboratory at the Pneumatic Institute, near Bristol, from 1802 - professor at the Royal Institution in London, in 1807-1812. - Permanent Secretary of the Royal Society of London.

The research that Davy carried out was very diverse and relates to inorganic chemistry and electrochemistry.

In 1799, the scientist discovered the intoxicating and analgesic effect of hemiazot (nitrous oxide) and determined its composition. It happened quite by accident. Once, while conducting experiments with nitrous oxide in the laboratory, a flask containing the gas under study broke. Davy felt a state of strong intoxication and became overly cheerful, after which this gas was called “laughing gas.” Davy noticed that when large amounts of nitric oxide were inhaled, it acted like a drug. The anesthetic (pain-relieving) property of nitrous oxide was also accidentally discovered when Davy had an unbearable toothache. He tried to breathe “laughing gas” and suddenly discovered that the pain went away.

After reading the work of Nicholson and Carlyle, “The Decomposition of Water by the Electric Current of a Galvanic Cell,” Davy became interested in this problem and began to study the effect of electric current on various properties of matter. He studied the electrolysis of water and confirmed the fact of its decomposition into hydrogen and oxygen. As always, when studying gaseous substances, Davy experienced the effects of hydrogen and methane on himself. When inhaling methane, he lost consciousness and probably would have died if the laboratory assistant, noticing something was wrong, had not stopped the flow of gas in time. The scientist slowly regained consciousness, but then suffered a long and serious illness. Davy wrote: “I am recovering from a fever of nine weeks, very dangerous and with bilious attacks.”

As soon as he felt better, inspired by his achievements and universal recognition, the scientist again launched his extensive work. By electrolysis of molten salts and alkalis in 1807, Davy obtained the metals potassium, sodium, barium, calcium, and in 1808 - an amalgam of strontium and magnesium. When producing potassium from molten potassium hydroxide, another misfortune occurred. During the experiment, there was suddenly an explosion, shards of glass and drops of potassium hit Davy in the face. Several months passed, the wounds on his face had long since healed, but he could no longer see with his right eye.

1812 was a happy year for G. Davy. This year, at thirty-four, he was awarded the title of Lord for scientific services to England. His chosen one was Jane April, a young widow, the daughter of a wealthy merchant and a distant relative of Walter Scott. Jane was a "socialite" of Edinburgh society. This woman was very ambitious, proud and arrogant, and she was madly in love with titles. Unfortunately, Humphry Davy learned her real character only three years after their wedding. It was during this period that all his illnesses worsened. Apparently, family discord also played a significant role in this.

In 1820, the Royal Society of London elected Humphry Davy as its president. Michael Faraday, his student, noted with sadness that in the last years of his life the teacher became more vain and he became envious of his student’s success.

Davy worked with inexhaustible energy, but overexertion and old illnesses increasingly made themselves felt. In 1826, he was struck by the first apoplexy (cerebral hemorrhage and partial paralysis of the body), which confined him to bed for a long time. The situation was complicated by the fact that the scientist’s wife was not at home for a long time, preferring to have fun surrounded by a crowd of fans. Despite everything, Davy loved his wife very much and indulged her in every possible way.

Several times he went to Italy for treatment, then to Switzerland, but these trips changed little in the state of his health.

In 1826, sensing his approaching death, Davy resigned as president of the Royal Society of London.

At the beginning of 1827, he and his brother left London for Europe. A year later, the illnesses came back with even greater force. Davy at this time lived in a country villa near Geneva. The wife never accompanied her husband on these trips. In mid-May, however, she arrived in Geneva, and Davy’s brother, John, also arrived there.

In 1829, on his way to England, the scientist was struck by a second stroke of apoplexy, his vitality slowly but surely left him. Humphry Davy died in his fifty-first year.

The ashes of Britain's outstanding son were buried in Westminster Abbey.