David Hume named Henry Neville’s letters among the writings that preserved the natural language of their age. In the 1759 edition of his History of Great Britain, the Scottish philosopher and historian contrasted the laboured writing of many Elizabethan and Jacobean authors with the more natural language of men engaged in public life. Among his examples were Neville’s letters:
There want not productions of that age, which, being wrote by men, who were not authors by profession, retain a very natural manner, and may give us some idea of the language, which prevailed among men of the world. I shall particularly mention Sir John Davis’s Discovery, Throgmorton’s and Neville’s letters.1
Neville and the Essex rebellion
Hume also gave a sympathetic account of Neville’s involvement in the Essex rebellion. Describing Essex’s disclosures before his execution, he wrote:
Sir Harry Neville, in particular, a man of merit, he accused of a correspondence with the conspirators; though it appears, that that gentleman had never assented to the proposals made him, and was no farther criminal than in not revealing the earl’s treason; an office, to which every man of honour naturally bears the strongest reluctance. Neville was thrown into prison, and underwent a severe persecution.2
Hume had also described Neville’s role among the English commissioners at the unsuccessful Boulogne peace conference in 1600. His account concentrated on the dispute over precedence between the English and Spanish delegations: which crown’s representatives should take the higher place.3
Hume on Shakespeare
Hume’s full discussion of Shakespeare in the 1759 literary survey follows, divided into shorter sections for readability. Spelling and capitalization are modernized.4
How Shakespeare should be judged
If Shakespeare be considered as a man, born in a rude age, and educated in the lowest manner, without any instruction, either from the world or from books, he may be regarded as a prodigy: If represented as a poet, capable of furnishing a proper entertainment to a refined or intelligent audience, we must abate somewhat of this eulogy.
Dramatic power and language
In his compositions, we regret, that great irregularities, and even sometimes absurdities should so frequently disfigure the animated and passionate scenes intermixed with them; and at the same time, we perhaps admire the more those beauties, on account of their being surrounded with such deformities. A striking peculiarity of sentiment, adapted to a singular character, he frequently hits, as it were by inspiration; but a reasonable propriety of thought he cannot, for any time, uphold. Nervous and picturesque expressions as well as descriptions, abound in him; but ’tis in vain we look either for continued purity or simplicity of diction.
The spectator and the reader
His total ignorance of all theatrical art and conduct, however material a defect; yet, as it affects the spectator rather than the reader, we can more readily excuse, than that want of taste, which often prevails in his productions, and which gives way, only by intervals, to the irradiations of genius.
Genius and its limitations
A great and fertile genius he certainly possessed, and one enriched equally with a tragic and comic vein; but, he ought to be cited as a proof, how dangerous it is to rely on these advantages alone for the attaining an excellence in the finer arts.5 And there may even remain a suspicion, that we over-rate, if possible, the greatness of his genius; in the same manner as bodies often appear more gigantic, on account of their being disproportioned and misshapen. He died in 1617 [see footnote], aged 53 years.6
Shakespeare and Jonson
Hume continues by comparing Shakespeare with Ben Jonson:
Jonson possessed all the learning, which was wanting to Shakespeare, and wanted all the genius, of which the other was possessed. Both of them were equally deficient in taste and elegance, in harmony and correctness. A servile copyist of the ancients, Jonson translated into bad English, the beautiful passages of the Greek and Roman authors, without accommodating them to the manners of his age and country. His merit has been totally eclipsed by that of Shakespeare, whose rude genius prevailed over the rude art of his contemporary. The English theatre has ever since taken a strong tincture of Shakespeare’s spirit and character; and thence it has proceeded, that the nation have undergone, from all their neighbours, the reproach of barbarism, from which their many valuable productions in other parts of learning, would otherwise have exempted them.7
Hume and the Neville family
Hume also knew a later member of the Billingbear family. Richard Neville Aldworth Neville, a descendant of the ambassador through his mother, Catherine Neville, served as a British diplomat in Paris. Writing to Adam Smith from Fontainebleau on 26 October 1763, Hume described his reception at the French court:
Mr. Neville, our minister, an honest, worthy English gentleman, who carried me about, was astonished at the civilities I met with.8
The acquaintance adds a personal connection to Hume’s interest in the earlier Neville. His praise of the ambassador’s letters was already in print by 1759, however, before this documented encounter.1
A second possible connection runs through Hume’s own family. During his embassy, Henry Neville received frequent visits from Alexander, sixth Lord Home, later first Earl of Home. On 2 March 1600, Neville asked Cecil to assist Lord Home’s passage through England, explaining that the Scottish nobleman had visited him often and made kind offers.9
David Hume traced his own Ninewells family to a younger branch of the Lords Home. In a genealogical letter of 12 April 1758, he described the family tradition and proposed checking surviving records. Neville’s visitor thus belonged to the noble house from which Hume himself claimed descent, although the exact relationship remains unestablished.10
Notes and sources
David Hume, The History of Great Britain, under the House of Stuart, second edition corrected (London: A. Millar, 1759), I, pp.128–129, original page. Spelling and capitalization in quotations are modernized; Hume’s wording and grammar are retained. The 1759 list names Throgmorton and Neville, without Essex, who appears in later editions. The printed “Nevile” is modernized to “Neville.” Hume apparently means Sir John Davies’s A Discovery of the True Causes Why Ireland Was Never Entirely Subdued, nor Brought under Obedience of the Crown of England, until the Beginning of His Majesty’s Happy Reign (1612), a historical and political account of English rule in Ireland. The title is modernized here; see the Folger catalogue, STC 6348.↩︎
Hume, The History of England, under the House of Tudor (London: A. Millar, 1759), II, pp.699–700, opening and continuation. This is the Tudor history published separately from the Stuart history cited above. Hume’s note to the quoted Neville passage cites Winwood, I, p.302; the preceding sentence cites p.300. The quotation retains the 1759 reading “that that gentleman”; “tho’” is expanded to “though.” His language is quoted as his historical judgment, not an independent determination of Neville’s degree of involvement.↩︎
Hume, History of England, under the House of Tudor (1759), II, p.695, original page, citing Winwood, I, pp.185–226. The diplomatic correspondence also records objections to negotiating powers and proposals for accommodation; Hume’s emphasis on ceremonial precedence is a compressed account of the negotiations.↩︎
Hume, History of Great Britain (1759), I, p.127, original page. The complete Shakespeare paragraph is reproduced, including “abate somewhat” and “for the attaining an excellence.” The subsection headings and paragraph divisions are editorial; Hume prints this as one paragraph. The discussion of Jonson follows on p.128, and the reference to Neville’s letters appears on p.129.↩︎
Hume adds a Latin footnote, attributed to “Plin.”: “Invenire etiam barbari solent, disponere et ornare non nisi eruditus.” Literally: “Even barbarians are accustomed to invent; none but an educated person can arrange and embellish” (translation supplied here). The wording is retained from the 1759 page.↩︎
Hume’s printed date and age are retained here. Shakespeare died in 1616, aged 52; see the Folger Shakespeare Library’s account.↩︎
Hume, History of Great Britain (1759), I, p.128, original page. The quotation reproduces the comparison with Shakespeare and the ensuing comment on English theatre; the paragraph then concludes with Jonson’s pension and death. Hume prints “Johnson,” modernized here to “Jonson,” and “copist,” modernized to “copyist.”↩︎
Hume to Adam Smith, 26 October 1763, in John Hill Burton, Life and Correspondence of David Hume (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1846), II, pp.168–172, at p.171, text. For the diplomat’s identity, maternal descent and Paris service, see G. Le G. Norgate, “Neville, Richard Neville Aldworth,” Dictionary of National Biography, entry. Hume’s letter establishes personal contact, not access to Billingbear manuscripts or discussion of Shakespeare authorship.↩︎
Neville to Cecil, 2 March 1600, in Edmund Sawyer, ed., Memorials of Affairs of State … Collected … by Sir Ralph Winwood (1725), I, p.156, original page. The year is modern-numbered; the printed dateline reads 1599 O.S. The preceding letter’s postscript reminds Cecil of Neville’s earlier reservations about Lord Home, so the request should not be read as an unqualified political endorsement. For identification, see Thomas Finlayson Henderson, “Home, Alexander (1566?–1619),” Dictionary of National Biography (1891), entry. Home and Hume are variant spellings of the family name.↩︎
David Hume to Alexander Home of Whitfield, 12 April 1758, in Burton, Life and Correspondence, I, pp.2–7, text. Hume traced Ninewells through Tinningham but acknowledged lost charters, uncertainty between a grandson and nephew, and reliance on a copied gravestone inscription. He proposed checking the monument and family papers; failing those, the account would rest on tradition. This does not establish descent from Alexander, sixth Lord Home, or a precise degree of cousinship.↩︎