FOR many years I lived abroad and visited Scotland only irregularly. On one of these visits I became aware of a new statue of a reclining man outside the old Sheriff Court on Edinburgh’s High Street. When I returned to live in Scotland I discovered that this was supposed to represent David Hume.
Readers will no doubt know the statue. The figure is loosely draped in some sort of toga, he is clutching a weighty tome and is stretched out in a rather uncomfortable looking pose with his head tilted slightly downward as if in deep thought and his bare toe protruding form the folds of his garment. The toe is shiny because, I was told, it has become traditional to touch it in order to gain wisdom. No doubt this a charming tale for tourists, but it has no historical validity and anybody who has seen an image of Hume made during his lifetime will see that the statue bears absolutely no resemblance to the philosopher.
The renaming by the University of Edinburgh of The David Hume Tower because of Hume’s allegedly racist attitudes completes the circle of civic stupidity. The anachronism of the statue seems less important in the grand scheme of things in comparison to the submissive inanity of the University authorities pandering to unthinking, woke revisionism.
READ MORE: Tom Devine brands Ediburgh University's David Hume decision a ‘shambles’
Like Professor Devine (Saturday January 23), I simply cannot fathom a university being guilty of such crass anachronism. Let there be no mistake about this, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. What if woke revisionism takes issue with some footnote in Darwin’s oeuvre and judges evolutionary theory no longer appropriate?
Or if in some dystopian future place, a minority of vocal fascists decides that the holocaust did not take place and they are not prosecuted but taken seriously? History is a rigorous discipline dedicated to understanding what happened in the past, not a place where the opinions and sensibilities of the moment can be projected.
Although Hume is remembered as a philosopher, he was hardly recognised as such during his life. He was described by one wag as not a philosopher at all but just a very clever man. He was moreover refused any academic position during life because of his critical attitude towards religion in general and to Christianity in particular.
He did nevertheless complete what was at the time the most comprehensive history of England ever written; his philosophical treatises were in some sense prolegomena to this. He was of course a stalwart champion of the Union, which I am not, but I am not so insecure in my opinions, historically unsophisticated or badly educated that I believe because of this his name should now be mud.
READ MORE: High-powered panel to discuss re-naming of David Hume Tower amid racism row
I always thought it was a bit hypocritical of the University of Edinburgh to have named a building after Hume, jumping on the bandwagon of his genius only when it was safe to do so, long after he died. Perhaps the woke brigade have done him a service; maybe he has been turning gently in his grave for being celebrated by the same institution that refused to recognise him in life, maybe he is glad no longer to be associated with the architectural vandalism that took place on George Square during the 1960s.
I do hope that Ramsay’s portrait of Hume, which once hung in the foyer of 40 George Square has been removed to a place where it and Hume’s memory can be treated with a degree of historical sensitivity.
I note with some dismay that Edinburgh University has been approached for comment and has yet to respond. It really should. As a graduate of this august institution, I would rather like my degree still to stand for something, like intellectual integrity and careful scholarship. If there was ever a time when it were necessary to confront the superficialities of popular opinion with nuanced historical research, this is it. That Edinburgh University appears not to realise this is frankly shocking.
A Duncan
Cupar, Fife
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel