Hume and Saint -Lambert on Arts, Luxury and [628567]

Hume and Saint -Lambert on Arts, Luxury and
Civilisation

Ștefan -Sebastian Maftei

ANNALS of the University of Bucharest
Philosophy Series

Vol. LXVII, no. 1, 2018
pp. 5 – 24.

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS,
LUXU RY AND CIVILIZATION *

ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI 1

Abstract

The focus of the paper is to review an early episode from the modern history of the
politics and the arts: the XVIII th century French reception of the debate on the role of
luxury and the arts and sciences in “free” states, as it unfolds in two of David Hume ’s
essays: Of the Rise and the Progress of the Arts and Sciences (1742) and Of Refinement in the
Arts (1752). The paper will try to address the reception of Hume ’s ideas about arts and
luxury in France by focusing particularly on Jean -François de Saint -Lambert’s (1716 –
1803) essay on “Luxury ”, published in the volume IX of the Encyclopedia of Diderot &
D’Alembert. The main thesis is that Saint -Lambert was a continuator of Hume in France.
Throughou t the discussion, the paper will try to survey the development of the luxury –
civilization -arts complex, which is now part of the traditional XVIII th century view on the
role of arts and sciences in free, “civilized ”, societies. Moreover, the discussions of Hume
and Saint -Lambert on luxury and the arts will unfurl another significant debate in the
XVIII th century, the debate about “civilization ”.
Keywords: Hume, arts and sciences, Saint -Lambert, luxury, civilization, progress,
politics and the arts, Enlight enment.

Argument

The present paper focuses on a pre -revolutionary episode of the XVIII th
century discussion about politics and the arts that precedes both the

* This text is an extended version of a subchapter entitled « Hume on Arts, Sciences
and Civ ilization: The “Industry -Knowledge -Humanity ” Connection », to appear
in my latest book Attaining Humanity. Aesthetic and Moral Education in Schiller and
Rousseau (forthcoming 2018).
1 “Babeș -Bolyai” University, Department of Philosophy; <[anonimizat]> .

6 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

programmatic instrumentalization of the arts as a tool “for political
changes”, a tendency starting with the French Revolution and
influencing the theme of the “political ” arts up to the first decades of the
XX th century, as well as the aestheticism ’s proclivity to “isolate art from
politics”2, a trend particular to the late Romanticism of the XIX th century.
Nevertheless, the simple fact that around the middle of the XVIII th
century, the flourishing age of Enlightenm ent in Europe, philosophical
authors from both sides of the English Channel began to discuss the social
and political role of “Arts” and “Sciences ” in the context of a major societal
shift from feudal to modern is already a sign that the wheels were in mot ion
and that European societies were beginning to adjust themselves to a new
societal ethos driven by “commercial ” rather that Christian -Moralist ethics
(Susato 2006). This tendency substantiated historical realities such as the
development and massificati on of commerce from the late XVII th century to
the middle XVIII th century, the population growth and the rise of wealthy
“nations” in the XVIII th century, the development of communications, the
intensification of production etc. 3
Thus, around the middle o f the XVIII th century, the rise of a
powerful middle “commercial ” class in the “civilized ” nations of Europe
led to a democratization of luxury, to a new distribution of luxury. This,
in turn, opened up debates about the role of luxury and economic
surplus in a new, “enlightened ” society, as well as concern for the role of
arts and knowledge within this new societal organization driven by
individualism and “self -interest”. Some authors who will be labelled by
their contemporaries as “Moralists ” will address concerns relating to the
way in which this “new” luxury, associated with new manners, will
corrupt and damage the new societal model envisioned by earlier
Enlightenment authors. The arts were, of course, a major point of debate,
as these were the beneficia ries and the instruments for the development

2 See the theme of the present issue: Art and Politics: Revolutionary Narratives and the
Depiction of European National Identities .
3 For a historical account of the modernization processes occurring in XVII Ith
century Europe, see Blanning 2007.

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CIVILIZATION 7

of luxury and “civilization ” in “free” societies. Rousseau was probably
the most renowned critic of this luxury -civilization -arts model 4.
The parti cular focus of the present paper is to review an episode of
this long -lasting debate about luxury and the arts in the XVIII th century,
the critiques of Hume and Saint -Lambert pertaining to the role of luxury
and arts in a “civilized ” society. The discussio n will inevitably engage
anther famous debate of the XVIII th century, the debate concerning
civilization. As we will see, Hume ’s account of arts, sciences and
civilization is strongly determined by his political views about “free”,
enlightened, states. We will also be able to conclude at the end of the
paper that Saint -Lambert, a famous French Encyclopédiste, was in part a
continuator of Hume ’s views in the context of the French XVIII th debate
about luxury, arts and their role in society. 5

Hume on Arts, F ree States and Civilization

Although Hume remained rather sceptical regarding the possibility of
an indefinite progress of the human species (Bury 2016, 118), an
indefinite progress which also would comprise the prospect that human
manners will refine ind efinitely throughout the course of human history,
he opens a discussion on the theme of human progress by civilization in
two of its essays, Of the Rise and the Progress of the Arts and Sciences (1742)
and Of Refinement in the Arts (1752) 6. These texts dea l with the issue of
civilization as related to the development of the arts and sciences in
modern societies.

4

5

6

See J.J. Rousseau ’s most methodical denouncement of the luxury -arts-civilization
model in: Rousseau 1960.
See sources about Hume and Saint -Lambert on “luxury” in: Terjanian 2013 (esp.
pp. 44-46, Subchapter “Luxe in the Encyclopédie ”); Shovlin 2009; Susato 2015 (esp.
p. 117 sqq.).
See “Essay XIII. Of the Rise and the Progress of the Arts and Sciences (first edition
1742)”; “Essay XXIV. Of Refinement in the Arts (first edition 1752) ”, in: Hume
1870, 63 -79; 159 -167.

8 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

The first essay, Of the Rise and the Progress of the Arts and Sciences ,
discusses the “general causes and principles ” pertaining to the rise of
sciences and arts not with reference to a “few”, but with reference to “a
whole people ”. Addressing the issue of arts and sciences with reference to a
“whole people ” or nation right from the start immediately brings the
inquiry into a philosop hical -political context, somehow anticipating Hume ’s
final intentions. Hume addresses the “causes and principles ” of the
development in the arts and sciences without ignoring, of course, the
influence of “chance” in this development 7. A point of inquiry is why a
nation appears “more polite and learned ” compared to a neighbour nation
at a certain moment in time. Hume ’s response ties up the rise and progress
of arts and sciences with the development of civilization, thus bringing to
the fore what he understand s first by civilization: “refining the people ”
(Hume 1870, 66). In a philosophical -political interpretation, Hume argues,
one cannot detach the progress in the arts and sciences relevant to a “whole
people” from the “blessing of a free government ” (Hume 18 70, 66). One
cannot simply have real progress in a nation ’s arts and sciences without the
presence of a certain political liberty guaranteed by the state, where the
people are not “debased ” with “barbarous ” policies. “Civilized ” acquires a
double sense her e8: a political one – being “civilized ” (Hume 1870, 71) is
being part of a certain political order, the “free states ”, polities which
promote law, order, liberty for their citizens, and a moral 9, personal one,
which comes from the presence of the “polite a rts”, without which “no
human society can subsist ” (Hume 1870, 76), that cultivate an attitude of
“mutual deference or civility ”, producing a “resignation ” of “our own
inclinations to those of our companion, and to curb and conceal that
presumption and arr ogance, so natural to the human mind. A good -natured
man (emphasis mine), who is well educated, practices the civility to every
mortal, without premeditation or interest ” (71). This attitude elicited by the
“polite arts ” is related to the quality of “rende ring [oneself] agreeable , by wit,
complaisance and civility ” especially in “civilized ”

7
8

9

Of the Rise and the Progress of the Arts and Sciences (Hume 1870, 65).
On the double sense of “civilized ”, denominating, among others, either “civilize d
mores”, or “organization of civil society ” see Benrekassa 2001, 266 -267. “Moral”,
i.e. referring to mores .

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CIVILIZATION 9

monarchies, where one “must turn [the] attention upwards, to court the
good gr aces and favour of the great ” (73). As for the cultivation of sciences,
this is more appropriate to a republic, where “it is necessary for a man to
make himself useful , by his industry, capacity, or knowledge ” (73).
We must suppose thus that people in a r epublic, due to the enjoyed
equality, should be more direct and less deferential, less courteous
among themselves. In other words, the way in which people in general,
not individuals, relate to one another in a certain polity that abides by a
certain const itution that guarantees a certain distribution of power
among the members of that polity will definitely influence one ’s
attitudes towards another: thus, every distribution of power elicits
certain mores. Here however, Hume does not appear to fall into a
prejudiced position of making manners dependent on the constitutional
nature of the polity alone. He talks about individual manners as being
specific to every “good -natured man ”, living in any kind of polity, as he
also talks about civilized mores as being more present, generally, in
civilized monarchies than in any other kind of polity: “politeness of
manners, therefore, arises most naturally in monarchies and courts; and
where that flourishes, none of the liberal arts will be altogether neglected
or despis ed” (73). This logic seems to apply to arts and sciences as well:
it is not that the arts and sciences and not present, due to certain
individuals , in any polity; it is that arts and sciences, generally , are more
favoured in free states, such as republics a nd civilized monarchies: “a
strong genius succeeds best in republics: a refined taste in monarchies.
And, consequently, the sciences are the more natural growth of the one,
and the polite arts of the other ” (73).
The moral attitude consisting in “renderin g [oneself] agreeable” is what
Hume later on, in the same text, will describe as “civilizing (…) manners ”,
“good manners ”, “refined breeding ”, necessary to “correct such gross vices,
as lead us to commit real injury on others ” (76). Evidently, in order not to
remain a simple façade, this politeness, which appears as “gallantry ” in
relation to women, needs to be “as generous as it is natural ” (76). Thus,
gallantry, when “natural” and “generous ”, is associated with “wisdom ” and
“prudence ”, two of the most ind ispensable moral virtues, as symbols of
civility in “rational beings ” (77).

10 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

The second essay, Of Refinement in the Arts (known as Of Luxury 10
up to the edition of 1760 11), deals more closely with the problem of the
arts as connected to luxury and the attainment of human happiness. The
bright move of Hume in his essay is to operate a difference between a
good , “innocent ” luxury and a “vicious” luxury. 12
Andrew Cunningham 13 argues convincingly that the distinction
betwe en a “vicious luxury ” and “innocent ” luxury was not invented by
Hume, and that Hume was inspired by the works of Archibald Campbell
(Enquiry into the Original of Moral Virtue , 1733), John Trenchard ( The
Independent Whig , 1720) and Francis Hutcheson ( An Inq uiry Concerning the
Original of our Ideas of Virtue and Moral Good , 1725). Hutcheson was talking of
an “extravagant Luxury ” that he labelled “Vice”. However, he also
discussed the issue of a luxury that was civilized and morally acceptable,
since it “tended to the public Good ” and “injured no Man ”14.

10 See on the subject of Hume ’s view on “luxury”, the commentaries of Susato 2006
and Cunningham 2005.
11 Susato 2006 considers that the change of the title from Of Luxury to Of Refinement in the
Arts is not acci dental, but strategic, as Hume was interested in changing “luxury” into
“refinement ”, pointing out a subtle shift in the XVIII th century mindset about luxury ,
from luxury as “wasteful extravagance ” to luxury as “having a beneficial effectby
increasing and extending the scope of both industry and consumption ” (Susato 2006,
169). Hume ’s argument about “moderate ” luxury as well as his difference between
“innocent ” and “vicious” actually looked for a middle ground between the “Moralist ”
perspective, which saw l uxury as “excess” – the ancient Latin term luxuria meant
‘excess’ – and the “libertine ” view, held by Mandeville, which saw all luxury as
“invariably good ”(Cunningham 2005, 237). According to Cunningham (2005), Hume
also wanted to detach himself from the “de-moralized ” view of luxury, which
designated a “mere possession ”, without adding any moral weight to the definition of
luxury (Cunningham 2005, 232; Rusato 2006, 176). Moreover, Rusato adds that
Hume’s shift transformation of “luxury” and his subsequent redefining of it as
“refinement ” is part of a well -coordinated two -steps strategy: first, of portraying
“refinement ” as a sign of a new “commercial ” morality that saw luxury as beneficial to
society and second, of seeing the luxury as a “condition favourable to the maintenance
of morals ”, to the preservation of a “sense of honour” (167). Therefore, luxury is not
only to be seen as “innocent ”, but also as manifesting a perceived beneficial and
positive moral value of being “honourable ”.
12 Of Refinement in the Art s (Hume 1870, 159).
13 Cunningham 2005, 243 sqq.
14 Hutcheson, qtd. in Cunningham 2005, 244.

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CIVILIZATION 11

Cunningham also adds a precious remark about the uses of the term
“luxury” in Hume ’s time. He state s that luxury was either understood in
a “de-moralized ” sense, as a “possession ”, or that it was described by
making direct reference to objects of luxury, to luxury goods
(Cunningham 2005, 232). However, as we see from An Inquiry
Concerning the Principles of Morals , Hume seems to add another, more
philosophical, sense to the term luxury, when he describes luxury as the
experience of the “refinement on the pleasures and conveniences of life ”:

“Luxury, or a refinement on the pleasures and conveniences of li fe, had not long
been supposed the source of every corruption in government, and the immediate
cause of faction, sedition, civil wars, and the total loss of liberty. It was, therefore,
universally regarded as a vice, and was an object of declamation to all satirists,
and severe moralists. Those, who prove, or attempt to prove, that such
refinements rather tend to the increase of industry, civility, and arts regulate anew
our moral as well as political sentiments, and represent, as laudable or innocent,
what had formerly been regarded as pernicious and blamable. ”15

This is consistent with Archibald Campbell ’s own description of
luxury as an experience one has when in contact with objects of luxury:

“for Luxury does not lie in any particular Set of agreeable Perceptions, but in our
pursuing or indulging them, after such a Manner, to such a Degree, or in such
Circumstances, wherein ourselves and others are Losers, or wherein we run
counter to the Self -Love of God, and our own Species. ”16

Hume’s focus in Of Re finement in the Arts is easily foreseeable, as he
intends to associate the good luxury with the progress of arts and
sciences in a civilized society. Again, he discusses the achievements in
the arts and sciences in the context of enlightened, civilized and
politically propitious polities: “the spirit of the age affects all the arts ”
(Hume 1870, 160). The theses of the essay, as Hume explains them from
the beginning, are to show that “ages of refinement are both the happiest
and the most virtuous ” and that l uxury ceases “to be beneficial,

15 Hume 1870, 415. Also qtd. in Rusato 2006, 176.
16 Campbell, qtd. in Cunningham 2005, 243.

12 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

wherever it ceases to be innocent ” (159). In other words, arts and
sciences, when present in societies, ascertain happiness both privately
and publicly. Privately, arts and sciences keep the citizens busy and
furnish them “action and pleasure ”. Publicly, they enhance
industriousness and commerce, therefore economic benefits. However,
as we will f ind from Hume ’s arguments, they also enhance sociability
and communication among the members of society. Individuals,
therefore, grow “happy and prosperous ”, states become “great and
flourishing ” (161). So, there is an economic benefit as well as a social
one. Moreover, people are enlightened both intellectually and morally:
“tempers ” are “softened ”, while “knowledge [is] improved ” (162).
Thus, the question whether arts create civilization or they are
created by it gets a different answer, which puts the d iscussion about
arts and civilization into a whole new light: roughly said, arts are
civilization and civilization, on the other hand, as Hume sees it, does not
exist really without arts and sciences. This is not about the
straightforward idea that arts an d sciences will necessarily and single –
handedly lead to civilization, because they will not, as we follow
Hume’s arguments. It is about a whole complex named “civilization ”,
which seems to encapsulate arts and sciences. Within this complex,
which elevates more and more humans to the situation of fully enjoying
their status as “rational creatures ”, arts and sciences will flourish in “free
governments ”, as they will bring to the table more individual happiness,
more social life and more political freedom that previously. Besides,
Hume sees a reciprocal influence even between sciences and arts, since,
without the advances in the “mechanical arts ”, he states, there is no
further refinement in the “liberal” ones (160).
The term “civilization ” here seems to addre ss a complex state of
affairs: economical, political, social, moral, educational, communicational,
informational, intellectual, artistic. This complex state of affairs may well be
labelled as “the spirit of the age ”, a phrase which probably encapsulates
about everything Hume seems to describe by “civilization ”:

“The spirit of the age affects all the arts, and the minds of men being once roused
from their lethargy, and put into a fermentation, turn themselves on all sides, and
carry improvements into every art and science. Profound ignorance is totally

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CIVILIZATION 13

banished, and men enjoy the privilege of rational creatures, to think as well as to act, to
cultivate the pleasures of the mind as well as those of the body. ” (Hume 1870, 160)

As for the effect of the arts on society, Hume ’s reasoning is clear:
the presence and development of arts enhances socialization through
communication of ideas and culture, and with socialization comes not
just an incr ease in knowledge, but also “an increase of humanity ”: “the
more refined arts advance, the more sociable men become; nor is it
possible, that when enriched with science, and possessed of a fund of
conversation, they should be contended to remain in solitud e, or live
with their fellow -citizens in that distant manner, which is peculiar to
ignorant and barbarous nations. They flock into cities; love to receive
and communicate knowledge; to shew their wit or their breeding; their
taste in conversation or living , in clothes or furniture. Curiosity allures
the wise; vanity the foolish; and pleasure both. Particular clubs and
societies are everywhere formed; both sexes meet in an easy and sociable
manner; and the tempers of men, as well as their behaviour , refine
apace. So that, besides the improvements which they receive from
knowledge and the liberal arts, it is impossible but they must feel an
increase of humanity, from the very habit of conversing together, and
contributing to each other ’s pleasure and entertainm ent.” (161)
What Hume is describing here is precisely a situation that he finds
throughout his age: the enhancement of knowledge, manners and tastes
occasioned by the extensive communication of ideas and culture that led
to the establishment of clubs and societies in Western Europe during the
XVIII th century. His argument is clear: the developing of arts 17 as well as
sciences, stirs up new knowledge, manners and tastes. Communicating
ideas, manners and tastes boosts socialization. This kind of socializatio n
is new, based on the communication of new ideas and establishes a new
kind of community, a community to which every “refined” person is

17 As many others throughout his century, Hume understands by “art” almost any
kind of activity that can be carried out based on a rational design. Thus,
“mechanical arts ”, “liberal arts ”, “polite arts ”, “arts of government ”, as well as
fashion, gardening, fine arts and decorative arts can be included in this category.
See “Art” (attributed to Diderot 2003).

14 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

able to participate. This initiates, in turn, a new kind of urban society,
driven by a new type of ideology, where values and realities such as
industriousness, knowledge, sociability, commerce, luxury, money, good
manners, and good tastes become prominent. This is, basically, the kind of
society representative of the new kind of “civilization ” that Hume refers to.
This kind of civilization is not defined only by its good manners, although
“good manners ”, which translate an “incr ease of humanity ”, are essential to
it18; it is also defined by the presence of industry and knowledge. Thus,
“industry , knowledge and humanity […] linked together by an indissoluble
chain” are specific to this “more polished (…) more luxurious ” age (Hume
1870, 161). In sum, this is the Age of Reason ’s dream of a triple, universal,
enlightenment of man: in “wit”, “breeding ” and “taste”, as Hume explains
(161), by referring to learning, morals and good taste in a real social
situation 19. This is Hume ’s view of a conglomerate of factors, chiefly
“industry ”, “knowledge ”, and “humanity ”, without forgetting the arts,
which contribute to a “civilization ”

18 The Encyclopédie (Saint -Lambert, “Manière ”, vol. 10, pp. 34 -37) will later refer to
manners ( manières ) as having the ability to “give birth ” to sentiments or to
influence morals ( moeurs ). In the same article, the author mentions that manners
can even “change nature ”, this is why governments who want to preserve a
certain uniformity and immutability in the mo rals of their subjects always resort
to keeping a certain immutability in their manners also: “The Egyptians are the
people that had the slowest rate of change of all the nations of Antiquity. These
people were governed by rites and manners” (p. 36) [trans lation mine].
19 See the difference that Saint Lambert observes in the Encyclopédie (vol. 10, pp. 34 –
37) between manières (manners) and moeurs (morals), when he looks at manières as
the external, social and concrete expression of moeurs. He explains manières as the
“instituted customs initiated in order to soften the commerce that men need to
have amongst them. They are the expression of morals (moeurs ), or just the effect
of submitting to customs. They are, with respect to moeurs , what the cult is with
respe ct to religion: they make them manifest, they preserve them, they replace
them (…) thus, manners need to be one of the objects of education, and can also
be instituted even by laws, or at least by examples. Morals are the internal part or
man, whereas mann ers represent the external part. To institute manners by laws,
this is nothing but creating a cult for virtue ” (“Manière ”, Encyclopédie, vol. 10, 34;
36) [translation mine].

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CIVILIZATION 15

specific t o his own age and culture 20. We are obviously referring here to
Hume’s own image of civilization, which he surely associates with his
own English way of life 21, as he was also very well aware of the
“moralists ”22 that “declaimed against refinement in the a rts”23, bringing
ancient Rome as example.

20 Of the three mentioned, Hume considers “humanity ”, which translates here an
overcoming of force, brutality and violence, as the “chief characteristic ” that
differentiates a “civilized age ” from a “barbarian ” one: “When the tempers of
men are softened as well as their knowledge improved, this humanity appears
still more conspicuous, and is the chief characteristic which distinguishes a
civilized age from times of barbarity and ignorance. Factions are then less
inveterate, revolutions less tragical, authority less severe, and seditions less
frequent. Even foreign wars abate of their cruelty; and after the field of battle,
where honor and interest steel men against compassion as well as fear, the
combatants dives t themselves of the brute and resume the man ” (Hume 1870,
162). Later, he will speak of “treachery and cruelty ” as “most odious of all vices ”,
“peculiar to uncivilized ages ” (165).
21 Hume 1870, 164 -165: “The liberties of England, so far from decaying since the
improvements in the arts, have never flourished so much as during that period
(…) The lower House is the support of our popular government; and all the
world acknowledges that it owed its chief influence and consideration to the
increase of commerce, which threw such a balance of property into the hands of
the Commons. How inconsistent then is it to blame so violently a refinement in
the arts, and to represent it as the bane of liberty and public spirit! ”
22 Possibly, one of them was Rousseau. His First Discourse was published in 1751,
one year before the publication of Hume ’s Of Refinement in the Arts. At least this is
the opinion of Robert Zaretsky and John T. Scott in their account of the dramatic
real-life encounter between Rousseau and Hume (Zaretsky & Scott 2009, 46).
23 Hume 1870, 163. See also “Manière ”, Encyclopédie, vol. 10: 36, where the author
talks about “polite nations ” existing before the invention of writing, nations
which have survived by following unwritten traditions and by respecting thei r
mores [moeurs ] perpetuated in manners [ manieres ]: “if polite nations [ peoples
policés ] have existed even before the invention of writing, I believe that they have
preserved for a long time their mores in the way that they have been established
by their g overnments, since, not having the help of letters, they were forced to
perpetuate the principles of their mores with the help of manners, of tradition, of
hieroglyphs, or images, finally, with the help of sensible signs, which engrave
themselves much deepe r into the hearts than writing, books and definitions ”
[translation mine].

16 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

It is thus only natural that Hume will find a political implication
for the arts. Hume ’s argument shows that “progress in the arts is rather
favourable to liberty, and has a natural tendency to preserve, if not
produce a free government ” (Hume 1870, 164). He sees arts as
conducing to liberty: the development of (all) the arts in a society
stimulates the rise of commerce and industry; commerce an d industry
support the acquisition of property; property brings about the rise of a
middle class, a “middling rank of men ” that are neither tyrannized by
nor tyrannizing others (as in the case of nations where the “arts are
neglected ”). These, the middle c lass, are the “best and firmest basis of
public liberty ”. Political liberty appears therefore when individuals
become “rich and independent ” (Hume 1870, 164 -165). This is Hume ’s
economic argument for the political relevance of the “arts” in a free
society whose development is based on industry and commerce.
The implications of the rise of arts in society are, thus, political as
well: arts support a certain kind of economic development based on
individual property, a development which leads to the emergence of a
new, civilized, class and, consequently, of a new, civilized, state.

Saint -Lambert ’s Reception of Hume ’s Theory of Luxury

The article “Luxury ” in the Encyclopédie is attributed 24 to Jean -François
de Saint -Lambert (1716 -1803), a French officer and man of letters. He
was known during his time not only for his 27 articles written for the
volumes VI -XVII of the Encyclopédie , but also for his affairs with Mme du
Châtelet and the Countess d ’Houdetot. Émilie du Châtelet, mistress of
the famous Voltaire, w as a brilliant woman. In the intellectual circles of
the time, she was well -known as a translator of Newton. Sophie
d’Houdetot was another famous name: she is known as the woman who
inspired Rousseau ’s character from his novel Julie, ou la Nouvelle Héloïse .
Due of his work as a poet, Saint -Lambert was recognized as a member of

24 See Moureau 1986, who makes a convincing argument about Saint -Lambert as the
author of the article «Luxe ». For a general survey on ideas about luxury in XVIII –
th century France, see Retat 1994.

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CIVILIZATION 17

the French Academy in 1753. He spent the second part of his life in
relative seclusion, as he took refuge outside Paris after 1793, protecting
himself from the terror of the Revolution. 25
During his time, Hume ’s ideas about the relation between arts and
luxury did not go unnoticed 26. On the contrary: they became famous,
and a few years after the publication of Hume ’s essay on refinement, the
Encyclopédie , in the article “Luxury” signed by Saint -Lambert and
published in 1765 27, made a reference to Hume ’s theory of luxury, by
now a part of the “most general accepted view ” on luxury:

“It is now the most generally accepted view that luxury is necessary to pull nations out
of their weakness and obscurity and to give them the strength, cohesiveness and
wealth that will make them rise above other nations. Luxury must always expand to
push the arts, industry, trade and to bring nations to that degree of maturity
necessarily follow ed by their decrepitude and their demise. This is the most generally
accepted view, and even Mr. Hume does not depart from it. ”28

Shovlin (2009), when commenting on Saint -Lambert’s reception of
Hume, addresses Saint -Lambert’s rather ambiguous relation to Hume’s
views on luxury:

“Just as Hume distanced himself from the extreme position of Mandeville while
borrowing some of its substance, so Saint -Lambert implicitly rejects Hume ’s
argument while co -opting parts of it. ” (Shovlin 2009, 218)

In our reading, w e consider that Saint -Lambert appears to reject
Hume’s position only in the first part of the article, as he discusses the
arguments “pro” and “con” for luxury, while agreeing with Hume ’s big
picture later in the essay. Shovlin seems to agree with that, as he will argue
later that “Saint -Lambert’s essay is ostensibly a defence of luxury ” (218). At

25 The historical information about Saint -Lambert follows the accounts provided by
Kafker & Chouillet 1990, 115 and by Wikipedia, “Jean François de Saint -Lamber t”.
26 For the French reception of Hume ’s theory of luxury, see Shovlin 2009, 210 -217
(“The French Reception of Hume ’s Apology for Luxury ”).
27 See the commentary of Shovlin (2009, 217 -222) (“The Reformulation of the
Enlightenment Perspective on Luxury ”).
28 Sain t-Lambert 2003 – article “Luxury ”.

18 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

the same time, the commentator contends that Saint -Lambert was not just a
simple laudator of luxury: “he breaks sharply with earlier apologists for
luxury” (219). Another reading is offered by Terjanian (2013, 44 -46).
Terjanian acknowledges Saint -Lambert’s “appropriation ” of Hume ’s
language, while at the same time considering that Saint -Lambert “balances ”
the “praise of luxury ” with “an historical appraisal of its relative dangers
and r ecommendations for its potential. ” (Terjanian 2013, 46)
In the following, we will present the essay ’s main intersection
points with Hume earlier views on luxury.
Firstly, Saint -Lambert’s essay seems to have taken upon Hume ’s
distinction between good luxu ry and vicious luxury 29. He states that
luxury can be considered good as long as it is useful, beneficial to the
states, and that the decline of states is due to their incapacity to
maintaining order and not to luxury:

“Wherever I saw that luxury was vici ous, wherever I saw that the lust for and
consumption of wealth conflicted with social customs and with the interests of the
state, I would conclude that the spirit of community, the foundation on which all
the forces of society rest, was ruined by the mis takes of the government. I would
conclude that luxury, useful under a good administration, becomes harmful only
through the ignorance or ill will of administrators and I would then examine
luxury in nations where order reigns, and in those where it has bee n weakened. ”
(Saint -Lambert 2003)

Throughout his essay on luxury, Saint -Lambert seeks to show that
luxury – contrary to, let ’s say, Rousseau ’s condemnation of luxury,
which is expressly denounced in the article 30, although Rousseau himself

29 One mus t also not ignore that ideas about the individual borne to “serve the Interests
of that universal Society whereof he is a Member ” (Archibald Campbell) existed
before Hume and that “publick Detriment ” with respect to luxury had already been
discussed by Hut cheson. Hume ’s merit was to mould out of all these ideas a new
theory about luxury and civilization. See Cunningham 2005, 243.
30 “From deduction to deduction and to save men from the inconveniences of
luxury, some have argued that men should go back to the woods and to a sort of
primitive state that never was and cannot be ” (Saint -Lambert 2003).

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CIVILIZATION 19

was one of the Encyclopédistes , – has not caused the corruption of ancient
states, such as Per sia, Greece or Rome, as the “Moralists ”31 declared:

“The ancient Persians, virtuous and poor under Cyrus, conquered Asia, adopted
its luxury and degenerated. Did they degenerate as a result of their conquest of
Asia, or as a result of their adoption of it s luxury? Was it not the scope of their
dominion that modified their mores? (…) It is said that Athens lost its strength
and virtues after the Peloponnesian war, at the time of its wealth and luxury. I
find a more real cause of Athens ’ decline in the power of the populace and the
debasement of the senate (…) The example of ancient Rome, so confidently
quoted by the critics of luxury would not disconcert me much more. (…) I would
see that, in this immense empire, the victorious party would necessarily drive the
government to despotism or to anarchy; and that even if Rome had never had the
luxury or the wealth of Antioch and Carthage, or the philosophers and the
masterpieces of Greece, the Roman republic, having been constituted only to grow
ceaselessly, would have fallen at the peak of its grandeur. (…) luxury might not
have been the cause of the demise or the prosperity of empires and of the
characters of nations. ” (Saint -Lambert 2003)

Thus, Saint -Lambert sees the source of the decay of empires and
states which in their heyday enjoyed wealth, prosperity and luxury as
lying in the “nature of [their] governments ” or in their “geographical
situation ”, or as originating from other causes, and not in their
encouragement of or in their benefit from luxury. This a lso is inspired by
Hume’s own analysis of the decay of ancient empires, such as Rome,
whose real cause of decadence is in an “ill-modelled government ” and
the “unlimited extent of conquests ” (Hume 1870, 164).
As of luxury itself, the merit of Saint -Lamber t’s essay from the
Encyclopédie is to emphasize the normality of luxury in a civilized
society. He explains that the “desire for gratification ” and the “desire of
becoming rich ” influence commerce and industries. These industries will
“give new means of su stenance to the population ”, and, consequently,
support the population growth. Luxury, producing commerce and

31 “Luxury has always been the subject of ranting by Moralists, who have censured
it with more melancholy than wisdom. Recently a few politicia ns, who spoke
more as merchants or shop assistants than as philosophers and statesmen, have
praised it ” (Saint -Lambert 2003).

20 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

industry, is beneficial to the “population ” and “wealth” of nations. The
whole reality of l uxury in a modern state is that it is sustained by private
property, being necessary to the state: “anyone who works to get rich is
useful to the state, and any rich man who wishes to enjoy his wealth is a
reasonable man ”. However, the state also has to ke ep a balance between
the desire for wealth of one ’s individual and the means to increase the
wealth, so that “no category of citizen must see its welfare sacrificed for
the welfare of another category ” (Saint -Lambert 2003).
Saint -Lambert thus labels the d esire for wealth and luxury as
natural and associates it with other passions, which are also natural,
such as rivalry, to which wealth and luxury play a very important role,
which is not a purely economic one anymore: thus, the desire for wealth
and luxury comes from rivalry, and rivalry is natural and beneficial to
every society; because of rivalry, wealth acquires a special status, and
luxury becomes “decorous ”; thus, richness and luxury gain a symbolic
role, expressing the social rank of the individual: “as soon as they take
pride in it, they must strive to look rich ”. This constant rivalry,
manifesting itself as “comparison ” and as an attempt to “assert [one ’s]
superiority ” is what drives men to seek gain and profit from commerce
and industry and, ultima tely, to enjoy luxury. Comparison will result in
a show of wealth and luxury. Increase in wealth and luxury through
industry and commerce become signs of civilization. Civilization thus
equals a constant development of wealth:

“In a society, men constantl y compare themselves to each other; they ceaselessly
attempt to assert their superiority in their own eyes and in the eyes of the others.
This rivalry becomes even more acute among men of similar importance. Now,
there is only one government that, like Spa rta, has made wealth useless, where
men have no urge to take pride in their wealth. As soon as they take pride in it,
they must strive to look rich; thus, in all ranks one will see expenditures that are
excessive for the wealth of each individual and a lux ury that is called decorous.
Without an immense surplus each rank will feel destitute. ” (Saint -Lambert 2003)

It is certain that Saint -Lambert associates “natural” luxury and
wealth with civilization, since, when he speaks of other economies that
do not re ly on trade and industry, he refers to them as belonging to
“uncivilized times ”:

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CIVILIZATION 21

“During uncivilized times, when trade was ignored and when crude
manufactured goods could not enrich thei r producers, the only wealth was land,
and the only opulent men were large landowners and these large landowners
were lords of fiefs. ” (Saint -Lambert 2003)

As for the relation between luxury and fine arts, Saint -Lambert
sees fine arts as part of what cons titutes luxury 32 and, thus, civilization:
“this luxury is for decorum, convenience and extravagance: it
encompasses in these different categories all the useful arts and all the
fine arts”. He also adds that “all the social positions will appreciate the
worth of fine arts and will enjoy them ”. Because this luxury is civilized,
we may say that it is “confined within reasonable limits by a communal
spirit, by the observance of duties, and by activities which leave no one
in the continuous search for pleasure s”. In addition, because it is socially
useful, the luxury of the fine arts is not only entertainment, but also
education: “these same fine arts will remind the citizens of their patriotic
zeal and of the virtues: to them, they are not mere objects of
intemperance, but lessons and examples (…) such was the use of arts in
Greece, before the governments got corrupted; it is still often so in
Europe, in the enlightened nations that did not stray too much from the
principles of their constitution. ” The luxury b rought by fine arts will not
put this citizen of a free and prosperous state in contradiction with his
“duties”. On the contrary. On the other hand, luxury is “excessive ” only
if “individuals sacrifice their duties or the nation ’s interest in favour of
their own splendour , their own convenience, their own extravagance ”.
In the end, “luxury will take after mores ”, since, as he mentions later,
“luxury does not shape mores, but follows their character and that of the
government ” (Saint -Lambert 2003). Luxury can be associated with
governments where there is neither “art”, nor “enlightenment ”, but that
will be a “coarse”, uncivilized luxury, where the “weak” suffer “the
injustice and the hardships ” of the strong. “Feudal” governments are
known to have this kind of luxury.

32 In his 1752 essay Of Commerce (Hume 1870, 149 -158) Hume shows that the “finer
arts” are “commonly denominated the arts of luxury” (151).

22 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

The author ’s conclusion is that luxury is not pernicious and dec adent
per se; on the contrary, it may “add to the happiness of humanity ” if it is
associated with an enlightened government that treats its citizens with
equal respect, by guaranteeing them private possessions and by
encouraging industry, commerce and the developments of the arts with a
view to everyone ’s interest. Luxury becomes a natural part of a civilized
society , as “wealth”, on which luxury depends, “must be divided ” in a
civilized state. Based on, so to say, socialized desires that seem natural, such
as “the desire to become wealthy ” and that of “enjoying one ’s wealth ”,
luxury must not be “disparaged ”. Moreover, luxury can bring enjoyment
and education to everyone, as works of fine arts, that are a part of luxury,
are probably a nation ’s finest luxury items as well 33.

Conclusion

We have thus been able to see how Hume ’s theory of luxury influenced
the Enlightenment ’s ideas about arts and civilization and how his theory
about luxury and its so -called “natural” relation to civilization became
part of t he “generally accepted view ” on the role of luxury, industry and
the arts in a civilized society around the middle of the XVIII th century.
The reactions to Hume ’s theory in the Encyclopédie stand as a testimony
of Hume ’s significant contribution to this de bate.

33 Compare Hume 1870, 10 ( Of the Delicacy of Taste and Passion ). “(…) a man (…)
receives more enjoyment from a poem or a piece of reasoning than the most
expensive luxury can afford ”. Also referenced in Susato 2006, 185 (n. 33). We
have to pay attention as well to the fact that Hume himself modifies his position
with respect to luxury from a fairly moralist view, which saw luxury as a moral
term describing a “vicious quality of character ” (Cunningham) in the Treatise of
Human Nature (1740) and Of the Delicacy of Taste and Passion (1741) to a more
moderate view, starting with his 1751 Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
(Hume 1870, 407 -501, esp. 415). See Cunningham 2005, on this matter.

HUME AND SAINT -LAMBERT ON ARTS, LUXURY AND CI VILIZATION 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benrekassa, Georges (2001). “Civilization and Civility ”. In: M. Delon (ed.), Encyclopedia of
the Enlightenment , vol. 1 (A -L). London: Routledge, pp. 266 -271.
Blanning, Tim (2007). The Pursuit of Glory. Europe 1648 -1815 . London: Penguin Books.
Bury, J.B., (2006). The Idea of Progress. An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth (first edition
1920), reprint edition, The Echo Library.
Cunningham, Andrew S. (2005). “David Hume ’s Account of Luxury ”. In: Journal of the
History of Economic Thought , 27:3, pp. 231 -250.
Diderot, Denis (2003). “Art” (attributed to Diderot). In: The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d ’Alembert
Collaborative Translation Project. Transl. Nelly S. Hoyt & Thomas Cassirer. Ann Arbor:
Michigan Publishing, UM Library. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0000.139.
Originally published as “Art”, Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts
et des métiers, vol. 1, pp. 713 -717 (Paris, 1751).
Hume, David (1870). “Essay I. Of the Delicacy of Taste and Pass ion” (first edition 1741).
In: David Hume, Essays, Literary, Moral, and Political . London: Ward, Lock & Co.,
pp. 9 -11.
Hume, David (1870). “Essay XIII. Of the Rise and the Progress of the Arts and Sciences ”
(first edition 1742). In: David Hume, Essays, Li terary, Moral, and Political . London:
Ward, Lock & Co., pp. 63 -79.
Hume, David (1870). “Essay XLI. An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals ” (first
edition 1751). In: David Hume, Essays, Literary, Moral, and Political . London: Ward,
Lock & Co., pp. 407-501.
Hume, David (1870). “Essay XXIII. Of Commerce ” (first edition 1752). In: David Hume,
Essays, Literary, Moral, and Political . London: Ward, Lock & Co., pp. 149 -158.
Hume, David (1870). “Essay XXIV. Of Refinement in the Arts ” (first edition 1752). I n:
David Hume, Essays, Literary, Moral, and Political . London: Ward, Lock & Co., 159 -167.
Kafker, Frank A. & Chouillet, Jacques (1990). Notices sur les auteurs des 17 volumes de
« discours » de l ’ Encyclopédie (suite et fin) ”. In: Recherches sur Diderot et sur
l’Encyclopédie , n°8, pp. 101 -121.
Moureau, François (1986). “Le manuscrit de l ’article Luxe ou l’atelier de Saint -Lambert”.
In: Recherches sur Diderot et sur l ’Encyclopédie , n°1, pp. 71 -84.
Retat, Pierre (1994). « Luxe ». In: Dix-huitième Siècle , n°2 6 (Economie et politique), pp. 79 -88.
Rousseau, J. -J. (1960). Politics and the Arts: Letter to M. D ’Alembert on the Theatre , transl. with
notes and an introduction by Allan Bloom, Ithaca NY: Cornell UP, pp. 3 -137.
Saint -Lambert, Jean -François de (1765). “Manière”. In: (dir. Diderot, Denis & d ’Alembert,
Jean le Rond), Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des
métiers , vol. 10, Paris, pp. 34 -37.
Saint -Lambert, Jean -François de (2003). “Luxury ”. In: The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d ’Alembert
Collaborative Translation Project. Transl. Claude Blanchi. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing,
UM Library. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0000.048. Originally published as
« Luxe », Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol.
9, pp. 763 -771 (Paris, 1765).

24 ȘTEFAN -SEBASTIAN MAFTEI

Schabas, Margaret & Wennerlind, Carl (eds.) (2009). David Hume ’s Political Economy
(Routledge Studies in the History of Economics ). London: Routledge.
Shovlin, John (2 009).“Hume’s Political Discourses and the French Luxury Debate ”. In:
Schabas, Margaret & Wennerlind, Carl (eds.) (2009). David Hume ’s Political
Economy , London: Routledge, pp. 203 -222.
Susato, Ryu (2006). “Hume’s Nuanced Defense of Luxury ”. In: Hume Studi es, 32.1, pp.
167-186.
Susato, Ryu (2015). Hume’s Sceptical Enlightenment . Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP. Terjanian,
Anoush Fraser (2013). Commerce and Its Discontents in Eighteenth -Century French
Political Thought . Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Zaretsky, Robert; Sco tt John T. (2009). The Philosophers ’ Quarrel: Rousseau, Hume, and the
Limits of Human Understanding . New Haven: Yale UP.