Nevertheless, Rose concedes that
philosophically minded readers will not be harmed by the
Dialogues, although the Dialogues "may serve, indeed, to
confirm... the unprincipled in their prejudices...." (November
1779, Vol. 61, pp. 343-355)
INTERPRETIONS OF THE DIALOGUES. In Hume's day, as now, the
two key interpretive questions of the Dialogues were (1) Which
character, if any, represents Hume?, and (2) What are the views
of that character? Given its literary style, the Dialogues
involve a complex web of concealment, and, accordingly, Hume's
contemporaries took greater pains to understand the hidden
meaning of the Dialogues. Virtually all early commentators on the
Dialogues attempted to identify Philo as Hume's mouthpiece, as
Rose does below in his review when declaring Philo the hero:
Cleanthes... defends a good cause very feebly, and is by no
means entitled to the character of an accurate philosopher.
Demea supports the character of a sour, croaking divine,
very tolerably; but P/HILO\ is the hero of the piece; and it
must be acknowledged, that he urges his objections with no
inconsiderable degree of acuteness and subtlety.
The London Review also made this clear from the outset of their
review:
The following sentiments, which are represented as the
genuine opinions of Philo, or Hume himself, seem to us so
important as to deserve insertion as a specimen of the
whole.
Pages:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30