Of Refinement in the Arts
by David Hume


    LUXURY is a word of an uncertain signification, and may be
taken in a good as well as in a bad sense. In general, it means
great refinement in the gratification of the senses; and any
degree of it may be innocent or blameable, according to the age,
or country, or condition of the person. The bounds between the
virtue and the vice cannot here be exactly fixed, more than in
other moral subjects. To imagine, that the gratifying of any
sense, or the indulging of any delicacy in meat, drink, or
apparel, is of itself a vice, can never enter into a head, that
is not disordered by the frenzies of enthusiasm. I have, indeed,
heard of a monk abroad, who, because the windows of his cell
opened upon a noble prospect, made a covenant with his eyes never
to turn that way, or receive so sensual a gratification. And such
is the crime of drinking CHAMPAGNE or BURGUNDY, preferably to
small beer or porter. These indulgences are only vices, when they
are pursued at the expence of some virtue, as liberality or
charity; in like manner as they are follies, when for them a man
ruins his fortune, and reduces himself to want and beggary. Where
they entrench upon no virtue, but leave ample subject whence to
provide for friends, family and every proper object of generosity
or compassion, they are entirely innocent, and have in every age
been acknowledged such by almost all moralists. To be entirely
occupied with the luxury of the table, for instance, without any
relish for the pleasures of ambition, study, or conversation, is
a mark of stupidity and is incompatible with any vigour of temper
or genius. To confine one's expence entirely to such a
gratification, without regard to friends or family, is an
indication of a heart destitute of humanity or benevolence. But
if a man reserve time sufficient for all laudable pursuits, and
money sufficient for all generous purposes, he is free from every
shadow of blame or reproach.
    Since luxury may be considered either as innocent or
blameable, one may be surprized at those preposterous opinions,
which have been entertained concerning it; while men of libertine
principles bestow praises even on vicious luxury, and represent
it as highly advantageous to society; and on the other hand, men
of severe morals blame even the most innocent luxury and
represent it as the source of all the corruptions, disorders, and
factions, incident to civil government. We shall here endeavour
to correct both these extremes, by proving, first, that the ages
of refinement are both the happiest and most virtuous; secondly,
that wherever luxury ceases to be innocent, it also ceases to be
beneficial; and when carried a degree too far, is a quality
pernicious, though perhaps not the most pernicious, to political
society.
    To prove the first point, we need but consider the effects of
refinement both on private and on public life. Human happiness,
according to the most received notions, seems to consist in three
ingredients; action, pleasure, and indolence: And though these
ingredients ought to be mixed in different proportions, according
to the particular disposition of the person; yet no one
ingredient can be entirely wanting, without destroying, in some
measure, the relish of the whole composition. Indolence or
repose, indeed, seems not of itself to contribute much to our
enjoyment; but, like sleep, is requisite as an indulgence to the
weakness of human nature, which cannot support an uninterrupted
course of business or pleasure. That quick march of the spirits,
which takes a man from himself, and chiefly gives satisfaction,
does in the end exhaust the mind, and requires some intervals of
repose, which, though agreeable for a moment, yet, if prolonged,
beget a languor and lethargy, that destroys all enjoyment.
Education, custom, and example, have a mighty influence in
turning the mind to any of these pursuits; and it must be owned,
that, where they promote a relish for action and pleasure, they
are so far favourable to human happiness. In times when industry
and the arts flourish, men are kept in perpetual occupation, and
enjoy, as their reward, the occupation itself, as well as those
pleasures which are the fruit of their labour. The mind acquires
new vigour; enlarges its powers and faculties; and by an
assiduity in honest industry, both satisfies its natural
appetites, and prevents the growth of unnatural ones, which
commonly spring up, when nourished by ease and idleness. Banish
those arts from society, you deprive men both of action and of
pleasure; and leaving nothing but indolence in their place, you
even destroy the relish of indolence, which never is agreeable,
but when it succeeds to labour, and recruits the spirits,
exhausted by too much application and fatigue.
    Another advantage of industry and of refinements in the
mechanical arts, is, that they commonly produce some refinements
in the liberal; nor can one be carried to perfection, without
being accompanied, in some degree, with the other. The same age,
which produces great philosophers and politicians, renowned
generals and poets, usually abounds with skilful weavers, and
ship-carpenters. We cannot reasonably expect, that a piece of
woollen cloth will be wrought to perfection in a nation, which is
ignorant of astronomy, or where ethics are neglected. 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 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.
    The more these 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 contented to
remain in solitude, 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 show 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 every where formed: Both sexes
meet in an easy and sociable manner; and the tempers of men, as
well as their behaviour, refine apace. So that, beside the
improvements which they receive from knowledge and the liberal
arts, it is impossible but they must feel an encrease of
humanity, from the very habit of conversing together, and
contributing to each other's pleasure and entertainment. Thus
industry, knowledge, and humanity, are linked together by an
indissoluble chain, and are found, from experience as well as
reason, to be peculiar to the more polished, and, what are
commonly denominated, the more luxurious ages.
    Nor are these advantages attended with disadvantages, that
bear any proportion to them. The more men refine upon pleasure,
the less will they indulge in excesses of any kind; because
nothing is more destructive to true pleasure than such excesses.
One may safely affirm, that the TARTARS are oftener guilty of
beastly gluttony, when they feast on their dead horses, than
EUROPEAN courtiers with all their refinements of cookery. And if
libertine love, or even infidelity to the marriage-bed, be more
frequent in polite ages, when it is often regarded only as a
piece of gallantry; drunkenness, on the other hand, is much less
common: A vice more odious, and more pernicious both to mind and
body. And in this matter I would appeal, not only to an OVID or a
PETRONIUS, but to a SENECA or a CATO. We know, that CAESAR,
during CATILINE'S conspiracy, being necessitated to put into
CATO'S hands a billet-doux, which discovered an intrigue with
SERVILIA, CATO'S own sister, that stern philosopher threw it back
to him with indignation; and in the bitterness of his wrath, gave
him the appellation of drunkard, as a term more opprobrious than
that with which he could more justly have reproached him.
    But industry, knowledge, and humanity, are not advantageous
in private life alone: They diffuse their beneficial influence on
the public, and render the government as great and flourishing as
they make individuals happy and prosperous. The encrease and
consumption of all the commodities, which serve to the ornament
and pleasure of life, are advantageous to society; because, at
the same time that they multiply those innocent gratifications to
individuals, they are a kind of storehouse of labour, which, in
the exigencies of state, may be turned to the public service. In
a nation, where there is no demand for such superfluities, men
sink into indolence, lose all enjoyment of life, and are useless
to the public, which cannot maintain or support its fleets and
armies, from the industry of such slothful members.
    The bounds of all the EUROPEAN kingdoms are, at present,
nearly the same they were two hundred years ago: But what a
difference is there in the power and grandeur of those kingdoms?
Which can be ascribed to nothing but the encrease of art and
industry. When CHARLES VIII of FRANCE invaded ITALY, he carried
with him about 20,000 men: Yet this armament so exhausted the
nation, as we learn from GUICCIARDIN, that for some years it was
not able to make so great an effort. The late king of FRANCE, in
time of war, kept in pay above 400,000 men; though from
MAZARINE'S death to his own, he was engaged in a course of wars
that lasted near thirty years.
    This industry is much promoted by the knowledge inseparable
from ages of art and refinement; as, on the other hand, this
knowledge enables the public to make the best advantage of the
industry of its subjects. Laws, order, police, discipline; these
can never be carried to any degree of perfection, before human
reason has refined itself by exercise, and by an application to
the more vulgar arts, at least, of commerce and manufacture. Can
we expect, that a government will be well modelled by a people,
who know not how to make a spinning-wheel, or to employ a loom to
advantage? Not to mention, that all ignorant ages are infested
with superstition, which throws the government off its bias, and
disturbs men in the pursuit of their interest and happiness.
    Knowledge in the arts of government naturally begets mildness
and moderation, by instructing men in the advantages of humane
maxims above rigour and severity, which drive subjects into
rebellion, and make the return to submission impracticable, by
cutting off all hopes of pardon. 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 honour and interest steel men against compassion as
well as fear, the combatants divest themselves of the brute, and
resume the man.
    Nor need we fear, that men, by losing their ferocity, will
lose their martial spirit, or become less undaunted and vigorous
in defence of their country or their liberty. The arts have no
such effect in enervating either the mind or body. On the
contrary, industry, their inseparable attendant, adds new force
to both. And if anger, which is said to be the whetstone of
courage, loses somewhat of its asperity, by politeness and
refinement; a sense of honour, which is a stronger, more
constant, and more governable principle, acquires fresh vigour by
that elevation of genius which arises from knowledge and a good
education. Add to this, that courage can neither have any
duration, nor be of any use, when not accompanied with discipline
and martial skill, which are seldom found among a barbarous
people. The ancients remarked, that DATAMES was the only
barbarian that ever knew the art of war. And PYRRHUS, seeing the
ROMANS marshal their army with some art and skill, said with
surprize, These barbarians have nothing barbarous in their
discipline! It is observable, that, as the old ROMANS, by
applying themselves solely to war, were almost the only
uncivilized people that ever possessed military discipline; so
the modern ITALIANS are the only civilized people, among
EUROPEANS, that ever wanted courage and a martial spirit. Those
who would ascribe this effeminacy of the ITALIANS to their
luxury, or politeness, or application to the arts, need but
consider the FRENCH and ENGLISH, whose bravery is as
uncontestable, as their love for the arts, and their assiduity in
commerce. The ITALIAN historians give us a more satisfactory
reason for this degeneracy of their countrymen. They shew us how
the sword was dropped at once by all the ITALIAN sovereigns;
while the VENETIAN aristocracy was jealous of its subjects, the
FLORENTINE democracy applied itself entirely to commerce; ROME
was governed by priests, and NAPLES by women. War then became the
business of soldiers of fortune, who spared one another, and to
the astonishment of the world, could engage a whole day in what
they called a battle, and return at night to their camp, without
the least bloodshed.
    What has chiefly induced severe moralists to declaim against
refinement in the arts, is the example of ancient ROME, which,
joining, to its poverty and rusticity, virtue and public spirit,
rose to such a surprizing height of grandeur and liberty; but
having learned from its conquered provinces the ASIATIC luxury,
fell into every kind of corruption; whence arose sedition and
civil wars, attended at last with the total loss of liberty. All
the LATIN classics, whom we peruse in our infancy, are full of
these sentiments, and universally ascribe the ruin of their state
to the arts and riches imported from the East: Insomuch that
SALLUST represents a taste for painting as a vice, no less than
lewdness and drinking. And so popular were these sentiments,
during the later ages of the republic, that this author abounds
in praises of the old rigid ROMAN virtue, though himself the most
egregious instance of modern luxury and corruption; speaks
contemptuously of the GRECIAN eloquence, though the most elegant
writer in the world; nay, employs preposterous digressions and
declamations to this purpose, though a model of taste and
correctness.
    But it would be easy to prove, that these writers mistook the
cause of the disorders in the ROMAN state, and ascribed to luxury
and the arts, what really proceeded from an ill modelled
government, and the unlimited extent of conquests. Refinement on
the pleasures and conveniencies of life has no natural tendency
to beget venality and corruption. The value, which all men put
upon any particular pleasure, depends on comparison and
experience; nor is a porter less greedy of money, which he spends
on bacon and brandy, than a courtier, who purchases champagne and
ortolans. Riches are valuable at all times, and to all men;
because they always purchase pleasures, such as men are
accustomed to, and desire: Nor can any thing restrain or regulate
the love of money, but a sense of honour and virtue; which, if it
be not nearly equal at all times, will naturally abound most in
ages of knowledge and refinement.
    Of all EUROPEAN kingdoms, POLAND seems the most defective in
the arts of war as well as peace, mechanical as well as liberal;
yet it is there that venality and corruption do most prevail. The
nobles seem to have preserved their crown elective for no other
purpose, than regularly to sell it to the highest bidder. This is
almost the only species of commerce, with which that people are
acquainted.
    The liberties of ENGLAND, so far from decaying since the
improvements in the arts, have never flourished so much as during
that period. And though corruption may seem to encrease of late
years; this is chiefly to be ascribed to our established liberty,
when our princes have found the impossibility of governing
without parliaments, or of terrifying parliaments by the phantom
of prerogative. Not to mention, that this corruption or venality
prevails much more among the electors than the elected; and
therefore cannot justly be ascribed to any refinements in luxury.
    If we consider the matter in a proper light, we shall find,
that a progress in the arts is rather favourable to liberty, and
has a natural tendency to preserve, if not produce a free
government. In rude unpolished nations, where the arts are
neglected, all labour is bestowed on the cultivation of the
ground; and the whole society is divided into two classes,
proprietors of land, and their vassals or tenants. The latter are
necessarily dependent, and fitted for slavery and subjection;
especially where they possess no riches, and are not valued for
their knowledge in agriculture; as must always be the case where
the arts are neglected. The former naturally erect themselves
into petty tyrants; and must either submit to an absolute master,
for the sake of peace and order; or if they will preserve their
independency, like the ancient barons, they must fall into feuds
and contests among themselves, and throw the whole society into
such confusion, as is perhaps worse than the most despotic
government. But where luxury nourishes commerce and industry, the
peasants, by a proper cultivation of the land, become rich and
independent; while the tradesmen and merchants acquire a share of
the property, and draw authority and consideration to that
middling rank of men, who are the best and firmest basis of
public liberty. These submit not to slavery, like the peasants,
from poverty and meanness of spirit; and having no hopes of
tyrannizing over others, like the barons, they are not tempted,
for the sake of that gratification, to submit to the tyranny of
their sovereign. They covet equal laws, which may secure their
property, and preserve them from monarchical, as well as
aristocratical tyranny.
    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 encrease 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!
    To declaim against present times, and magnify the virtue of
remote ancestors, is a propensity almost inherent in human
nature: And as the sentiments and opinions of civilized ages
alone are transmitted to posterity, hence it is that we meet with
so many severe judgments pronounced against luxury, and even
science; and hence it is that at present we give so ready an
assent to them. But the fallacy is easily perceived, by comparing
different nations that are contemporaries; where we both judge
more impartially, and can better set in opposition those manners,
with which we are sufficiently acquainted. Treachery and cruelty,
the most pernicious and most odious of all vices, seem peculiar
to uncivilized ages; and by the refined GREEKS and ROMANS were
ascribed to all the barbarous nations, which surrounded them.
They might justly, therefore, have presumed, that their own
ancestors, so highly celebrated, possessed no greater virtue, and
were as much inferior to their posterity in honour and humanity,
as in taste and science. An ancient FRANK or SAXON may be highly
extolled: But I believe every man would think his life or fortune
much less secure in the hands of a MOOR or TARTAR, than in those
of a FRENCH or ENGLISH gentleman, the rank of men the most
civilized in the most civilized nations.
    We come now to the second position which we proposed to
illustrate, to wit, that, as innocent luxury, or a refinement in
the arts and conveniencies of life, is advantageous to the
public; so wherever luxury ceases to be innocent, it also ceases
to be beneficial; and when carried a degree farther, begins to be
a quality pernicious, though, perhaps, not the most pernicious,
to political society.
    Let us consider what we call vicious luxury. No
gratification, however sensual, can of itself be esteemed
vicious. A gratification is only vicious, when it engrosses all a
man's expence, and leaves no ability for such acts of duty and
generosity as are required by his situation and fortune. Suppose,
that he correct the vice, and employ part of his expence in the
education of his children, in the support of his friends, and in
relieving the poor; would any prejudice result to society? On the
contrary, the same consumption would arise; and that labour,
which, at present, is employed only in producing a slender
gratification to one man, would relieve the necessitous, and
bestow satisfaction on hundreds. The same care and toil that
raise a dish of peas at CHRISTMAS, would give bread to a whole
family during six months. To say, that, without a vicious luxury,
the labour would not have been employed at all, is only to say,
that there is some other defect in human nature, such as
indolence, selfishness, inattention to others, for which luxury,
in some measure, provides a remedy; as one poison may be an
antidote to another. But virtue, like wholesome food, is better
than poisons, however corrected.
    Suppose the same number of men, that are at present in GREAT
BRITAIN, with the same soil and climate; I ask, is it not
possible for them to be happier, by the most perfect way of life
that can be imagined, and by the greatest reformation that
Omnipotence itself could work in their temper and disposition? To
assert, that they cannot, appears evidently ridiculous. As the
land is able to maintain more than all its present inhabitants,
they could never, in such a UTOPIAN state, feel any other ills
than those which arise from bodily sickness; and these are not
the half of human miseries. All other ills spring from some vice,
either in ourselves or others; and even many of our diseases
proceed from the same origin. Remove the vices, and the ills
follow. You must only take care to remove all the vices. If you
remove part, you may render the matter worse. By banishing
vicious luxury, without curing sloth and an indifference to
others, you only diminish industry in the state, and add nothing
to men's charity or their generosity. Let us, therefore, rest
contented with asserting, that two opposite vices in a state may
be more advantageous than either of them alone; but let us never
pronounce vice in itself advantageous. Is it not very
inconsistent for an author to assert in one page, that moral
distinctions are inventions of politicians for public interest;
and in the next page maintain, that vice is advantageous to the
public? And indeed it seems upon any system of morality, little
less than a contradiction in terms, to talk of a vice, which is
in general beneficial to society.
    I thought this reasoning necessary, in order to give some
light to a philosophical question, which has been much disputed
in ENGLAND. I call it a philosophical question, not a political
one. For whatever may be the consequence of such a miraculous
transformation of mankind, as would endow them with every species
of virtue, and free them from every species of vice; this
concerns not the magistrate, who aims only at possibilities. He
cannot cure every vice by substituting a virtue in its place.
Very often he can only cure one vice by another; and in that
case, he ought to prefer what is least pernicious to society.
Luxury, when excessive, is the source of many ills; but is in
general preferable to sloth and idleness, which would commonly
succeed in its place, and are more hurtful both to private
persons and to the public. When sloth reigns, a mean uncultivated
way of life prevails amongst individuals, without society,
without enjoyment. And if the sovereign, in such a situation,
demands the service of his subjects, the labour of the state
suffices only to furnish the necessaries of life to the
labourers, and can afford nothing to those who are employed in
the public service.