[Next Project] Hume, Treatise of Human Nature

[Bennett Helm]

For my next project, I'd like to do Hume's Treatise of Human Nature.

Here are original page scans for the Selby-Bigge edition (1896), which is pretty much the standard edition for the Treatise.

Here is the Project Gutenberg page.

Assuming I get the go-ahead to do this, I have one question to start with concerning how to break this into files.

Hume divides his text into "Books", "Parts", and "Sections". There really is no text to any "book" or "part" except what is contained in the "sections" (though each book, part, and section has a name). Part numbering restarts with each book, and section numbering restarts with each part. 

So far what I've done is to split the text into these files (ordering them as they appear in the text):

• advertisement.xhtml
• introduction.xhtml
• book-1.xhtml
• part-1-1.xhtml
• part-1-2.xhtml
• part-1-3.xhtml
• part-1-4.xhtml
• book-2.xhtml
• part-2-1.xhtml
• part-2-2.xhtml
• part-2-3.xhtml
• book-3.xhtml
• part-3-1.xhtml
• part-3-2.xhtml
• part-3-3.xhtml

These "Parts" average about 55 pages (11 parts in total over 620 pages); the longest is over 100 pages, and the shortest is about 20. By contrast, there are 90 sections in total.

So is this an appropriate way to divide up the work? Or should I divide it further into sections, resulting in files like "section-2-4-1.xhtml" for Book II, Part IV, Section 1? The reason I didn't split any further is that, whereas each Book and Part has a title, none of them has any text except for what is contained in the Sections. So "book-*.xhtml" is essentially a stub, containing just the title. It seemed silly to have a bunch of "part-*-*.xhtml" files that also contain just titles. ... And having a part with about 100 pages didn't seem outlandish.

Bennett

[Vince]

What you’re describing (each section in a file) is the standard way we structure three-level books. It’s no sillier for a part to be just the part # and title than it is for the book file to be just the book # and title; that’s just the way the book is structured. See, e.g. War and Peace (whose top-level has only a #, no title), Les Misérables, etc.

[Bennett Helm]

Ok, so I've split it up into books, parts, and sections. One further question about this: what is the appropriate "epub:type" for each of these? Here's what I have:

Book --> epub:type="volume"

Part --> epub:type="part"

Section --> epub:type="chapter"

Does that sound right? (I see War and Peace does it differently, mapping Book onto "division". But as I read the spec, this is wrong: a division is "a substructure of a part", rather than a superstructure.)

I'm still waiting on the official go-ahead before I do more.

Bennett

[Alex Cabal]

Can you send a link to your repo, so we can assign a manager and
reviewer who will answer these questions?

On 7/2/26 7:40 AM, Bennett Helm wrote:
> Ok, so I've split it up into books, parts, and sections. One further
> question about this: what is the appropriate "epub:type" for each of
> these? Here's what I have:
>
> Book --> epub:type="volume"
> Part --> epub:type="part"
> Section --> epub:type="chapter"
>

> Does that sound right? (I see /War and Peace/ does it differently,
> mapping Book onto "division". But as I read the spec <https://
> www.w3.org/TR/epub-ssv-11/#sec-divisions>, this is wrong: a division is

> "a substructure of a part", rather than a superstructure.)
>
> I'm still waiting on the official go-ahead before I do more.
>
> Bennett
>
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2026 at 7:39:42 PM UTC-4 Vince wrote:
>
> What you’re describing (each section in a file) is the standard way
> we structure three-level books. It’s no sillier for a part to be
> just the part # and title than it is for the book file to be just
> the book # and title; that’s just the way the book is structured.

> See, e.g. /War and Peace/ (whose top-level has only a #, no
> title), /Les Misérables/, etc.

>
>
>> On Jul 1, 2026, at 3:33 PM, Bennett Helm <bennet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> For my next project, I'd like to do Hume's /Treatise of Human Nature/.
>>
>> Here are original page scans <https://archive.org/details/0213-bk/

>> > for the Selby-Bigge edition (1896), which is pretty much the

>> standard edition for the /Treatise/.
>>
>> Here is the Project Gutenberg page <https://www.gutenberg.org/
>> ebooks/4705>.

>>
>> Assuming I get the go-ahead to do this, I have one question to
>> start with concerning how to break this into files.
>>
>> Hume divides his text into "Books", "Parts", and "Sections". There
>> really is no text to any "book" or "part" except what is contained
>> in the "sections" (though each book, part, and section has a
>> name). Part numbering restarts with each book, and section
>> numbering restarts with each part.
>>
>> So far what I've done is to split the text into these files
>> (ordering them as they appear in the text):
>>

>> * advertisement.xhtml
>> * introduction.xhtml
>> * book-1.xhtml
>> * part-1-1.xhtml
>> * part-1-2.xhtml
>> * part-1-3.xhtml
>> * part-1-4.xhtml
>> * book-2.xhtml
>> * part-2-1.xhtml
>> * part-2-2.xhtml
>> * part-2-3.xhtml
>> * book-3.xhtml
>> * part-3-1.xhtml
>> * part-3-2.xhtml
>> * part-3-3.xhtml

>>
>> These "Parts" average about 55 pages (11 parts in total over 620
>> pages); the longest is over 100 pages, and the shortest is about
>> 20. By contrast, there are 90 sections in total.
>>
>> So is this an appropriate way to divide up the work? Or should I
>> divide it further into sections, resulting in files like
>> "section-2-4-1.xhtml" for Book II, Part IV, Section 1? The reason
>> I didn't split any further is that, whereas each Book and Part has
>> a title, none of them has any text except for what is contained in
>> the Sections. So "book-*.xhtml" is essentially a stub, containing
>> just the title. It seemed silly to have a bunch of "part-*-

>> *.xhtml" files that /also/ contain just titles. ... And having a

>> part with about 100 pages didn't seem outlandish.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/a3ecc052-f9a7-4898-a931-f7108ffe7c7fn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/a3ecc052-f9a7-4898-
> a931-f7108ffe7c7fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Bennett Helm]

Here it is: https://github.com/bwhelm/Hume_Treatise-of-Human-Nature/

Bennett

[Alex Cabal]

OK, Emma will manage with Lukas reviewing.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> standardebooks/5e917caa-f0c2-4780-b8d5-b4608a1cf8ecn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/5e917caa-f0c2-4780-
> b8d5-b4608a1cf8ecn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Emma Sweeney]

Use epub:type="division" for the book files.

Emma

[Bennett Helm]

Ok -- done. Thanks!

[Bennett Helm]

I've gotten through Step 20 of the step-by-step guide. (Pushed to github.) Now on to linting, and I have a question.

This book is divided into Books, Parts, and Sections, each numbered and with a descriptive name. Thus, in the above ToC under "6. A Treatise of Human Nature", Hume has: "Book I: Of the Understanding", "Part I: Of Ideas ...", and "Section I: Of the Origin ...".  Consequently, I've included these in each file as follows (for book-1.xhtml):

<section id="book-1" epub:type="division">
<hgroup>
<h2>
<span epub:type="se:label">Book</span>
<span epub:type="z3998:roman">I</span>
</h2>
<p epub:type="title">Of the Understanding</p>
</hgroup>
</section>

Running `se build-toc .` creates the ToC like this:

1. Titlepage
2. Imprint
3. Epigraph
4. Advertisement
5. Introduction
6. A Treatise of Human Nature
   1. Of the Understanding
      1. Of Ideas, Their Origin, Composition, Connection, Abstraction, Etc
         1. Of the Origin of Our Ideas
         2. Division of the Subject

[Etc.]

But running `se lint .` throws errors: "Heading not found in the ToC" because `se lint` is expecting the "Book I" to be a part of the title, but `se build-toc` doesn't include it. What's the remedy here? (What am I doing wrong?)

Bennett

[Emma Sweeney]

The title formatting isn't quite correct. You're missing `z3998:ordinal` for the roman numerals. See SEMoS 7.2.10.6 for an example.

Also, the page scans have the section titles spelled out.

Emma

[Bennett Helm]

Thanks -- I missed that. And I've spelled out "Section" now.

One more question. The PG transcription sometimes identified italics or small-caps by using all-caps text. But there are many, many (hundreds, likely over 1,000) of italics and all-caps that they missed. Should I try to catch all of these when proofreading?

Bennett

[Emma Sweeney]

Sure, you can restore formatting during the proofreading step. It just depends on whether it's easier for you to check the formatting and text separately or at the same time.

Emma

[Bennett Helm]

Artwork: I'd like to use Jean Siméon Chardin, "Soap Bubbles" (1733/34?) <https://www.nga.gov/artworks/994-soap-bubbles>. The National Gallery identifies it as CC0. (I'm attaching a crop at 1400x2100.)

Will that work?

Bennett

[Emma Sweeney]

Looks good! I've added it to the art DB.

Emma

[Bennett Helm]

I have a question about footnote placement. Hume places footnotes in what to us are odd places:

1. at the ends of sentences or clauses, but before the final punctuation: "... end of sentence<fn>." or "... end of clause<fn>; ...".
2. before words: "WORD1 <fn>WORD2"
3. between words: "WORD1 <fn> WORD2" -- with spaces before and after the footnote.

For case (1), I have placed the footnotes after the punctuation. For case (2), I have left the footnote where it is, even though we would find it proper to have the footnote after the word. For case (3), I have moved the footnote before the second word, to assimilate it to case (2), which is much more common. (It seems to me that case (3) isn't intentional but is an artifact of typesetting.)

I am hesitant to change Hume's text much, but I wonder: does this seem right, or for cases (2) and (3) should I put the footnote after WORD2, as would be natural for us?

Bennett

[Emma Sweeney]

Please send examples of each case in the text.

Emma

[Bennett Helm]

Example of (1): p. 2: "... mark the difference<fn>."

Example of (2): p. 69: "There are <fn>seven ..."

Example of (3): p. 17: "... A <fn> great philosopher ..."

There are many examples of each; very few instances fit how we would place footnotes.

Bennett

[Emma Sweeney]

That all seems fine.

I did find a 1911 edition of A Treatise of Human Nature where the footnote locations are adjusted. Do you think the placement in this edition makes more sense than in the 1739 edition? If so, you could adjust the endnotes to match the 1911 edition.

Emma

[Bennett Helm]

Hume's book was originally published in 1739, though the Selby-Bigge edition I'm using and that Project Gutenberg uses (which is the standard edition for philosophers — used in most secondary literature that I'm familiar with) was published in 1896 and uses the 1739 text, lightly edited. Because that's the standard, I don't want to deviate too much from it (though the transcription modernizes many spellings and contractions [such as " ’tis" -> "it is"], which I have kept).

As I indicated, my inclination is to assimilate case (3) ("text <fn> text") to case (2) ("text <fn>text"), and adjust case (1) ("text<fn>.") to put the footnote after the final punctuation.

Ultimately, though, it's an editorial decision, so I'll defer to you. Let me know.

Bennett

[Emma Sweeney]

I don't know the text very well, so the decision to follow the Selby-Bigge edition is fine.

Emma

[Alex Cabal]

We should adjust noterefs to appear after their references in all cases,
and after punctuation. The 1911 edition is a fine reference if it does
that in all cases. Otherwise I think it's pretty easy to make a common
sense judgement about what the noteref refers to and move it after that
reference. For example 2 what the 1911 edition did looks fine, for
example 3 you could put the noteref after `a great philosopher`.

On 7/19/26 3:56 PM, Emma Sweeney wrote:
> I don't know the text very well, so the decision to follow the Selby-
> Bigge edition is fine.
>
> Emma
> On Sunday, July 19, 2026 at 3:36:39 PM UTC-4 Bennett Helm wrote:
>
> Hume's book was originally published in 1739, though the Selby-Bigge
> edition I'm using and that Project Gutenberg uses (which is the
> standard edition for philosophers — used in most secondary
> literature that I'm familiar with) was published in 1896 and uses
> the 1739 text, lightly edited. Because that's the standard, I don't
> want to deviate too much from it (though the transcription
> modernizes many spellings and contractions [such as " ’tis" -> "it
> is"], which I have kept).
>
> As I indicated, my inclination is to assimilate case (3) ("text <fn>
> text") to case (2) ("text <fn>text"), and adjust case (1)
> ("text<fn>.") to put the footnote after the final punctuation.
>
> Ultimately, though, it's an editorial decision, so I'll defer to
> you. Let me know.
>
> Bennett
>
> On Sunday, July 19, 2026 at 1:44:07 PM UTC-4 Emma Sweeney wrote:
>
> That all seems fine.
>

> I did find a 1911 edition of A <https://archive.org/details/
> atreatiseonhuman00humeuoft/page/n7/mode/2up>Treatise of Human
> Nature <https://archive.org/details/atreatiseonhuman00humeuoft/
> page/n7/mode/2up> where the footnote locations are adjusted. Do

> you think the placement in this edition makes more sense than in
> the 1739 edition? If so, you could adjust the endnotes to match
> the 1911 edition.
>
> Emma
> On Sunday, July 19, 2026 at 12:02:10 AM UTC-4 Bennett Helm wrote:
>

> Example of (1): p. 2 <https://archive.org/details/0213-bk/
> page/2/mode/1up>: "... mark the difference<fn>."
>
> Example of (2): p. 69 <https://archive.org/details/0213-bk/
> page/69/mode/1up>: "There are <fn>seven ..."
>
> Example of (3): p. 17 <https://archive.org/details/0213-bk/
> page/17/mode/1up>: "... A <fn> great philosopher ..."

>
> There are many examples of each; very few instances fit how
> we would place footnotes.
>
> Bennett
>
> On Saturday, July 18, 2026 at 11:13:48 PM UTC-4 Emma Sweeney
> wrote:
>
> Please send examples of each case in the text.
>
> Emma
> On Saturday, July 18, 2026 at 10:51:35 PM UTC-4 Bennett
> Helm wrote:
>
> I have a question about footnote placement. Hume
> places footnotes in what to us are odd places:
>

> 1. at the ends of sentences or clauses, but before

> the final punctuation: "... end of
> sentence<fn>." or "... end of clause<fn>; ...".

> 2. before words: "WORD1 <fn>WORD2"
> 3. between words: "WORD1 <fn> WORD2" -- with spaces

> before and after the footnote.
>
> For case (1), I have placed the footnotes after the
> punctuation. For case (2), I have left the footnote
> where it is, even though we would find it proper to

> have the footnote /after/ the word. For case (3), I

> have moved the footnote before the second word, to
> assimilate it to case (2), which is much more
> common. (It seems to me that case (3) isn't
> intentional but is an artifact of typesetting.)
>
> I am hesitant to change Hume's text much, but I
> wonder: does this seem right, or for cases (2) and
> (3) should I put the footnote after WORD2, as would
> be natural for us?
>
> Bennett
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> standardebooks/97c42026-7c6e-412b-82ea-73061e246fb9n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/97c42026-7c6e-412b-82ea-73061e246fb9n%40googlegroups.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Bennett Helm]

Ok -- will do.

Bennett