Abstract

Hume's monetary theory is notoriously problematic and allegedly inconsistent. This essay discusses three recent interpretations purporting to show that Hume's theory of money is consistent. It is argued that one of such interpretations, due to C. Wennerlind, is challenged by a rather marginal and largely overlooked observation in a footnote of the essay "Of the Balance of Trade". Building on a Humean monetary version of the logical fallacy of composition, the essay shows how to reconcile Wennerlind's interpretation with Hume's texts.