{"title":"Hume, Newton and ‘the Hill called Difficulty’","authors":"C. Battersby","doi":"10.1017/S0080443600002570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a celebrated passage in ‘Of the Standard of Taste’, Hume tells us that those readers who prefer Bunyan's writings to Addison's are merely ‘pretended critics’ whose judgment is ‘absurd and ridiculous’; this is ‘no less an extravagance, than if he had maintained a mole-hill to be as high as TENERIFFE, or a pond as extensive as the ocean’ (GG, iii, p. 269). Hume shows a decisiveness and vehemence in his judgment against Bunyan that has greater significance than that of being a mere reflection of his aesthetic principles. Hume does, after all, wish to make ‘durable admiration’ the foundation of his standard of taste, and both the number of eighteenth-century reprints of The Pilgrim's Progress and Johnson's comment that this work has as ‘the best evidence of its merit, the general and continued approbation of mankind’ testify to the lasting popularity of Bunyan's work (GG, iii, p. 27i). Hume's critical judgment on Bunyan is not merely a consequence of a mechanical application of his standard of taste, but is rather a reflection of what I will term Hume's ‘epistemology of ease’.","PeriodicalId":322312,"journal":{"name":"Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1978-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080443600002570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In a celebrated passage in ‘Of the Standard of Taste’, Hume tells us that those readers who prefer Bunyan's writings to Addison's are merely ‘pretended critics’ whose judgment is ‘absurd and ridiculous’; this is ‘no less an extravagance, than if he had maintained a mole-hill to be as high as TENERIFFE, or a pond as extensive as the ocean’ (GG, iii, p. 269). Hume shows a decisiveness and vehemence in his judgment against Bunyan that has greater significance than that of being a mere reflection of his aesthetic principles. Hume does, after all, wish to make ‘durable admiration’ the foundation of his standard of taste, and both the number of eighteenth-century reprints of The Pilgrim's Progress and Johnson's comment that this work has as ‘the best evidence of its merit, the general and continued approbation of mankind’ testify to the lasting popularity of Bunyan's work (GG, iii, p. 27i). Hume's critical judgment on Bunyan is not merely a consequence of a mechanical application of his standard of taste, but is rather a reflection of what I will term Hume's ‘epistemology of ease’.
在《品味标准》的一段著名段落中,休谟告诉我们,那些喜欢班扬作品而不喜欢艾迪生作品的读者只是“假装的批评家”,他们的判断是“荒谬可笑的”;这“就像他把一座鼹鼠丘建得和特纳里夫一样高,或者把一个池塘建得和海洋一样宽一样”(GG, iii, p. 269)。休谟在对班扬的批判中表现出一种果断和激烈,这比仅仅反映他的美学原则具有更大的意义。毕竟,休谟确实希望将“持久的钦佩”作为他品味标准的基础,18世纪《天路历程》的再版数量和约翰逊的评论都证明了班扬的作品是“其优点的最佳证据,是人类普遍和持续的认可”(GG, iii, p. 27i)。休谟对班扬的批判判断不仅仅是机械地应用他的品味标准的结果,而是我称之为休谟的“安逸认识论”的反映。