ABSTRACT
Although David Hume never addresses translation at length, he regularly invokes an interlingual movement at decisive moments in his work. Each of this article’s three sections addresses a pair of such moments. The first argues that translation establishes the association of ideas in A Treatise of Human Nature and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. The second analyzes translation as the ground of both the rational and the emotional arguments for God in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. The third and final section addresses translation as a highly regulated object of criticism in the History of England before turning to the Essays where it launches the search for the standard of taste in all criticism. Because translation thus intervenes not only in Hume’s criticism, where one might expect it, but also in his historiography, theology and epistemology, this article concludes by formalizing the interdisciplinary perspective translation opens in Hume’s work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Ian Simpson Ross (Citation1995, 238), for instance, excludes “issues of translation” from the very system of skeptical language.
2 Among the contributors to The Reception, Emilio Mazza (Citation2005, 182) stands out by recognizing that “Hume is not indifferent to the problems of translation”, but his historiographic agenda prevents him from pursuing Hume’s disparate comments on translation systematically.
3 Following convention, I cite Hume’s Treatise, both Enquiries and the Dialogues by book (where relevant), part, section and paragraph. I cite all other works by page number.
4 On the problematic status of Hume’s imagination, see Johnson Citation2012 (ch. 2). Although he takes his point of departure in Jorge Luis Borges and therefore doesn’t engage translation according to Hume himself, Johnson confronts Hume’s Treatise systematically, perhaps for the first time, with the question of translation.
5 This point could underwrite Andrew Chesterman’s suggestion that the genetic fallacy in translation studies “would take us back to Nazi or Stalinist science” (Citation2014a, 84), but see also the debate to which Chesterman’s claim leads (Ricci Citation2014, 93; Wakabayashi Citation2014, 101; Susam-Saraeva Citation2014, 336; Chesterman Citation2014b, 350). Neither in history nor in principle, to be clear, am I suggesting that universality or translation escapes violence. In his philological notes doubling as survivor testimony, to cite only one harrowing example, Victor Klemperer (Citation2013, 29) records the moment in 1933 when the Third Reich began to label publications in German by Jewish authors as “translations from Hebrew”. The alleged universality of translation, in sum, operates both an unconditional opening to alterity and a force of violent exclusion.
6 Kyle Conway (Citation2012, 277) provides an illuminating example insofar as he entrusts “an empirical approach” with demarcating the entire field of “cultural translation” in which he intervenes.
7 Commentators rarely focus upon this instance and, when they do, tend to ignore multilingualism (Tweyman Citation1979, 266) or consider it irrelevant for determining the cause of a voice (Soles Citation1981, 113). The factors they consider more essential, however, cannot be attributed to the voice until a global translation project verifies that, in fact, everyone in the world received the “same” message.
8 See Hume (Citation1932 [1], 16; Citation1994, xxxiv). On the curriculum in Hume’s day, see Stewart (Citation2005, 18–24). On the later period in which Hume began acquiring Italian (1731–1734), see also 33, 37, 40.
9 On Hume’s attempts to cater to his own public, see Box (Citation1990).
11 To name only a few, standardists include Jeffrey Wieand (Citation1984, especially §III), Marc Hester (Citation1979, 296, 302n7), James Shelley (Citation1994, 442) and Susan Hahn (Citation2013, 386, 388); judges include Peter Kivy (Citation1967, 59; Citation2011, 111), Richard Shusterman (Citation1989, 213, 215, 218), Jerrold Levinson (Citation2002, 227, 232) and Amyas Merivale (Citation2019, §11.2, §12.4). None of these commentators refer to the five opening paragraphs on language – and translation – in “Of the Standard of Taste”.
12 See Jones (Citation1976a, 333–334), (Citation1976b, 58), (Citation1978, 121); Wieand (Citation1984, 134–136); Shusterman (Citation1989, 217–218); Levinson (Citation2002, 229, 233, 234); Kivy (Citation1967, 60–63), (2011, 113); Merivale (Citation2019, §§11.3–4).
13 On translation and morality, see Hume (Citation1994, 228). For context, see also Hume (Citation1975b, 1.10 and 9.6; also 5.3 and 5.42), “A Dialogue” ¶2 and Appendix 1.21.
Ross, Ian Simpson. 1995. “Hume’s Language of Scepticism.” Hume Studies 21 (2): 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.1995.a382723. Mazza, Emilio. 2005. “Translations of Hume’s Works in Italy.” In The Reception of David Hume in Europe, edited by Peter Jones, 182–194. New York: Continuum. Johnson, David E. 2012. Kant’s Dog: On Borges, Philosophy, and the Time of Translation. Albany: State University of New York Press. Chesterman, Andrew. 2014a. “Translation Studies Forum: Universalism in Translation Studies.” Translation Studies 7 (1): 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.828904. Ricci, Ronit. 2014. “Response.” Translation Studies 7 (1): 92–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.828905. Wakabayashi, Judy. 2014. “Response.” Translation Studies 7 (1): 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.828906. Susam-Saraeva, Şebnem. 2014. “Response.” Translation Studies 7 (3): 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.869405. Chesterman, Andrew. 2014b. “Response to the Responses.” Translation Studies 7 (3): 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2014.927330. Klemperer, Victor. 2013. The Language of the Third Reich. LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook. Translated by Martin Brady. London: Bloomsbury. Conway, Kyle. 2012. “A Conceptual and Empirical Approach to Cultural Translation.” Translation Studies 5 (3): 264–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2012.701938. Tweyman, Stanley. 1979. “The Articulate Voice and God.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 20 (2): 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1982.tb00294.x. Soles, Deborah Hansen. 1981. “Hume, Language and God.” Philosophical Topics 12 (3): 109–119. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics19811237. Hume, David. 1932. The Letters of David Hume. 2 vols. Edited by J. Y. T. Greig. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hume, David. 1994. Essays Moral, Political, and Literary. Edited by Eugene F. Miller. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Stewart, M. A. 2005. “Hume’s Intellectual Development, 1711–1752.” In Impressions of Hume, edited by Marina Frasca-Spada, and Peter J. E. Kail, 11–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Box, M. A. 1990. The Suasive Art of David Hume. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rundle, Christopher. 2012. “Translation as an Approach to History.” Translation Studies 5 (2): 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2012.663615. Wieand, Jeffrey. 1984. “Hume’s Two Standards.” The Philosophical Quarterly 34 (135): 129–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/2219506. Hester, Marcus. 1979. “Hume on Principles and Perceptual Ability.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37 (3): 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540_6245.jaac37.3.0295. Shelley, James. 1994. “Hume’s Double Standard of Taste.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 52 (4): 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540_6245.jaac52.4.0437. Hahn, Susan. 2013. “How Can a Sceptic Have a Standard of Taste?” British Journal of Aesthetics 53 (4): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayt027. Kivy, Peter. 1967. “Hume’s Standard of Taste: Breaking the Cycle.” The British Journal of Aesthetics 7 (1): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/7.1.57. Kivy, Peter. 2011. “Remarks on the Varieties of Prejudice in Hume’s Essay on Taste.” The Journal of Scottish Philosophy 9 (1): 111–114. https://doi.org/10.3366/jsp.2011.0008. Shusterman, Richard. 1989. “Of the Scandal of Taste: Social Privilege as Nature in the Aesthetic Theory of Hume and Kant.” The Philosophical Forum 20 (3): 211–229. Levinson, Jerrold. 2002. “Hume’s Standard of Taste: The Real Problem.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60 (3): 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6245.00070 Merivale, Amyas. 2019. Hume on Art, Emotion, and Superstition: A Critical Study of the Four Dissertations. New York: Routledge. Jones, Peter. 1976a. “Cause, Reason, and Objectivity in Hume’s Aesthetics.” In Hume: A Re-Evaluation, edited by D. W. Livingston, and J. T. King, 323–342. New York: Fordham University Press. Jones, Peter. 1976b. “Hume’s Aesthetics Reassessed.” The Philosophical Quarterly 26 (102): 48–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218804. Jones, Peter. 1978. “Hume on Art, Criticism, and Language: Debts and Premises.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 33 (2): 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571881. Wieand, Jeffrey. 1984. “Hume’s Two Standards.” The Philosophical Quarterly 34 (135): 129–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/2219506. Shusterman, Richard. 1989. “Of the Scandal of Taste: Social Privilege as Nature in the Aesthetic Theory of Hume and Kant.” The Philosophical Forum 20 (3): 211–229. Levinson, Jerrold. 2002. “Hume’s Standard of Taste: The Real Problem.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60 (3): 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6245.00070 Kivy, Peter. 1967. “Hume’s Standard of Taste: Breaking the Cycle.” The British Journal of Aesthetics 7 (1): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/7.1.57. Merivale, Amyas. 2019. Hume on Art, Emotion, and Superstition: A Critical Study of the Four Dissertations. New York: Routledge. Hume, David. 1994. Essays Moral, Political, and Literary. Edited by Eugene F. Miller. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Hume, David. 1975b. An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals. In Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, revised by P. H. Nidditch, 169–343. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Additional information
Notes on contributors
D. J. S. Cross
D. J. S. Cross is Visiting Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature at the University at Buffalo. He is the author of Deleuze and the Problem of Affect (2021). His most recent translations include Catherine Malabou’s Formations, Early Writings 1986–2003 (forthcoming), Pablo Oyarzun’s Between Celan and Heidegger (2022) and Marc Crépon’s The Trial of Hatred (2021).