stance that men do _not_ usually show
this carelessness about temporal goods; and, therefore, are guilty of
gross and culpable _inconsistency_, if they are comparatively
careless about what is far more important.
So, also, in the present case. If any man's mind were so constituted
as to reject the same evidence in _all_ matters alike--if, for
instance, he really doubted or disbelieved the existence of
Buonaparte, and considered the Egyptian pyramids as fabulous, because,
forsooth, he had no "experience" of the erection of such huge
structures, and _had_ experience of travellers telling huge lies--he
would be regarded, perhaps, as very silly, or as insane, but not as
morally culpable. But if (as is intimated in the concluding sentence
of this work) a man is influenced in one case by objections which, in
another case, he would deride, then he stands convicted of being
unfairly biassed by his prejudices.
It is only necessary to add, that as this work first appeared in the
year 1819, many things are spoken of in the present tense, to which
the past would now be applicable.
Postscripts have been added to successive editions in reference to
subsequent occurrences.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It was observed by some reviewer, that Hume himself, had he been
alive, would doubtless have highly enjoyed the joke! But even those
who have the greatest delight in ridicule, do not relish jokes at
_their own expense_. Hume may have inwardly laughed, while mystifying
his readers with arguments which he himself perceived to be futile.
But he did not mean the readers to perceive this. And it is not likely
that he would have been amused at seeing his own fallacies exposed and
held up to derision.
[2] See _Elements of Rhetoric_, p. i. ch. 2, Sec. 4.
* * * * *
HISTORIC DOUBTS
RELATIVE TO
NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE.
Long as the public attention has been occupied by the extraordinary
personage from whose ambition we are supposed to have so narrowly
escaped, the subject seems to have lost scarcely anything of its
interest. We are still occupied in recounting the exploits, discussing
the character, inquiring into the present situation, and even
conjecturing as to the future prospects of Napoleon Buonaparte.
Nor is this at all to be wondered at, if we consider the very
extraordinary nature of those exploits, and of that character; their
greatness and extensive importance, as well as the unexampled
str
|