"And some they said—What are you at?And some—What are you arter?"
"And some they said—What are you at?And some—What are you arter?"
"And some they said—What are you at?
And some—What are you arter?"
My account of Mr. Thom and his 666 appeared on October 27: and on the 29th I received from the editor a copy of Mr. Thom's sermons published in 1863 (he died Feb. 27, 1862) with best wishes for my health and happiness. The editor does not name himself in the book; but he signed his name in my copy: and may my circumference never be more than 3⅛ of my diameter if the signature, name and writing both, were not that of mycircle squareing friend Mr. James Smith! And so I have come in contact with him on 666 as well as onπ! I should have nothing left to live for, had I not happened to hear that he has a perpetual motion on hand. I returned thanks and kind regards: and Miss Miggs's words—"Here's forgivenesses of injuries! here's amicablenesses!"—rang in my ears. But I was made slightly uncomfortable: how could the war go on after this armistice? Could I ever make it understood that the truce only extended to the double Vahu and things thereunto relating? It was once held by seafaring men that there was no peace with Spaniards beyond the line: I was determined that there must be no concord with J. S. inside the circle; that this must be a special exception, like Father Huddlestonand old Grouse in the gun-room. I was not long in anxiety; twenty-four hours after the book of sermons there came a copy of the threatened exposure—The British Association in Jeopardy, and Professor De Morgan in the Pillory without hope of escape. By James Smith, Esq. London and Liverpool, 8vo., 1866 (pp. 94). This exposure consists of reprints from theAthenæumandCorrespondent: of things new there is but one. In a short preface Mr. J. S. particularly recommends to "read to the end." At the end is an appendix of two pages, in type as large as the work; a very prominent peroration. It is an article from theAthenæum, left out of its place. In the last sentence Mr. J. Smith, who had asked whether his character as an honest Geometer and Mathematician was not at stake, is warned against thefallacia plurium interrogationum.[377]He is told that there is not a more honest what's-his-name in the world: but that as to the counter which he calls his character as a mathematician, he is assured that it has been staked years ago, and lost. And thus truth has the last word. There is no occasion to say much about reprints. One of them is a letter [that given above] of August 25, 1865, written by Mr. J. S. to theCorrespondent. It is one of his quadratures; and the joke is that I am made to be the writer: it appears as what Mr. J. S. hopes I shall have the sense to write in theAthenæumand forestall him. When I saw myself thus quoted—yes! quoted! double commas, first person—I felt as I suppose did Wm. Wilberforce[378]when he set eyes on the affectionate benediction of the potato which waggish comrades had imposed on a raw Irish reporter as part of his speech. I felt as Martin[379]ofGalway—kind friend of the poor dumb creatures!—when he was told that the newspapers had put him in Italics. "I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker! I appeal to the House! Did I speak in Italics? Do I ever speak in Italics?" I appeal to editor and readers, whether I ever squared the circle until a week or two ago, when I gave my charitable mode of reconciling the discrepant cyclometers.
The absurdity of the imitation of symbolic reasoning is so lusciously rich, that I shall insert it when I make up my final book. Somebody mastered Spanish merely to read Don Quixote: it would be worth while to learn a little algebra merely to enjoy thisa b-istical attack on the windmills. The principle is, Prove something in as roundabout a way as possible, mention the circle once or twice irrelevantly in the course of your proof, and then make an act of Q. E. D. in words at length. The following is hardly caricature:—
To prove that 2 and 2 make 5. Leta= 2,b= 5: letc= 658, the number of the House: letd= 666, the number of the Beast. Then of necessityd=a+b+c+ 1; so that 1 is a harmonious and logical quantification of the number of which we are to take care. Now,b, the middle of our digital system, is, by mathematical and geometrical combination, a mean between 5 + 1 and 2 + 2. Let 1 be removed to be taken care of, a thing no real mathematician can refuse without serious injury to his mathematical and geometrical reputation. It follows of necessity that 2 + 2 = 5,quod erat demonstrumhorrendum. If Simpkin & Marshall have not, after my notice, to account for a gross of copies more than would have gone off without me, the world is not worthy of its James Smith!
The only fault of the above is, that there is moreconnection than in the process of Faber Cyclometricus: so much, in fact, that the blunders are visible. The utter irrelevance of premises to conclusion cannot be exhibited with the requisite obscurity by any one who is able to follow reasoning: it is high art displayed in a certain toning down of theægri somnia, which brings them to a certain look of reproach to reasoning which I can only burlesque. Mr. J. S. produces something which resembles argument much as a chimpanzee in dolor, because balked of his dinner, resembles a thinking man at his studies. My humble attempt at imitation of him is more like a monkey hanging by his tail from a tree and trying to crack a cocoa-nut by his chatter.
I could forgive Mr. J. S. anything, properly headed. I would allow him to prove—for himself—that the Quadrature of the Circle is the child of a private marriage between the Bull Unigenitus and the Pragmatic Sanction, claiming tithe of onions for repeal of the Mortmain Act, before the Bishops in Committee under the kitchen table: his mode of imitating reason would do this with ease. But when he puts his imitation into my mouth, to make me whathecalls a "real mathematician," my soul rises in epigram against him. I say with the doll's dressmaker—such a job makes me feel like a puppet's tailor myself—"He ought to have a little pepper? just a few grains? I think the young man's tricks and manners make a claim upon his friends for a little pepper?" De Fauré[380]and Joseph Scaliger[381]come into my head: my reader may look back for them.
"Three circlesquarers to the manner born,Switzerland, France, and England did adorn,De Fauré in equations did surpass,Joseph at contradictions was an ass.Groaned Folly, I'm used up! What shall I doTo make James Smith? Grinned Momus,Join the two!"
"Three circlesquarers to the manner born,Switzerland, France, and England did adorn,De Fauré in equations did surpass,Joseph at contradictions was an ass.Groaned Folly, I'm used up! What shall I doTo make James Smith? Grinned Momus,Join the two!"
"Three circlesquarers to the manner born,
Switzerland, France, and England did adorn,
De Fauré in equations did surpass,
Joseph at contradictions was an ass.
Groaned Folly, I'm used up! What shall I do
To make James Smith? Grinned Momus,Join the two!"
As to mylocus pœnitentiæ,[382]the reader who is fit to enjoy the letter I have already alluded to will see that I have a soft and easy position; that the thing is really apillowry; and that I am, like Perrette's pot of milk,
"Bien posé sur un coussinet."[383]
"Bien posé sur un coussinet."[383]
"Bien posé sur un coussinet."[383]
Joanna Southcott[384]never had a follower who believed in her with more humble piety than Mr. James Smith believes in himself. After all that has happened to him, he asks me with high confidence to "favor the writer with a proof" that I still continue of opinion that "the best of the argument is in my jokes, and the best of the joke is in his arguments." I will not so favor him. At the very outset I told him in plain English that he has the whiphand of all the reasoners in the world, and in plain French thatil a perdu le droit d'être frappé de l'évidence[385]; I might have saidpendu.[386]To which I now add, in plain Latin,Sapienti pauca, indocto nihil.[387]The law of Chancery says that he who will have equity must do equity: the law of reasoning says that he who will have proof must see proof.
The introduction of things quite irrelevant, by way of reproach, is an argument in universal request: and it often happens that the argument so produced really tells against the producer. So common is it that we forget how boyish it is; but we are strikingly reminded when it actually comes from a boy. In a certain police court, certain small boys were arraigned for conspiring to hoot an obnoxious individual on his way from one of their school exhibitions. This proceeding was necessary, because there seemed to be a permanent conspiracy to annoy the gentleman; and themasters did not feel able to interfere in what took place outside the school. So the boys were arraigned; and their friends, as silly in their way as themselves, allowed one of them to make the defence, instead of employing counsel; and did not even give them any useful hints. The defence was as follows; and any one who does not see how richly it sets off the defences of bigger boys in bigger matters has much to learn. The innocent conviction that there was answer in the latter part is delightful. Of course fine and recognizance followed.
A—— said the boys had received great provocation from B——. He was constantly threatening them with a horsewhip which he carried in his hand [the boy did not say what had passed to induce him to take such a weapon], and he had repeatedly insulted the master, which the boys could not stand. B—— had in his own drawing-room told him (A——) that he had drawn his sword against the master and thrown away the scabbard. B—— knew well that if he came to the college he would catch it, and then he went off through a side door—which was no sign of pluck; and then he brought Mrs. B—— with him, thinking that her presence would protect him.
My readers may expect a word on Mr. Thom's sermons, after my account of his queer doings about 666. He is evidently an honest and devout man, much wanting in discrimination. He has a sermon about privatejudgment, in which he halts between the logical and legal meanings of the word. He loathes those who apply their private judgment to the word of God: here he means those who decide what itought to be. He seems in other places aware that the theological phrase means taking right to determine what itis. He uses his own private judgment very freely, and is strong in the conclusion that others ought not to use theirs except as he tells them how; he leaves all the rest of mankind free to think with him. In this he is not original: his fame must rest on his senary tripod.
JAMES SMITH ONCE MORE.
Mr. James Smith's procedures are not caricature of reasoning; they are caricature of blundering. The old way of proving that 2 = 1 is solemn earnest compared with his demonstrations. As follows:[388]
When a man is regularly snubbed, bullied, blown up, walked into, and put down, there is usually some reaction in his favor, a kind of deostracism, which cannot bear to hear him always called the blunderer. I hope it will be so in this case. There is nothing I more desire than to seesectsof paradoxers. There are fully five thousand adults in England who ought to be the followers of some one false quadrature. And I have most hope of 3⅛, because I think Mr. James Smith better fitted to be the leader of an organized infatuation than any one I know of. He wants no pity, and will get none. He has energy, means, good humor, strong conviction, character, and popularity in his own circle. And, most indispensable point of all, he sticks at nothing;
"In cœlum jusseris, ibit."[389]
"In cœlum jusseris, ibit."[389]
"In cœlum jusseris, ibit."[389]
When my instructor found I did not print an acceptance of what I have quoted, he addressed me as follows (Corr., Sept 23):—
"In this life, however, we must do our duty, and, whennecessary, use the rod, not in a spirit of revenge, but for the benefit of the culprit and the good of society. Now, Sir, the opportunity has been thrown in your way of slipping out of the pillory without risk of serious injury; but, like an obstinate urchin, you have chosen to quarrel with your opportunity and remain there, and thus you compel me to deal with you as schoolmasters used to do with stupid boys in bygone days—that is to say, you force me to the use of the critic's rod, compel me to put you where little Jack Horner sat, and, as a warning to other naughty boys, to ornament you with a dunce's cap. The task I set you was a very simple one, as I shall make manifest at the proper time."
In one or more places, as well as this, Mr. Smith shows that he does not know the legend of little Jack Horner, whom he imagines to be put in the corner as a bad boy. This is curious; for there had been many allusions to the story in the journal he was writing in, and the Christmas pie had become altered into the Seaforthπ.
Mr. Smith is satisfied at last that—what between argument and punishment he has convinced me. He says (Corr., Jan. 27, 1866): "I tell him without hesitation that he knows the true ratio of diameter to circumference as well as I do, and if he be wise he will admit it." I should hope I do, and better; but there is no occasion to admit what everybody knows.
I have often wished that we could have a slight glimpse of the reception which was given to some of the old cyclometers: but we have nothing, except the grave disapprobation of historians. I am resolved to give the New Zealander a chance of knowing a little more than this about one of them at least; and, by the fortunate entrance into life of theCorrespondent, I am able to do it. I omit sober mathematical answers, of which there were several. The following letter is grave earnest:
"Sir,—I have watched Mr. James Smith's writings on this subject from the first, and I did hope that, as the morehe departs from truth the more easy it must be to refute him, [this by no means always true] some of your correspondents would by this time have done so. I own that I am unable to detect the fallacy of his argument; and I am quite certain that 'Π' is wrong, in No. 23, where he declares that Mr. Smith is 'ignorant of the very elements of mathematical truth.' I have observed an immense amount of geometrical reasoning on his part, and I cannot see that it is either fair or honest to deny this, which may be regarded as the 'elements' of mathematical truth. Would it not be better for 'Π' to answer Mr. Smith, to refute his arguments, to point out their fallacies, and to save learners from error, than to plunge into gross insult and unmanly abuse? Would it not be well, also, that Professor De Morgan should favour us with a little reasoning?
"I have hitherto seen no attempt to overthrow Mr. Smith's arguments; I trust that this will not continue, since the subject is one of immense importance to science in general, especially to nautical science, and all that thereto belongs.
Yours, etc.,
A Captain, R.N."
On looking at this homœopathic treatment of the 3⅛ quadrature—remember, homœopathic,similia similibus,[390]not infinitesimal—and at the imputation thrown upon it, I asked myself, whatisvulgarity? No two agree, except in this, that every one sees vulgarity in what is directed against himself. Mark the world, and see if anything be so common as the description of the other side's remarks as "vulgar attempt at wit." "I suppose you think that very witty:" the answer is "No my friend! your remark shows that you feel it as wit, so that the purpose is answered; I keep my razor for something else than cutting blocks;" I am inclined to think that "out of place" is a necessary attribute of true vulgarity. And further, it is to be noticed that nothing isunproducible—salvo pudore[391]—which has classical authority, modern or ancient, in its favor. "He is a vulgar fellow; I asked him what he was upon, and what do you think he answered, My legs!"—"Well, and has he not justification? what do you find in Terence?Quid agitur? Statur."[392]I do not even blench from my principle where I find that it brings what is called "taking a sight" within permissible forms of expression: Rabelais not only establishes its antiquity, but makes it English. Our old translation[393]has it thus (book 2. ch. 19):
"Then made the Englishman this sign. His left hand, all open, he lifted up into the air, then instantly shut into his fist the four fingers thereof; and his thumb extended at length he placed upon the tip of his nose. Presently after he lifted up his right hand all open and abased and bent it downwards, putting the thumb thereof in the very place where the little finger of the left hand did close in the fist, and the four right hand fingers he softly moved in the air. Then contrarily he did with the right hand what he had done with the left, and with the left what he had done with the right."
An impressive sight! The making of a fist of the left hand is a great addition of power, and should be followed in modern practice. The gentle sullation of the front fingers, with the clenched fist behind them, says as plainly as possible, Putsuaviter in modoin the van, but don't forget to havefortiter in re[394]in the rear.
My Budget was announced (March 23, 1867) for completion on the 30th. Mr. James Smith wrote five letters, one before the completion, four after it; the five contained 68 pages of quarto letter paper. Mr. J. S. had picked up a clerical correspondent, with whom he was in the heat of battle.
"March 27.—Dear Sir. Very truly yours. Duty; for my own sake; just time left to retrieve my errors; sends copy of letter to clergyman; new proof never before thought of; merest tyro would laugh if I were to stifle it, whether by rhodomontade or silent contempt; keep your temper. I shall be convinced; and if world be right in supposing me incapable of a foul act, I shall proclaim glorious discovery in theAthenæum.
"April 15.—Sir,... My dear Sir, Your sincere tutelary. Copy of another letter to clergyman; discovery tested by logarithms; reasons such as none but a knave or a sinner can resist. Let me advise you to take counsel before it is too late! Keep your temper. Let not yourprideget the better of your discretion! Screw up your courage, my good friend, andresolveto show the world that you are anhonestman....
"April 20.—Sir ... Your very sincere and favorite tutelary. I have long played thecur, snapping and snarling...; suddenly lost my power, and becamehalf-starveddog withoutspiritto bark; try if air cannot restore me; calls himself thethistlein allusion to my other tutelary, thethorn; Would I prefer his next work to be, 'A whip for the Mathematical Cur, Prof. De M.' In some previous letter which I have mislaid, he told me his next would be 'a muzzle for the Mathematical Bull dog, Prof. De M.'
"April 23.—Sir. Very sincerely yours. More letters to clergyman; you may as well knock your head against a stone wall to improve your intellect as attempt to controvert my proofs. [I thought so too; and tried neither].
"May 6.—My dear Sir. Very sincerely yours. All to myself, and nothing to note.
"July 2.—No more in this interval. All that precedes is a desperate attempt to induce me to continue my descriptions: notoriety at any price."
I dare say the matter is finished: the record of so marked an instance of self-delusion will be useful.
I append to the foregoing a letter from Dr. Whewell[395]to Mr. James Smith. The Master of Trinity was conspicuous as a rough customer, an intellectual bully, an overbearing disputant: the character was as well established as that of Sam Johnson. But there was a marked difference. It was said of Johnson that if his pistol missed fire, he would knock you down with the butt end of it: but Whewell, in like case, always acknowledged the miss, and loaded again or not, as the case might be. He reminded me of Dennis Brulgruddery, who says to Dan, Pacify me with a good reason, and you'll find me a dutiful master. I knew him from the time when he was my teacher at Cambridge, more than forty years. As a teacher, he was anything but dictatorial, and he was perfectly accessible to proposal of objections. He came in contact with me in his slashing way twice in our after joint lives, and on both occasions he acknowledged himself overcome, by that change of manner, and apologetic mode of continuance, which I had seen him employ towards others under like circumstances.
I had expressed my wish to have athermometer of probability, with impossibility at one end, as 2 and 2 make 5, and necessity at the other, as 2 and 2 make 4, and a graduated rise of examples between them. Down came a blow: "What! put necessary and contingent propositions together! It's absurd!" I pointed out that the two kinds of necessity are but such extremes of probability as 0 and ∞ are of number, and illustrated by an urn with 1 white andnblackballs,nincreasing without limit. It was frankly seen, and the point yielded; a large company was present.
Again, in a large party, after dinner, and politics being the subject, I was proceeding, in discussion with Mr. Whewell, with "I think"...—"Ugh!youthink!" was the answer. I repeated my phrase, and gave as a reason the words which Lord Grey[396]had used in the House of Lords the night before (the celebrated advice to the Bishops to set their houses in order). He had not heard of this, and his manner changed in an instant: he was the rational discutient all the rest of the evening, having previously been nothing but a disputant with all the distinctions strongly marked.
I have said that Whewell was gentle with his pupils; it was the same with all who wanted teaching: it was only on an armed enemy that he drew his weapon. The letter which he wrote to Mr. J. Smith is an instance: and as it applies with perfect fidelity to the efforts of unreasoning above described, I give it here. Mr. James Smith is skilfully exposed, and felt it; as is proved by "putting the writer in the stocks."
"The Lodge, Cambridge, September 14th, 1862.
"Sir,—I have received your explanation of your proposition that the circumference of the circle is to its diameter as 25 to 8. I am afraid I shall disappoint you by saying that I see no force in your proof: and I should hope that you will see that there is no force in it if you consider this: In the whole course of the proof, though the word cycle occurs, there is no property of the circle employed. You may do this: you may put the wordhexagonordodecagon, or any other word describing a polygon in the place ofCirclein your proof, and the proof would be just as good as before. Does not this satisfy you that you cannot have proved a property of that special figure—a circle?
"Or you may do this: calculate the side of a polygon of 24 sides inscribed in a circle. I think you are a Mathematician enough to do this. You will find that if the radius of the circle be one, the side of this polygon is .264 etc. Now, the arc which this side subtends is according to your proposition 3.125/12 = .2604, and therefore the chord is greater than its arc, which you will allow is impossible.
"I shall be glad if these arguments satisfy you, and
"I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,
"W. Whewell."
AN M.P.'S ARITHMETIC.
In the debate of May, 1866, on Electoral Qualifications, a question arose about arithmetical capability. Mr. Gladstone asked how many members of the House could divide 1330l.7s.6d.by 2l.13s.8d.Six hundred and fifty-eight, answered one member; the thing cannot be done, answered another. There is an old paradox to which this relates: it arises out of the ignorance of the distinction between abstract and concrete arithmetic.Magnitudemay be divided bymagnitude; and the answer is number: how often does 12d.contain 4d.; answer three times.Magnitudemay be divided bynumber, and the answer ismagnitude: 12d.is divided in four equal parts, what is each part? Answer threepence. The honorable objector, whose name I suppress, trusting that he has mended his ways, gave the following utterance:
"With regard to the division sum, it was quite possible to divide by a sum, but not by money. How could any one divide money by 2l.16s.8d.? (Laughter.) The question might be asked, 'How many times 2s.will go into 1l.?' but that was not dividing by money; it was simply dividing 20 by 2. He might be asked, 'How many times will 6s.8d.go into a pound?' but it was only required to divide 240 by 80. If the right hon. gentleman were to ask the hon.member for Brighton (Professor Fawcett),[397]or any other authority, he would receive the same answer—viz., that it was possible to divide by a sum, but not by money. (Hear.)"
I shall leave all comment for the second edition, if I publish one.[398]I shall be sure to have something to laugh at. Anything said from a respectable quarter, or supposed to be said, is sure to find defenders. Sam Johnson, a sound arithmetician, comparing himself, and what he alone had done in three years, with forty French Academicians and their forty years, said it proved that an Englishman is to a Frenchman as 40 × 40 to 3, or as 1600 to 3. Boswell, who was no great hand at arithmetic, made him say that an Englishman is to a Frenchman as 3 to 1600. When I pointed this out, the supposed Johnson was defended through thick and thin inNotes and Queries.
I am now curious to see whether the following will find a palliator. It is from "Tristram Shandy," book V. chapter 3. There are two curious idioms, "for for" and "half in half"; but these have nothing to do with my point:
"A blessing which tied up my father's tongue, and a misfortune which set it loose with a good grace, were pretty equal: sometimes, indeed, the misfortune was the better of the two; for, for instance, where the pleasure of harangue was asten, and the pain of the misfortune but asfive, my father gained half in half; and consequently was as well again off as if it had never befallen him."
This is a jolly confusion of ideas; and wants nothing but a defender to make it perfect. A person who invests fivewith a return of ten, and one who loses five with one hand and gains ten with the other, both leave off five richer than they began, no doubt. The first gains "half in half," more properly "halfonhalf," that is, of the return, 10, the second 5 is gain upon the first 5 invested. "Halfinhalf" is a queer way of saying cent. per cent. If the 5l.invested be all the man had in the world, he comes out, after the gain, twice as well off as he began, with reference to his whole fortune. But it is very odd to say that balance of 5l.gain istwiceas good as if nothing had befallen, either loss or gain. A mathematician thinks 5 an infinite number of times as great as 0. The whole confusion is not so apparent when money is in question: for money is money whether gained or lost. But though pleasure and pain stand to one another in the same algebraical relation as money gained and lost, yet there is more than algebra can take account of in the difference.
Next, Ri. Milward[399](Richard, no doubt, but it cannot be proved) who published Selden's[400]Table Talk, which he had collected while serving as amanuensis, makes Selden say, "A subsidy was counted the fifth part of a man's estate; and so fifty subsidies is five and forty times more than a man is worth." Fortimesreadsubsidies, which seems part of the confusion, and there remains the making all the subsidies equal to the first, though the whole of which they are to be the fifths is perpetually diminished.
Thirdly, there is the confusion of the great misomathof our own day, who discovered two quantities which he avers to be identically the same, but the greater the one the less the other. He had a truth in his mind, which his notions of quantity were inadequate to clothe in language. This erroneous phraseology has not found a defender; and I am almost inclined to say, with Falstaff, The poor abuses of the time want countenance.
ERRONEOUS ARITHMETICAL NOTIONS.
"Shallow numerists," as Cocker[401]is made to call them, have long been at work upon the question how tomultiplymoney by money. It is, I have observed, a very common way of amusing the tedium of a sea voyage: I have had more than one bet referred to me. Because an oblong of five inches by four inches contains 5 × 4 or 20squareinches, people say that five inches multiplied by four inchesistwentysquareinches: and, thinking that they have multiplied length by length, they stare when they are told that money cannot be multiplied by money. One of my betters made it an argument for the thing being impossible, that there is nosquare money: what could I do but suggest that postage-stamps should be made legal tender. Multiplication must berepetition: the repeating process must be indicated bynumberof times. I once had difficulty in persuading another of my betters that if you repeat five shillings as often as there are hairs in a horse's tail, you do notmultiply five shillings by a horsetail.[402]
I am very sorry to say that these wrong notions have found support—I think they do so no longer—in the University of Cambridge. In 1856 or 1857, an examiner was displaced by a vote of the Senate. The pretext was that he was too severe an examiner: but it was well known thatgreat dissatisfaction had been expressed, far and wide through the Colleges, at an absurd question which he had given. He actually proposed such a fraction as
As common sense gained a hearing very soon, there is no occasion to say more. In 1858, it was proposed at a college examination, to divide 22557 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes, 48 seconds, by 57 minutes, 12 seconds, and also to explain the fraction
All paradoxy, in matters of demonstration, arises out of muddle about first principles. Who can say how much of it is to be laid at the door of the University of Cambridge, for not taking care of the elements of arithmetical thought?
ON LITERARY BARGAINS.
The phenomena of the two ends of society, when brought together, give interesting comparisons: I mean the early beginnings of thought and literature, and our own high and finished state, as we think it. There is one very remarkable point. In the early day, the letter was matter of the closest adherence, and implied meanings were not admitted.
The blessing of Isaac meant for Esau, went to false Jacob, in spite of the imposition; and the writer of Genesis seems to intend to give the notion that Isaac had no power to pronounce it null and void. And "Jacob's policy, whereby he became rich"—as the chapter-heading puts it—in speckled and spotted stock, is not considered as a violation of the agreement, which contemplated natural proportions. Inthe story of Lycurgus the lawgiver is held to have behaved fairly when he bound the Spartans to obey his laws until he returned—intimating a short absence—he intending never to return. And Vishnoo, when he asked the usurper for three steps of territory as a dwarf, and then enlarged himself until he could bring heaven and earth under the bargain, was thought clever, certainly, but quite fair.
There is nothing of this kind recognized in our day: so far good. But there is a bad contrary: the age is apt, in interpretation, to upset the letter in favor of the view—very often the after thought—of one side only. The case of John Palmer,[403]the improver of the mail coach system, is smothered. He was to have an office and a salary, and 2½ per cent for life on the increasedrevenueof the Post-Office. His rights turned out so large, that Government would not pay them. For misconduct, real or pretended, they turned him out of hisoffice: but his bargain as to the percentage had nothing to do with his future conduct; it was payment for hisplan. I know nothing, except from the debates of 1808 in the two Houses: if any one can redeem the credit of the nation, the field is open. When I was young, the old stagers spoke of this transaction sparingly, and dismissed it speedily.
The government did not choose to remember what private persons must remember, and are made to remember, if needful. When Dr. Lardner[404]made his bargain with thepublishers for theCabinet Cyclopædiahe proposed that he, as editor, should have a certain sum for every hundred sold above a certain number: the publishers, who did not think there was any chance of reaching the turning sale of this stipulation, readily consented. But it turned out that Dr. Lardner saw further than they: the returns under this stipulation gave him a very handsome addition to his other receipts. The publishers stared; but they paid. They had no idea of standing out that the amount was too much for an editor; they knew that, though the editor had a percentage, they had all the rest; and they would not have felt aggrieved if he had received ten times as much. But governments, which cannot be brought to book before a sworn jury, are ruled only by public opinion. John Palmer's day was also the day of Thomas Fyshe Palmer,[405]and the governments, in their prosecutions for sedition, knew that these would have a reflex action upon the minds of all who wrote about public affairs.
DECLARATION OF BELIEF
1864-65.—It often happens that persons combine to maintain and enforce an opinion; but it is, in our state of society, a paradox to unite for the sole purpose of blaming the opposite side. To invite educated men to do this, and above all, men of learning or science, is the next paradoxical thing of all. But this was done by a small combination in 1864. They got together and drew up adeclaration, to be signed by "students of the natural sciences," who were to express their "sincere regret that researches intoscientific truth are perverted by some in our own times into occasion for casting doubt upon the truth and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures." In words of ambiguous sophistry, they proceeded to request, in effect, that people would be pleased to adopt the views of churches as to thecompleteinspiration of all the canonical books. The great question whether the Word of God isinthe Bible, or whether the Word of God isallthe Bible, was quietly taken for granted in favor of the second view; to the end that men of science might be induced to blame those who took the first view. The first public attention was drawn to the subject by Sir John Herschel,[406]who in refusing to sign the writ sent to him, administered a rebuke in theAthenæum, which would have opened most eyes to see that the case was hopeless. The words of a man whosesuaviter in modomakes hisfortiter in re[407]cut blocks with a razor are worth preserving:
"I consider the act of calling upon me publicly to avow or disavow, to approve or disapprove, in writing, any religious doctrine or statement, however carefully or cautiously drawn up (in other words, to append my name to a religious manifesto) to be an infringement of that social forbearance which guards the freedom of religious opinion in this country with especial sanctity.... I consider this movement simply mischievous, having a direct tendency (by putting forward a new Shibboleth, a new verbal test of religious partisanship) to add a fresh element of discord to the already too discordant relations of the Christian world.... But no nicety of wording, no artifice of human language, will suffice to discriminate the hundredth part of the shades of meaning in which the most world-wide differences of thought on such subjects may be involved; or prevent the most gentle worded and apparently justifiable expression of regret, so embodied, from grating on thefeelings of thousands of estimable and well-intentioned men with all the harshness of controversial hostility."
Other doses were administered by Sir J. Bowring,[408]Sir W. Rowan Hamilton,[409]and myself. The signed declaration was promised for Christmas, 1864: but nothing presentable was then ready; and it was near Midsummer, 1865, before it was published. Persons often incautiously put their names without seeing thecharacterof a document, because they coincide in itsopinions. In this way, probably, fifteen respectable names were procured before printing; and these, when committed, were hawked as part of an application to "solicit the favor" of other signatures. It is likely enough no one of the fifteen saw that the declaration was, notmaintenanceof their own opinion, butregret(a civil word forblame) that others shouldthink differently.
When the list appeared, there were no fewer than 716 names! But analysis showed that this roll was not a specimen of the mature science of the country. The collection was very miscellaneous: 38 were designated as "students of the College of Chemistry," meaning young men who attended lectures in that college. But as all the Royal Society had been applied to, a test results as follows. Of Fellows of the Royal Society, 600 in number, 62 gave their signatures; of writers in thePhilosophical Transactions, 166 in number, 19 gave their signatures. Roughly speaking, then, only one out of ten could be got to express disapprobation of the free comparison of the results of science with the statements of the canonical books. And I am satisfied that many of these thought they were signing only a declaration of difference of opinion, not of blame for that difference. The number of persons is not small who, when it comes to signing printed documents, would put their names to a declaration that the coffee-pot ought to be taken down-stairs, meaning that the teapot ought to be broughtup-stairs. And many of them would defend it. Some would say that the two things are not contradictory; which, with a snort or two of contempt, would be very effective. Others would, in the candid and quiet tone, point out that it is all one, because coffee is usually taken before tea, and it keeps the table clear to send away the coffee-pot before the teapot is brought up.
The original signatures were decently interred in the Bodleian Library: and the advocates of scattering indefinite blame for indefinite sins of opinion among indefinite persons are, I understand, divided in opinion about the time at which the next attempt shall be made upon men of scientific studies: some are for the Greek Calends, and others for the Roman Olympiads. But, with their usual love of indefiniteness, they have determined that the choice shall be argued upon the basis that which comes first cannot be settled, and is of no consequence.
I give the declaration entire, as a curiosity: and parallel with it I give a substitute which was proposed in theAthenæum, as worthy to be signed both by students of theology, and by students of science, especially in past time. When a new attempt is made, it will be worth while to look at both:
Declaration.
We, the undersigned Students of the Natural Sciences, desire to express our sincere regret, that researches into scientific truth are perverted by some in our own times into occasion for casting doubt upon the Truth and Authenticity of the Holy Scriptures.
Proposed Substitute.
We, the undersigned Students of Theology and of Nature, desire to express our sincere regret, that common notions of religious truth are perverted by some in our own times into occasion for casting reproach upon the advocates of demonstrated or highly probable scientific theories.
We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of God, as written in the book of nature, and God's Word written in Holy Scripture, to contradict one another, however much they may appear to differ.
We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of God, as correctly read in the Book of Nature, and the Word of God, as truly interpreted out of the Holy Scripture, to contradict one another, however much they may appear to differ.
We are not forgetful that Physical Science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly,
We are not forgetful that neither theological interpretation nor physical knowledge is yet complete, but that both are in a condition of progress; and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see both one and the other as through a glass darkly [the writers of the original declaration have distinctively applied to physical science the phrase by which St. Paul denotes the imperfections of theological vision, which they tacitly assume to be quite perfect],
and we confidently believe, that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular. We cannot but deplore that Natural Science should be looked upon with suspicion by many who do not make a study of it, merely on account of the unadvised manner in which some are placing it in opposition to Holy Writ.
and we confidently believe, that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular. We cannot but deplore that Religion should be looked upon with suspicion by some and Science by others, of the students of either who do not make a study of theother, merely on account of the unadvised manner in which some are placing Religion in opposition to Science, and some are placing Science in opposition to Religion.
We believe that it is the duty of every Scientific Student to investigate nature simply for the purpose of elucidating truth,
We believe that it is the duty of every theological student to investigate the Scripture, and of every scientific student to investigate Nature, simply for the purpose of elucidating truth.
and that if he finds that some of his results appear to be in contradiction to the Written Word, or rather to his owninterpretationsof it, which may be erroneous, he should not presumptuously affirm that his own conclusions must be right, and the statements of Scripture wrong;
And if either should find that some of his results appear to be in contradiction, whether to Scripture or to Nature, or rather to his owninterpretationof one or the other, which may be erroneous, he should not affirm as with certainty that his own conclusion must be right, and the other interpretation wrong:
rather, leave the two side by side till it shall please God to allow us to see the manner in which they may be reconciled;
but should leave the two side by side for further inquiry into both, until it shall please God to allow us to arrive at the manner in which they may be reconciled.
and, instead of insisting upon the seeming differences between Science and the Scriptures, it would be as well to rest in faith upon the points in which they agree.
In the mean while, instead of insisting, and least of all with acrimony or injuriousstatements about others, upon the seeming differences between Science and the Scriptures, it would be a thousand times better to rest in faith as to our future state, in hope as to our coming knowledge, and in charity as to our present differences.
The distinctness of the fallacies is creditable to the composers, and shows that scientific habits tend to clearness, even to sophistry. Nowhere does it so plainly stand out that theWritten Wordmeans the sense in which the accuser takes it, while the sense of the other side istheir interpretation. The infallible church on one side, arrayed against heretical pravity on the other, is seen in all subjects in which men differ. At school there were various games in which one or another advantage was the right of those who first called for it. In adult argument the same thing is often attempted: we often hear—I criedChurchfirst!
I end with the answer which I myself gave to the application: its revival may possibly save me from a repetition of the like. If there be anything I hate more than another it is the proposal to place any persons, especially those who allow freedom to me, under any abridgment of their liberty to think, to infer, and to publish. If they break the law, take the law; but do not make the law:ἀγοραιοι ἀγονται ἐγκαλειτωσαν ἀλληλοις.[410]I would rather be asked to take shares in an argyrosteretic company (with limited liability) for breaking into houses by night on fork and spoon errands. I should put aside this proposal withnothing but laughter. It was a joke against Sam Rogers[411]that his appearance was very like that of a corpse. TheJohn Bullnewspaper—suppose we now say Theodore Hook[412]—averred that when he hailed a coach one night in St. Paul's Churchyard, the jarvey said, "Ho! ho! my man; I'm not going to be taken in that way: go back to your grave!" This is the answer I shall make for the future to any relics of a former time who shall want to call me off the stand for their own purposes. What obligation have I to admit that they belong to our world?
"SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE.
"The Writ De Hæretico Commiserando.[413]
Nov. 14, 1864.
"This document was sent to me four days ago. It 'solicits the favor'—I thought at first it was a grocer's supplication for tea and sugar patronage—of my signature to expression of 'sincere regret' that some persons unnamed—general warrants are illegal—differ from what I am supposed—by persons whom it does not concern—to hold about Scripture and Science in their real or alleged discrepancies.
"No such favor from me: for three reasons. First, I agree with Sir. J. Herschel that the solicitation is an intrusion to be publicly repelled. Secondly, I donotregret that others should differ from me, think what I may: those others are as good as I, and as well able to think, and as much entitled to their conclusions. Thirdly, even if I did regret, I should be ashamed to put my name to bad chemistry made to do duty for good reasoning. The declaration is an awkward attempt to saturate sophism with truism; but the sophism is left largely in excess.
"I owe the inquisitors a grudge for taking down my conceit of myself. For two months I have crowed in my own mind over my friend Sir J. Herschel, fancying that the promoters instinctively knew better than to bring their fallacies before a writer on logic. Ah! my dear Sir John! thought I, if you had shown yourself to be well up inBarbara Celarent,[414]and had ever and anon astonished the natives with the distinction betweensimpliciterandsecundum quid, no autograph-hunters would have baited a trap withnon sequitur[415]to catch your signature. What can I say now? I hide my diminished head, diminished by the horns which I have been compelled to draw in.
"Those who make personal solicitation for support to an opinion about religion are bound to know their men. The king had a right to Brother Neale's money, because Brother Neale offered it. Had he put his hand into purse after purse by way of finding out all who were of Brother Neale's mind, he would have been justly met by a rap on the knuckles whenever he missed his mark.
"The kind of test before me is the utmost our time will allow of that inquisition into opinion which has been the curse of Christianity ever since the State took Providence under its protection. The writde hæretico commiserandois little more than the smell of the empty cask: and those who issue it may represent the old woman with her