Page:A budget of paradoxes (IA cu31924103990507).pdf/348

334 with one mean proportional found twice over a trick of the same intent? if so, it beats cockfighting. That Nauticus is Mr. Smith appears from other internal evidence. In 1819, Mr. J. C. Hobhouse was sent to Newgate for a libel on the House of Commons which was only intended for a libel on Lord Erskine. The ex-Chancellor had taken Mr. Hobhouse to be thinking of him in a certain sentence; this Mr. Hobhouse denied, adding, 'There is but one man in the country who is always thinking of Lord Erskine.' I say that there is but one man of our day who would couple me and Mr. James Smith as a 'brace of mathematical birds.'

Mr. Smith's 'theory' is unscathed by me. Not a doubt about it: but how does he himself come off? I should never think of refuting a theory proved by assumption of itself. I left Mr. Smith's $$\pi$$ untouched: or, if I put in my thumb and pulled out a plum, it was to give a notion of the cook, not of the dish. The 'important question at issue' was not the circle: it was, wholly and solely, whether the abbreviation of James might be spelt Jimm. This is personal to the verge of scurrility: but in literary controversy the challenger names the weapons, and Mr. Smith begins with charge of ignorance, folly, and dishonesty, by conditional implication. So that the question is, not the personality of a word, but its applicability to the person designated: it is enough if, as the Latin grammar has it, Verbum personale concordat cum nominativo.

I may plead precedent for taking a liberty with the orthography of Jem. An instructor of youth was scandalised at the abrupt and irregular—but very effective—opening of Wordsworth's little piece—

So he mended the matter by instructing his pupils to read the first line thus:—

The brother, we infer from sound, was to be James, and the blank must therefore be filled up with Jimb. I will notice one point of the letter, to make a little more