THE ARISTOCRAT AS A SCIENTIST.

Copernicans of all sorts convicted ... to which is added a Treatise of

the Magnet. By the Hon. Edw. Howard, of Berks. London, 1705, 8vo.

Not all the blood of all the Howards will gain respect for a writer who

maintains that eclipses admit no possible explanation under the Copernican

hypothesis, and who asks how a man can "go 200 yards to any place if the

moving superficies of the earth does carry it from him?" Horace Walpole, at

the beginning of his _Royal and Noble Authors_, has mottoed his book with

the Cardinal's address to Ariosto, "Dove diavolo, Messer Ludovico, avete

pigliato tante coglionerie?"[271] Walter Scott says you could hardly pick

out, on any principle of selection--except badness itself, he means of

course--the same number of plebeian authors whose works are so bad. But his

implied satire on aristocratic writing forgets two points. First, during a

large period of our history, when persons of rank condescended to write,

they veiled themselves under "a person of honor," "a person of quality,"

and the like, when not wholly undescribed. Not one of these has Walpole

got; he omits, {132} for instance, Lord Brounker's[272] translation of

Descartes on Music. Secondly, Walpole only takes the heads of houses: this

cuts both ways; he equally eliminates the Hon. Robert Boyle and the

precious Edward Howard. The last writer is hardly out of the time in which

aristocracy suppressed its names; the avowal was then usually meant to make

the author's greatness useful to the book. In our day, literary peers and

honorables are very favorably known, and contain an eminent class.[273]

They rough it like others, and if such a specimen as Edw. Howard were now

to appear, he would be greeted with

"Hereditary noodle! knowest thou not

Who would be wise, himself must make him so?"

A Budget of Paradoxes, Volume I · 第 77 / 198 题