JAMES SMITH WILL NOT DOWN.

The _Correspondent_ journal makes a little episode in the history of my

Budget (born May, 1865, died April, 1866). It consisted entirely of letters

written by correspondents. In August, a correspondent who signed "Fair

Play"--and who I was afterwards told was a lady--thought it would be a good

joke to bring in the Cyclometers. Accordingly a letter was written,

complaining that though Mr. Sylvester's[623] demonstration of Newton's

theorem--then attracting public attention--was duly lauded, the possibly

greater discovery of the quadrature seemed to be blushing unseen, and

wasting etc. It went on as follows:

"Prof. De Morgan, who, from his position in the scientific world, might

fairly afford to look favourably on less practised efforts than his own,

seems to delight in ridiculing the discoverer. Science is, of course, a

very respectable person when he comes out and makes himself useful in the

world [it must have been a lady; each sex gives science to the other]: but

when, like a monk of the Middle Ages, he shuts himself up [it must have

been a lady; they always snub the bachelors] in his cloistered cell,

repeating his mumpsimus from day to day, and despising the labourers on the

outside, we begin to think of Galileo,[624] Jenner,[625] Harvey,[626] and

other glorious trios, who have been contemned ..."

The writer then called upon Mr. James Smith[627] to come {337} forward. The

irony was not seen; and that day fortnight appeared the first of more than

thirty letters from his pen. Mr. Smith was followed by Mr. Reddie,[628]

Zadkiel,[629] and others, on their several subjects. To some of the letters

I have referred; to others I shall come. The _Correspondent_ was to become

a first-class scientific journal; the time had arrived at which truth had

an organ: and I received formal notice that I could not stifle it by

silence, nor convert it into falsehood by ridicule. When my reader sees my

extracts, he will readily believe my declaration that I should have been

the last to stifle a publication which was every week what James Mill[630]

would call a dose of capital for my Budget. A few anti-paradoxers brought

in common sense: but to the mass of the readers of the journal it all

seemed to be the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Some said

that the influx of scientific paradoxes killed the journal: but my belief

is that they made it last longer than it otherwise would have done. Twenty

years ago I recommended the paradoxers to combine and publish their views

in a common journal: with a catholic editor, who had no pet theory, but a

stern determination not to exclude anything merely for absurdity. I suspect

it would answer very well. A strong title, or motto, would be wanted: not

so coarse as was roared out in a Cambridge mob when I was an

undergraduate--"No King! No Church! No House of Lords! No nothing, blast

me!"--but something on that _principle_.

At the end of 1867 I addressed the following letter to the _Athenaeum_:

A Budget of Paradoxes, Volume II · 第 109 / 123 题