A Budget of Paradoxes, Volume I | Page 8

in which I was told that a person who could not see that
he had done the thing should "change his business, and appropriate his
time and attention to a Sunday-school, to learn what he could, and keep
the litle children from durting their close." I also received a letter from
a friend of the quadrator, informing me that I knew his friend had
succeeded, and had been heard to say so. These letters were
printed--without the names of the writers--for the amusement of the
readers of Notes and Queries, First Series, xii. 57, and they will appear

again in the sequel.
[There are many who have such a deep respect for any attempt at
thought that they are shocked at ridicule even of those who have made
themselves conspicuous by pretending to lead the world in matters
which they have not studied. Among my anonyms is a gentleman who
is angry at my treatment of the "poor but thoughtful" man who is
described in my introduction as recommending me to go to a
Sunday-school because I informed him that he did not know in what
the difficulty of quadrature consisted. My impugner quite forgets that
this man's "thoughtfulness" chiefly consisted in his demanding a
hundred thousand pounds from the Lord Chancellor for his discovery;
and I may add, that his greatest stretch of invention was finding out that
"the clergy" {13} were the means of his modest request being
unnoticed. I mention this letter because it affords occasion to note a
very common error, namely, that men unread in their subjects have, by
natural wisdom, been great benefactors of mankind. My critic says,
"Shakspeare, whom the Pro^r (sic) may admit to be a wisish man,
though an object of contempt as to learning ..." Shakespeare an object
of contempt as to learning! Though not myself a thoroughgoing
Shakespearean--and adopting the first half of the opinion given by
George III, "What! is there not sad stuff? only one must not say so"--I
am strongly of opinion that he throws out the masonic signs of learning
in almost every scene, to all who know what they are. And this over
and above every kind of direct evidence. First, foremost, and enough,
the evidence of Ben Jonson that he had "little Latin and less Greek";
then Shakespeare had as much Greek as Jonson would call some, even
when he was depreciating. To have any Greek at all was in those days
exceptional. In Shakespeare's youth St. Paul's and Merchant Taylor's
schools were to have masters learned in good and clean Latin literature,
and also in Greek if such may be gotten. When Jonson spoke as above,
he intended to put Shakespeare low among the learned, but not out of
their pale; and he spoke as a rival dramatist, who was proud of his own
learned sock; and it may be a subject of inquiry how much Latin he
would call little. If Shakespeare's learning on certain points be very
much less visible than Jonson's, it is partly because Shakespeare's
writings hold it in chemical combination, Jonson's in mechanical

aggregation.]
7. An elderly man came to me to show me how the universe was
created. There was one molecule, which by vibration became--Heaven
knows how!--the Sun. Further vibration produced Mercury, and so on. I
suspect the nebular hypothesis had got into the poor man's head by
reading, in some singular mixture with what it found there. Some
modifications of vibration gave heat, electricity, etc. I {14} listened
until my informant ceased to vibrate--which is always the shortest
way--and then said, "Our knowledge of elastic fluids is imperfect."
"Sir!" said he, "I see you perceive the truth of what I have said, and I
will reward your attention by telling you what I seldom disclose, never,
except to those who can receive my theory--the little molecule whose
vibrations have given rise to our solar system is the Logos of St. John's
Gospel!" He went away to Dr. Lardner, who would not go into the solar
system at all--the first molecule settled the question. So hard upon poor
discoverers are men of science who are not antiquaries in their subject!
On leaving, he said, "Sir, Mr. De Morgan received me in a very
different way! he heard me attentively, and I left him perfectly satisfied
of the truth of my system." I have had much reason to think that many
discoverers, of all classes, believe they have convinced every one who
is not peremptory to the verge of incivility.
My list is given in chronological order. My readers will understand that
my general expressions, where slighting or contemptuous, refer to the
ignorant, who teach before they have learned. In every instance, those
of whom I am able to speak with respect, whether as right or wrong,
have