Delphi Complete Works of Samuel Butler, page 367
The sheet on which I found the above was undated; reference, however, to the trustees’ minute-books at Shrewsbury enables me to fix the date as above. No copy of the memorial itself was found by me. It was, however, immediately drawn up, and presented through the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, with such effect that the case came on for hearing in June 1824; but the Lord Chief Baron, Sir W. Alexander, deferred judgement till after the vacation.
CHAPTER XVII. CORRESPONDENCE, MAY 13TH, 1824 — DECEMBER 1824.
FROM THE REV. T. S. HUGHES.
“CHESTERTON, May 13th, 1824.
* * * * *
MR. TILLBROOK is very well and very jolly, just come from his fishing in Hampshire, where he killed a hundred and sixty trout. We had a very pleasant day at St. John’s Port Latin this year. The College is in earnest, I believe, about building, but I am afraid about the situation. They talk of placing the new court in the walks. Have you heard of the intention of the Pitt Club to grant us a donation from their funds to erect a Pitt Press at Cambridge, as a rival to the Clarendon? Really Cambridge will soon be able to hold up its head.” * * * * *
TO THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD AND COVENTRY (DR. RYDER).
[Probably May 1824 ]
“MY LORD, — I take the liberty of sending my three charges to your lordship, that you may become acquainted, so far, with my proceedings as Archdeacon of Derby. I was enabled by great exertion during the whole of my vacation last summer to make a parochial visitation of about one-half of the county. I hope in the course of the approaching summer vacation to complete the undertaking. I shall set out for Derbyshire on Monday, June 21st, when my vacation commences, and intend to spend the whole of it in Derbyshire; and I take the liberty of mentioning that, if you are likely to be at Eccleshall on the day I have mentioned, or on my return, which will be at the end of July, or at the very beginning of August, I could by making a little detour have the honour of paying my respects to your lordship, and showing you my papers. I very much regretted not being able to attend your lordship at Lichfield, yet I am thankful that I was prevented, for on the Wednesday, when I wished to have been there, the school tower caught fire, and probably, if I had not been on the spot, the whole of this fine and venerable structure would have been burnt down. A quarter of an hour later no assistance could have preserved it, as the wind was very high. My principal assistant was also that day confined to his bed by severe illness.
“I understand that you have been so good as to express a wish to see my statement of our unfortunate lawsuit. I have just received some papers (a large basket full) which throw light on the business, and which I must examine as well and as soon as my engagements, now unusually pressing, will permit. As I may probably make considerable alterations or additions to the present statement in consequence, and shall be some months before I can complete them, I could wish to defer sending it to your lordship till this is done.”
FROM THE REV. T. S. HUGHES.
“CHESTERTON, August 5th, 1824.
* * * * *
“All my pupils are arrived and work begun, as I suppose it is with you. I, like yourself, am very far from disliking my occupation. Indeed I in some measure consider it as a piece of good fortune to be forced to reperuse the immortal works of these jolly old heathens — thus mixing the utile dulci in a very agreeable manner.
“It is time, however, that I should immediately set about my second part of the Defence of St. Paul — which I will do. I have been thinking on the subject, and have noted down some of my thoughts. The way I intend to treat it is as follows — to stick to the Miracles. Gamaliel Smith denies their reality. This now I must prove. He also denies the conformity of the doctrine they are intended to prove with that of our Saviour. I think, therefore, that to complete the subject I must show that it is so. This you will perhaps think sufficient without attending to his scurrilities and impertinences “Can you then (1) intimate any books for me to consult? (2) Do you know in what author is contained a diatribe against St. Paul’s sailing to, and performing miracles in, Malta, which is said to have been Meleda in the Adriatic? (3) Can you tell me anything about a certain Peter Annet? I have an anonymous tract, said to have been written by him, from which it seems that Gamaliel Smith has culled all his arguments. It is called The History and Character of St. Paul examined in a Letter to Theophilus, etc. It has no date, and has been torn out from a volume containing other tracts.
“Thank you for your portrait, which is extremely like you. I need not say — for I know you cannot doubt — how much I shall value it.”
“Gamaliel Smith “ was a pseudonym for Jeremy Bentham, who in 1823 published a work, Not Paul, but Jesus, under this assumed name.
The portrait above referred to was an engraving by William Ward, A.R.A., from the picture by Thomas Kirkby, now in the head-master’s house at Shrewsbury School. This is much the best portrait that was taken of Dr. Butler, and is reproduced (by direct photography from the picture itself) as the frontispiece of this work.
FROM THE REV. S. TILLBROOK.
“LEINTWARDINE, August 15th, 1824, “My DEAR DOCTOR, — Do not be alarmed if you see me or my ghost hastening towards Salop on Thursday next. If I come, I shall choose the time of day generally devoted to dinner; but if my ghost only should arrive, it matters not when, you will know it by its red face and limping gait. Use it well for my sake, and have it laid to rest in your wine-cellar.
“I have been staying here since Friday last, and have killed good store of trout and grayling, neither of which fish, in my humble opinion, are fit to set before an archdeacon or a tutor of a college, otherwise you would have received a few of both sorts. I catch them and give them to my landlady, Dame Evans, who in return for my liberality feeds me as daintily as the fabled chaw-bacons of old did Apollo. I begin the day with broiled ham, dine on beans and bacon, or eggs and bacon, and sup on the same. This diet provokes great thirst, which I am doomed to allay with a drink which the Goths called ‘gripen-gutten-Wein,’ and we ‘cyder.’ This is the penalty of my vice, as you call it. But this is not all, for the very plumage of my artificial flies reminds me of the volatile delicacies — snipe, woodcock, partridge, dotterel, and grouse. Pray pity me, if you can, and pardon any little excess which I may commit upon your larder and cellar—’ date poculum -Tilbrogio.’...
“P.S. — As my stay must be so short, I shall prefer sleeping at the Raven with my suite and my servants — being in all one — egometipse to wit. Vale!”
FROM MR. W. HONE, AUTHOR OF “HONE’S EVERYDAY BOOK.”
“45, LUDGATE HILL, LONDON, October 5tit, 1824.
“SIR, — Perhaps I ought to have thanked you for the politeness and urbanity of the note I had the honour to receive from you in February, in answer to mine accompanying a copy of the pamphlet I published in that month. But from your expressions I was led to think you had not then read the tract, and I deemed it more respectful to abstain from troubling you with a notice which, after its perusal, might not altogether have been accepted at that moment. I knew, however, sir, that you appreciated the civility of my intentions, and that your liberality would not assume unworthy motives for a questionable silence. If there were a sentiment in that pamphlet regarding yourself, as I fear there may have been, to occasion you an unpleasant feeling, I desire to assure you that I shall feel sorrow at the mishap, and a sorrow the deeper because the compliment you were pleased to pay me on my volume respecting the Mysteries was most generously gratuitous and wholly unexpected. From such a hand, on such an occasion, it affected me far otherwise than those who have chosen to ‘wound by hearsay’ would be pleased to imagine, or at least to represent, if they knew it. Good treatment I have been so little accustomed to that your kindness overcame me. In fact I am ruled by the law of kindness, as I believe most men would be, if they were acquainted with the nature of the obligation, and it were proffered them for their acknowledgement.”
* * * * *
TO MR. W. HONE.
(The original was so much cut about, and had evidently given Dr. Butler so much trouble, that I destroyed it. — ED.)
[ October 6th or 7th, 1824.]
“SIR, — I should be wanting not only in common civility, but in feelings of a much higher and better nature, if I deferred to thank you for the very courteous and candid letter which accompanied the small packet I was favoured with from you last night.
“The sentiments which you so well and feelingly express are in unison with the best sympathies in our nature, and I give you full credit for sincerity. I shall therefore deal very plainly and perhaps at some length with you in reference to your letter.
“I must premise that, if I had taken offence at anything you had said in your pamphlet, I could neither have so long retained it nor in any case could have remained offended after the letter I yesterday received from you. But 1 assure you I never felt offence. I was quite aware that a man who throws stones must not expect his enemy to throw him roses in return; and had you spoken more harshly than you did, I should still have felt no animosity — in fact I think I see in all you have said a wish to have said less, and something more than mere absence of personal hostility.
“You avow yourself a Christian, and your letter is written in a tone which forbids my doubting your assertion. What your peculiar religious opinions may be I have neither the right nor the wish to ask. They are probably materially different from mine; but I have not the slightest wish to make you a proselyte, and only send the little book that accompanies this letter as a means of conveying to you my sentiments on an important point of practical Christianity, and at the same time of offering you a little acknowledgement for your courtesies and a token of my good-will. You will, I hope, accept it as such, and believe me to be, sir, your sincere well-wisher and obedient servant, “S. BUTLER.”
No doubt “the little book” above mentioned was the sermon on Christian liberty, already mentioned.
FROM BARON MERIAN.
“November 1st, 1S24.
“DEAR SIR, — I will now write you a long letter in two parts. 1. Answer to your two last. 2. A matter concerning you. I begin. It was not my intention to jest when I sent you the printed’ notice of your Aischylos. I had no idea of your reading or even knowing of the Bulletin Universe/, which is indeed a very commodious collection and still improving. I was rather grieved at the very improper moment when my lines arrived; it had, however, been impossible for me to foresee an event like that you witnessed then unfortunately.* To all those I love I use to write gaily; this is in my nature, which partakes of the nature of Shakespeare clowns. I cannot help it; to be or look grave is a restraint upon me which I put off as soon as I can. The world to me is no object of serious contemplation. Pug’s exclamation hums for ever about my ears: Basta. Your perfect quietness as to criticism is as it should be; you need fear nobody, but yet it may be acceptable to you to hear of the general approbation your works meet with. I am glad to find my opinion of the Halls confirmed. Basil writes and acts like a man of genius. Pray do not forget to send me the Curate of Derbyshire, whatever he be about, Sufficit a te laudaritr.
* * * * *
“Part II. — You are acknowledged to be the best classical scholar of England. Suppose you added to that merit the merit of becoming the first synglossical scholar? You know by long experience I am not hot-headed or light-brained, nor propose whimsical things to my friends. The matter I mention is of the highest importance to learning in general, to philology in particular. Believe my words, of the highest importance, of indispensable necessity. What interest would I have to amuse you with fictions, or how venture it? No, ten years later what I now recommend will be a common practice. But would you not anticipate? Would you not march before, dux gregis? I demand no labour, not a great deal of your time; you are, if any, capable of performing the task by preparing the minds of your countrymen. ’Tis like walking out of a beautiful garden (classic) into an open, spacious, and fruitful field (synglossic).”
* * * * *
FROM BARON MERIAN.
“November 20th, 1824.
“I beg your pardon. Verbs are before Nouns, and there is not a single noun on the globe but had a verb preceding. Certainly many verbs are formed of nouns, but those nouns had come from other verbs older and simple. You mention ‘to blacken’ and ‘to fire.’ That is from black and this from fire. Concessum. But whence is black and whence fire? From verbs. There is an old verb ‘firlo,’ to cover, to daub, to darken (velo, velas), which made falak, balak, black. I believe this; but suppose you should not like it, would that prove that there exists or existed no verb fal, or bal, or pal, or bl, from which you might conveniently derive black? Indeed not. I may be unable to assign the source, but will that destroy the source? Never.”
(About two pages are omitted here.)
“P.S. — If you like authorities, here are two English ones. Whiter, Prel., p. 88: ‘I am firmly enlisted under the party of the verbs.’ Murray, I. 326: ‘It is certain that the verb was invented before the noun.’ Here, however, I protest against the word ‘invented.’ Man no more invents or has invented words than he has invented voice. You may modify, compound, sever, but never invent.”
The following letter and the one already given on pp. 131, 132, are the only two of his letters to Baron Merian which Dr. Butler drafted: —
TO BARON MERIAN.
“SHREWSBURY, November 25th, 1824.
“MOST EXCELLENT, — Why do you talk to me about English authorities in particular? English, French, German, are all of equal weight with me if they are on the side of truth. As things stand between us, our friend Whiter, thrown into the scale together with your good self, weighs just nothing. People are fond of novelties, and become attached to systems which look so pretty in their arrangement on paper that it is quite a pity to disturb them. But I will put a plain question to you. I believe you change your habitation about as often as I do my coat; still I presume, whether you move weekly or monthly, you live in a house composed of stones held together by mortar. Now verbs are the mortar of sentences, but are no more the materials of them than lime and sand are the materials of the house. The stones are the substantial part of the house, and the nouns are the substantial part of your sentences, which are held together and connected by the verbs as the stones are by the mortar. But as the stones existed before the mortar or the house, so did the nouns before the verbs and sentences; and the more I think on this, the more I am convinced that this is true, and that the system which you and Whiter and your learned coadjutors adopt is and must be false.
“You give me a long string of derivations in several languages. What does that prove? Nothing. Admitting for the sake of argument, what I am not going to assert or deny, that there is only one primitive language, of which all other languages are dialects, it does not of course follow that the radical term in that language is the procreative principle of all the terms for the same thing in these different dialects. For one nation may give a name to a thing from one circumstance and another from another. Thus one nation may derive the name of gold from its colour, another from its weight. We call gold a precious metal, and we might form a name for gold from this circumstance; a savage Indian might call iron his precious metal, and form his name for it accordingly. What would become of our elementary radicals for gold and iron then? But, as I said before, this proves nothing — our dispute is, Which were first in the formation of language, nouns or verbs? I say nouns, because the things themselves, or the qualities of things or persons, i e nouns substantive or adjective, must have preceded those things or persons in certain states of action or suffering, i e verbs. You say that verbs are not the names of things or persons in action or passion, and say that I cannot prove it.
“Now pray observe that I do not fix upon any two letters as an absolute and real root in the radical language, but I am assuming two letters just to argue upon and illustrate my position; and whether they be real or hypothetical radicals does not matter one jot.
“Let us then suppose that in this radical language ST represents the elements to which we annex the notion of firm or quiescent position. I say that these two elements, combined with ω or c, fragments of iyu>, or with c/χι, or if you prefer it with’ or ‘J. fragments of ‘tx, form a verb signifying to fix, to place, or to make to stand or to set. That is to say, that the verb 2ΤαΩ or STaEMI in Greek, or the verb V*’ in Hebrew, is derived from the elementary form for a firm or quiescent position, combined with the pronoun or fragment of the pronoun signifying I, and so of the other inflexions of the verb 2Τα2, nnî?, etc.
“This is my view of the subject, which I cannot help thinking more simple and philosophical than that which you adopt, and which your arguments, such is my stupidity, do not appear to me to prove. For they only show, what I do not dispute, that there is often a great affinity between the elementary terms for the same thing in different languages, which may possibly therefore be derived from some more [word lost] and primitive common stock. But if you derive fire, for instance, from the principle of burning, and say that in all languages FiRe contains the elementary principles of the verb to BuRn, even admitting the fact (which I do not), I should say that it is not philosophical to derive the thing from its qualities, which is like tracing the source of a stream downwards instead of ascending; and I would maintain, on the contrary, that the verb to BuRn is derived from FiRe, of which it is a quality, just as much as the effect is derived from the cause. In fact, if nouns were derived from verbs (primitively I mean), there would be no need of a noun at all, for verbs themselves would be the names of things, which they are not — but names of certain modes of action or suffering incident to things, and the things must have existed previous to their having any mode of action or suffering; and so nouns must have preceded verbs in the formation of language, and I cannot argue myself out of the belief if I cannot argue you into it.
