libel on the House of Commons which was only intended for a libel on Lord Erskine.[[223]] 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 π 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 spelled Jimm.[[224]] 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.[[225]]
I may plead precedent for taking a liberty with the orthography of Jem. An instructor of youth was scandalized at the abrupt and irregular—but very effective—opening of Wordsworth's little piece:
"A simple child
That lightly draws its breath,
And feels its life in every limb,
What should it know of death?"
So he mended the matter by instructing his pupils to read the first line thus:
"A simple child, dear brother ——."