... It appears to me that so far as his theory is concerned he comes off unscathed. You might have found "a hole in Smith's circle" (have you seen a pamphlet bearing this title? [I never heard of it until now]), but after all it is quite possible the hole may have been left by design, for the purpose of entrapping the unwary." [On the publication of the above, the author of the pamphlet obligingly forwarded a copy to me of _A Hole in Smith's Circle_--by a Cantab: Longman and Co., 1859, (pp. 15). "It is pity to lose any fun we can get out of the affair," says my almamaternal brother: to which I add that in such a case warning without joke is worse than none at all, as giving a false idea of the nature of the danger. The Cantab takes some absurdities on which I have not dwelt: but there are enough to afford a Cantab from every college his own separate hunting ground.] Does this hint that his mode of proof, namely, assuming the thing to be proved, was a design to entrap the unwary? if so, it bangs Banagher. Was his confounding two mean proportionals with one mean proportional found twice over a trick of the same intent? if so, it beats cockfighting. That Nauticus is Mr. Smith appears from other internal evidence. In 1819, Mr. J. C. Hobhouse[222] was sent to Newgate for a {127} 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 [pi] 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: {128} "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: