Complete works of samuel.., p.374
Complete Works of Samuel Butler, page 374
FROM THE REV. CHARLES E. COTTON.
“DERBY, October 14th, 1826.
“MR. ARCHDEACON, — I have this moment received your obliging letter out of the post, and lose no time in making known to you that, upon the receipt of your letters yesterday, I thought it would be necessary to see Mr. Wood as soon as possible. I therefore sent a man over to him this morning, giving the heads of your most excellent letter, and requesting that he would do me the favour to dine with me at Dalbury on Monday and take a bed, when we might speak more fully upon the subject, and adding that, should that not be convenient, I would meet him at Derby at any time previous to twelve o’clock on Tuesday. I shall make a point to act according to your wishes; and I feel confident that, should it be found necessary to read your admirable letter, it will give the greatest possible satisfaction to about two-thirds of your clergy in the Archdeaconry of Derby. I hope Mr. Wood will be returned by the time you mention; but should that not be the case, I can rely upon Mr. Johnson of Aston and others attending, who have expressed themselves exactly according to what you have mentioned in your letter.”
FROM THE REV. JOHN WOOD.
“October 19th, 1826.
“MY DEAR SIR, — Little did I think that I should have been found amongst the combatants on the 17th; but so it was. Cotton’s summons was so very pressing that I could not refuse him — so here beginneth the history of the first and last meeting of the Clerical Society for debating controversial points of doctrine. Precisely at twelve Johnson, Lowther, Hall, Murphy, Pickering, and myself made our appearance, to the surprise, I believe, of the long-faced tribe, who appeared to be fully equipped for the field, and panting to engage in the wordy war. So have I seen two men stripped into buff completely thrown into a state of derangement by the appearance of a set of fellows in the shape of constables, commanding them to keep the peace.
“The Bishop Blaze (no unapt name for the worthy secretary as far as outside is concerned) expressed his pleasure at our attendance, little dreaming at the time that his six subjects must be laid upon the shelf for future discussion. ‘I have received from the chairman a letter from the Archdeacon, whom I thought it my duty to consult, particularly as he has been requested to be President of the society, which I beg leave to read previous to our entering upon business.’ The letter was read, the Prayer Book sent for, the Canons appealed to, and I was in hopes we should have got rid of the concern altogether; but Johnson and Lowther seemed to wish the rules to be new-modelled, and thought that, leaving out the objectionable part, the society might be a good thing. We divided upon the question equal numbers, but Mr. Dickenson wished the clergy to meet, and therefore altered his vote. The younger Shirley came in afterwards, and took the lead in conciliating the objectionable parts of the plan; and thus it now stands that a Clerical Society shall be formed, for friendly intercourse and conversation upon professional duties, to meet on a prayer day, and go as individuals to church previous to the meeting — open to all the clergy who choose to sign the rules.
“Very unsatisfactory all this, I believe, to a great part of the meeting. You will of course receive a communication. Our wise secretary freely confessed his errors and deficiencies: he ought to have written to the Bishop, but he forgot; he would, however, amend his fault by a speedy communication of his proceedings to his lordship. He ought to have written to the Archdeacon, and sent one of the circulars; but he did not get them printed till a few days before the meeting, and he had not time to receive an answer. I was accused of trying by a side wind to get rid of the society. Thinks I to myself, that is true enough, if I choose to confess it.
“When we divided, my vote and another were objected to by the secretary. I pleaded his invitation; but Mr. Simpson informed me that I was asked to discuss the subjects mentioned in the circular, not to raise objections. This being the case, I voted myself useless, and took my hat, and other hats were apparently in motion to follow the example of mine. The secretary had found he had gone too far; and I, being always meek and mild, was prevailed upon to resume my place. Thus at three o’clock I returned unenlightened as I came, leaving a considerable number, as the secretary observed, to discuss the merits of the soup and mutton, of which I have little doubt he would give a much better account than he could have done of his six subjects, had he been called upon for ideas about them. Between ourselves, I thought the party were terribly vexed the secretary had not written to the Bishop, hoping no doubt to have had a word of consolation which might have cheered them under the disappointment they experienced from the chairman’s communication.
“Pray burn this scrawl.”
FROM THE REV. AUTHORITY NORMAN.
“BRAILSFORD, October 20th, 1826.
“DEAR SIR, — As I have reason to believe that the scheme of a Clerical Society originated with myself, I hope you will suffer me to offer a word in explanation on the subject. My object was that which you express in your letter to Mr. Cotton, but the feeling of party was so strong that I was obliged to bend to circumstances. The orthodox kept aloof, and the low party carried the first meeting. The orthodox clergymen were dissatisfied with themselves, and at the last meeting came forward, and, I do trust, by steady perseverance carried their measures.
“Respecting the form of the society, a copy of whose rules was submitted to you suffer me to say that I decidedly opposed the design of discussing doctrinal subjects, but was obliged to bend for a time, or the whole of the scheme had fallen away. When your letter was read, I was much struck with the sight of the danger which I had been running, must plead my ignorance of it, and sincerely thank you for my escape. Indeed, if no other good arises, I have been in one view the cause of much good to about a score of my brother-clergy in drawing from you that most excellent letter. I for one felt severely the rebuke which it put upon me, and I kiss the rod. But this single circumstance shows how beneficial a meeting for mutual information may become to the clergy generally. Here was half a dozen of the body with the best intentions, merely for want of information, about to incur the charge of the want of discipline and decorum.
“You will be pleased to learn that your friendly wishes were not lost upon us, and that we so modified our measures as, I hope, whilst we satisfied one party we did not offend the other. We are, alas! much scandalised by the extremes of the parties. To attempt to unite them, I fear, is in vain. But they must be softened and lose much of their asperity by mutual and friendly intercourse.”
FROM THE REV. JOHN WOOD.
“SWANWICK, November 13th, 1826.
“MY DEAR SIR, — Your letter of the 21st of October has remained unanswered till now, not because I have neglected or forgotten its contents, but from an expectation that something might occur which would render it necessary for me again to write to you, but not one word or hint have I heard respecting any further proceedings of the Clerical Society. The last meeting has probably cast a damper upon the zeal of a considerable portion of the members. The objections made were totally unexpected, and happy would it have been for us all had the entire dispersion of the society taken place instead of this remodelling plan — which although certainly better than to suffer them to proceed, yet, sincerely could I have wished it had been entirely done away with. I should not be surprised if some letter had been written to the Bishop; indeed I think, if I recollect correctly, one of the party found fault with Cotton for his application to you, saying, if he considered it necessary to make any application, he ought to have applied to the highest authority (forgetting, I presume, that you had been requested by themselves to accept the office of President).
“I consider Pole in himself as a harmless animal, but possibly one that might be goaded on till he kicks at and annoys his neighbours. He regrets, I understand, nothing that took place at the last meeting, except his condescension in requesting me to return when I was leaving the room on account of the impertinent objection made by him to my vote about the alteration of the rules. Individually I sincerely wish he had not requested me to return, as I should in that case have entirely been clear of the business. The matter, however, must be made the best of; and as I have signed my name to their new rules, I shall make a point of attending — unless I see it assuming an objectionable form, in which case I shall not hesitate a moment in withdrawing my name.
“Thus what I have done and what I mean to do is easily determined; but when I come to the more material part of your letter, ‘what I would do in your case,’ I confess there appears greater difficulty. Your official situation of course totally precludes all idea of acting as a party man; yet I really think, after what has passed, I should not offer myself as a member unless solicited by the secretary, under the direction of a meeting, to become so. Your very friendly letter and the attention you have paid, though adverse to the plans intended to be proceeded upon, certainly demand this as a matter of courtesy — I perhaps should say of right. Should such an application be made to you, as the rules have been altered and the objectionable parts done away with — though it should be added that this was not done without a struggle, the members being equal on each side — I think I should not object to become an honorary member. As, however, the secretary had no order of this description (at least whilst I remained with them), it will give you an opportunity of seeing what may pass at the next meeting in January, and from what then takes place you will be better able to form an opinion whether you will like to become a member or not — saying this, I mean if solicited to do so — for in my humble opinion your official situation, independent of your kind attention to the clergy in general, demands this.
“I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that either Pole will write to the Bishop, and, if encouraged by him, will bring his letter to the next meeting, and the party will muster in force to carry his plans into execution, or they will let the matter sleep; and if they find they are watched, will by degrees suffer it, as a meeting of the clergy of the archdeaconry, to dwindle away, and after a few meetings to sink into oblivion. As some one observed, we shall soon have said all that can be advanced about marrying and burying, and then nothing will remain to be discussed but the merits of the soup and pudding.
“Be this, however, as it may, I cannot help considering it as a bold and daring attempt, though certainly not so intended by the original promoters of the scheme, to draw together the younger clergy, and induce them to become parties to the plans of a certain set, contrary, I shall always think, to the welfare and good order of that establishment which we have all sworn to support. I say this with all due deference to your better judgement; but such are my feelings upon the subject, and I think you would blame me were I not openly and candidly to declare them to you.”
The following letter is perhaps the only extant record of Dr. Butler’s manner of teaching, for no doubt the style here adopted was the one most usual with him in school. The letter was occasioned by an exaggerated report of something said by Professor Scholefield about Dr. Butler’s having used forte for “perhaps” in the Latin notes to his edition of AEschylus.
TO DR. BUTLER’S SON.
February 15th, 1827.
“DEAR TOM, — That you may not be so ignorant a beast as your father I beg to inform you “That forte is the ablative case of fors, and signifies by chance or by hap; “That forsitan is the nominative case of fors, joined to the verb sit and the conjunction an, and answers to the word perhaps, which is not very different from by-haps. But the difference in the use of the two words is this: forte is used to express accident or chance; forsitan to express doubt.
“Forte relates to facts.
“Forsitan to opinions.
“Thus when Horace says, ‘Forte per angustam tenuis nitedula rimam Repserat in cumeram frumenti,’ or ‘Ibam forte via sacra,’ he could not have said forsitan in either case, for he was relating an accidental matter of fact, not a probable, but doubtful, matter of opinion.
“When Virgil says, ‘forsitan ilium Deducant aliquae stabula in Gortynia vaccae,’ he could not have said forte, because he was not relating an actual matter of fact, but hazarding a probable conjecture. Furthermore; —
“You will generally find forte used with a past tense, forsitan with a present. This does not always hold, but from the nature of their significations it must generally. Furthermore, forte is generally used with an indicative; forsitan is used with a subjunctive only, or with an indicative future which is equivalent to a subjunctive present.
“A subjunctive after forte often depends upon a preceding conjunction — as ‘cum forte venissem.’ But though this is the broad distinction between forte and forsitan, yet is forte sometimes used instead of forsitan, though the converse may not hold. When Cicero says, ‘Nisi forte magis erit parricida,’ a doubt and not a matter of fact is being expressed; but then you see nisi is being joined with forte, which brings it tantamount to forsitan, and in similar cases forte is used with these sort of conjunctions—’ Si quis vestrum forte miretur,’ for ‘Forsitan aliquis miretur.’ In ‘forte aliquis dixerit’ doubt is expressed as much as if the writer had said ‘ forsitan aliquis dixerit’ — but there is a question in this case whether forsitan should not be used instead of forte.
“Now I presume you know as much about forte and forsitan as the Greek Professor, and perhaps a little more.
“I have heard nothing from Cameron: I fear he has failed. I am your affectionate father, “S. BUTLER.
“Every writer of Latin from Horace down to the present day sometimes makes a slip, so that I may very likely have written forte for forsitan, though I know not where; and if I have done nothing worse than that, I shall not be very unhappy about it.”
At a meeting of the School trustees hold April 5th, 1827, the Rev. G. Maddock complained of a valuation agreed upon between the solicitors to the trustees and those who represented it as being too high. It was resolved that a special meeting be called to ascertain Dr. Butler’s opinion. At the special meeting held April 19th Dr. Butler recommended that £250 should be accepted in lieu of £300, if paid at once. On April 26th the Rev. G. Maddock paid in this sum, and this was the end of the whole matter — roughly about three years and a half from the time when Dr. Butler took it in hand. In the course of a letter which the Master of St. John’s wrote on April 30th to congratulate Dr. Butler, he said, “The School is wholly indebted to your exertions, and very few men, if any other, could have surmounted the obstacles which were opposed to an agreement.”
CORRESPONDENCE, APRIL OR MAY, 1827 — DECEMBER
14TH, 1827.
FROM THE REV. S. TILLBROOK.
[April or May, 1827,]
* * * * *
“You have acted wisely and consistently with regard to the Athenseun. William Hustler our registrary, and many others, are just doing the reverse of Heber, and are backing out as fast as they can. [Nothing more found on this subject. — ED.]
* * * * *
“Gordon has been unfairly used, I think. Had I been here, he should not have tried for the Smith’s Prize. Two of three examiners Trinity men, so that it can only be considered a College prize now. Besides Airey was private tutor to Turner — a fact alone sufficient to turn the scale directly or indirectly in Turner’s favour. Now the Master of Trinity ex officio is an examiner for the Craven Scholarship; but as his two sons are sitting now, he very becomingly withdraws from the examination. Gwatkin of St. John’s told Melville of our College that if St. John’s had the senior wrangler next year, he would not allow him to sit for the prize unless Airey appointed a deputy; and he is right.
“I went last Friday to see the new comedy School for Grown Children. On coming out I had my pocket picked — i e my gold watch, chain, and seals (with fishing devices, club arms, etc.), all snatched in an instant. I knocked the rascal down under a hackney coach, and then just as I was hooking him two of his worthy comrades pinned me against the walls of the Piazzas, and the thief escaped. I went to the station, got bills printed, offered a handsome reward, etc., but all to no purpose. Tempus fugit, or the watch is flown.
“I hear that Tom and Hildyard have both done well at the Craven examination. After two days (and they have had seven of it) twenty candidates were dismissed: it is great folly in lads who have no pretensions so to annoy the examiners.”
* * * * *
TO — (?)
“May 3rd, 1827.
“DEAR SIR, — Your letter, which I had the honour to receive yesterday, calls for some explanation on my part. Educated at a public school myself for nearly nine years, and having been now head-master of one for more than thrice that time, I must have made little use of my opportunities of observation if I have not learnt something of the habits and treatment of boys. But anomalies sometimes occur, and when they do I am always anxious to know how to treat them. I mean nothing invidious to the masters of the other principal public schools in this kingdom, with all of whom I am more or less acquainted, and some of whom I know intimately, when I say that I think I am at least as anxious as any of my brethren respecting the moral as well as intellectual improvement of the boys under my care. I cannot force them all to be first-rate scholars, because all have not the same capacity; but if I train them to be honourable and virtuous men, I am conferring a greater benefit upon themselves and on society than by all the learning I can give them. With this view I always exercise peculiar vigilance over boys while their habits are yet unformed; and if I know them to be either bad or good, the line of conduct to be pursued towards them is easily marked. It is only in doubtful cases that I want information; and I feel it not only no trouble, but a duty, to communicate with parents in such cases — which indeed are not very frequent. I have now but two other instances out of above two hundred boys. In general I have found such communications thankfully received, and productive of material good, when met with corresponding frankness and co-operation. If they are not so met, and if a parent is more anxious to justify his son than to approve of the master’s circumspection, I grant that no advantage can result beyond what the master must derive from the satisfaction of having discharged his duty.”
