KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Sept. 11, 1885. 



what results, I thmk it wou'.d be very ut^cful to persons hesitating 

 as to Its adoption. Many authorities liave spoken highly of it, but 

 I should like Mr. Browning's opinion thereon. G. W. G. 



Osi 



LETTERS EECEIVED AND SHORT ANSWERS. 



WHO, &c. I have not seen the paragraph about the vege- 



n society, so that your attack has been misdirected. 



I attacked sunspottery (an abominably ugly word which I only 

 quote from your letter, never using it myself). As for the Astro'- 

 nomical Society, I have never even thought of attacking it any- 

 where. I should have to withdraw from it first. But possibly you 

 did not know I am a Fellow of the Society. I have never to the 

 best of my knowledge and belief read one line of the Dietetic 

 Reformer, or expressed any opinion about it, good, bad, or indif- 

 ferent. You are all at sea." Did I " get into a mess with another 

 well-known astronomer " ? I have no recollection of the circum- 

 stance. I imagine you are at sea there also. " Take your word ! " 

 —the word of one who writes anonymously ! That is asking too 

 much. There is always the bare possibility that such a man may 

 by some accident speak the truth. But the chances are enormously 

 against it. It is safest at any rate to read everything he may aver 

 by the rule of contraries. I adhere to my opinion that I have seen 

 your writing before, and naturally I am strengthened in the 

 opinion by your denial.— R. H. Barrett. I fancy the author of 

 that review had heard the " hysterical shrieking " he referred to. 

 You write sensibly enough. But all total abstainers do not either 

 write or speak so calmly and pleasantly. " Practically, if not 

 totally, abstainers "—what would that mean ? I fancy it would in- 

 clude me. For certainly, the alcoholic liquor I take in a week, 

 would be thought by many who are by no means heavy drinkers, to be 

 a moderate allowance for a day. It is" the men who see hell in a half- 

 pint of beer whom the reviewer had— I suspect— in his mind's eye. — 

 J. The point is of more interest than you seem to think. I wish 

 you had indicated the particular Americanisms which you " have 

 heard all your life in the very centre of England." Some, I knew, 

 were good old Enghsh, But have you heard "no-account" as an 

 adjective, " allow " for assert or believe, " not anything else " for 

 just that, " approbate " for approve, " at that " for added to that, 

 " the balance " for the rest, " bee " for a gathering of friends, 

 "biscuit" for soft loUs, &c. ? I have heard more "dialect" than 

 you seem to think, and have read largely old English books and 

 plays ; but I should regard as an Americanism a phrase which, 

 though English in origin and still used in parts of England, is 

 understood _ by all Americans. The expressions "my n-ord" and 

 " no fear " in like manner I regard as Australian, though they are 

 often enough heard in England. " I guess" is found in old English 

 writers, and in some as late as Locke's time ; yet it is an Ameri- 

 canism now. One often hears " I reckon " in England even to 

 this day ; yet it may be called an Americanism of the Southern 

 States, because there used constantly. I wonder by the way how 

 many expressions like " I want to know " (to express surprise), " I 

 swan to man " (as a euphemism for " I swear to God," and the like, 

 can be traced to an English source. Of course " You may bet your 

 bottom dollar" is as necessarily American as "You pound it" (which 

 I suppose means, " You may wager a pound on it ") is English. — 

 Halltards. You are right. There has been misunderstanding. 

 Certainly I never saw the letter you sent after me. I should not 

 have been very much surprised by the remarks of that American 

 (though a brother Cantab might have known better than to be 

 misled by them). My being invited by the editor of the American 

 "Cyclopedia" to write the astronomy for that work, created a 

 simple frenzy of anger among certain Americans who had expected 

 to be asked. Still I have said (and thought) so many pleasant things 

 about American students of astronomy, that I might have hoped to 

 be more fairly construed ; doubtless "there were mistakes on both 

 sides ; I overrated them and they underrated me : we need not rate 

 each other. One of the most amusing examples of the feeling you 

 refer to came to my knowledge at Washington. An American lady 

 remarked to the wife of a well-known astronomer (or rather mathe- 

 matician) at Washington that she was glad I had come to live in 

 America : " Are you ? " said Mrs. N., " well, I'm not ; America doesn't 

 want Proctor ; it has N. ! " This was particularly amusing to an 

 unofficial student of astronomy, like myself, utterly innocent of any 

 idea of trespassing on that official astronomer's manors. But that is 

 the worst fault of official science ; your scientist with a salary growls 

 over it as a dog growls over a bone which he fancies every passer-by 

 hankers for. Of course, 1 had unwittingly taken N.'s expected 

 bone, but I had not gone after it ; I was invited to take it ; and as he 

 is not a good writer, no one but himself had expected he would 

 have it. I remember the same man groaning in spirit, in conversa- 

 tion -with myself, because more was known about Miidler in America 

 than about any American astronomer. I believe by the way that no 

 one has done so much or one-tenth so much as I have to make 

 American astronomers known to European readers. I am for my 



th-in 



own part slo 



must be a m 



were mpre 



see almost e 



pier (then ne 



("he^vhoen es I s 1 A k 



mean ng of the motto he t only tol 1 me b 



thougl t deepl oi my m nd b add nc to h s nt 



words Al boj j ou w 11 1 a e to ackno 1 If;, 



others ofte enough a ou go tl rougl 1 o 



acknowle Ige t b en en s the m f 



admitt ng nfer or tv s nee then in wi J 



have learned to look w tl su p c on e en on 



unless t CO es a t ho U n compa j v. 



The compin ns of En ve k ow d e n nlo 



they are H tre 1 Ma e d il L n 1 i W th regard 



to the let er to the act nf, 1 or e e 1 t to move 



anger Ian orr I ju 1 d jou v\ro g m rk to him 



that 1 e ougl t to feel o and so abou u 1 1 ucl matters 



seemed to me rati er nfa r (I ac lu vo of 1 of ntended 



unfairness I only found out at tha j o 1 t 1 a readiBf, 



a letter not addressed to myself ) L le I If and I 



don't th kl 1 r k I 



think II T T m 



an interpret 

 paper wr ter 1 a 1 { 1 

 personal matters w tl 

 hood one trutl 

 11 plea 



fre 



ley 



drag n o tl e columns K ong other bl nder 1 e got t 

 take ( f m pr nt but bl nder ans ng from h s ^norance of the 

 fami e 1 pretende 1 to talk ab ut) n o e name D avow d^ 

 that loublj blunderel name was my waj of ca t n le er ed ndi 

 cule and condemnat on n tl e wl ole prepo terous t ry \s yo i 

 yourself point out, the nght name wa.s published— in the right 

 way — soon after: that should have prevented you from adopting so 

 absurd a notion as that I wanted to disavow the matter, dis- 

 ingenuously or otherwise. Besides, you ought to understand and 

 sympathise" with my indigTiation at what assuredly was gross im- 

 pertinence. How far my wrath has been moved " in tefentum " 

 against you by the G. E. matter, you shall judge from this, that, ou 

 my word, if any one had a>ked me, just before I read your letter, 



were or were not one of those who had taken part in the attack I 

 deprecated, I should have been quite unable to answer. I do not 

 now remember what you said, or whether I read anything from 

 you on that subject. Did I reply to you by name .'—Your 

 coleopterist priest was mistaken, as my bank-book would 

 testify. In justice to a contributor you ought not to have quoted 

 his remark. Your praise is as little deserved as your censure ; I 

 have neither the splendid genius nor the hot temper you imagine. 

 I have worked as well as I could and as hard as I could, where I 

 found work to do, and under difficulties which few would guess ; 

 but any man of decent capacity who cared to trj-, on the same lines, 

 would,' me jiuiice, have got through the same amount of work and 

 done it as well. It is the want of resolution and will, and perhaps 

 the want of occasion (I don't say of opportunity, for 1 have not 

 been very fortunate in opportunity) which has kept many out of my 

 field of work.— I should have written what I have, privately in reply 

 to your private letter ; but for the wish expressed at the end of it. 

 The readers of Knowledge (those at least who, having read what 

 I said before, read this also) can gather from my reply that we 

 shake hands in all good fellowship. I am going, however, to offer 

 one piece of advice which I trust you will take as it is meant. Such 

 sayings as those of your French priest, your Ameri 

 and other persons unnamed, ought never — in my opinii 

 repeated. In some cases— as in that of the American as 

 whom you describe as one of my American friends — such 

 stories "are calculated to leave a vague but unpleasant effect. 

 For example, I have but one friend among American astro- 

 nomers. I had another, who is dead. I am fully certain 

 that neither of these, both being to my knowledge gentle- 

 emn of noble disposition, said the enviously malicious and 

 untrae things you report. I am left, if I "think about the 

 matter at all, to attribute the remark to two or three others whom 

 I have met : but of whom I do not know enough personally to 

 decide whether they nan or can iwt be ignoble enough to fit into 

 the story. And as regards the publication of such things, even to 



