DE MORGAN'S "BUDGET OF PARADOXES"

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 49, 26 August 1933, Page 19

DE MORGAN'S "BUDGET OF PARADOXES"

A GALLERY OF CRANKS

By "Ajai."

A Budget of. Paradoxes. By Augustus de Morgan. 'London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1872. Augustus de Morgan, who was perhaps best known to the last generation as the father of William de Morgan, potter and novelist, and to the present generation is hardly known at all, is the subject of the following notice in the "Index and Epitome" volume of the Dictionary of National Biography: DE MORGAN, AUGUSTUS (1806-1871), mathematician; entered Trinity College, Cambridge, 1823; fourth -wrangler, IS-; professor of mathematics, University College, London, 1S28; resigned, 1831, but *as reappqinted, 1836; resigned his professorship, ' regarding the. refusal of' the council of University College to elect James Martineau to the chair of mental philosophy, and logic as a piece of ieHgiouß intolerance, 1866; first president:of the' Mathematical Soeietsv ISGu;. follower of Berkeley; chief works, "Formal Logic,' 1847; "Essay.on Probabilities," 1838; "Trigonometry arid Double, Algebra," 1549, and •'A Budget of Paradoxes," collected 1872. ■■.■#■ * * In passing I cannot refrain from noting that a glaring example of the slovenly way in which the sub-editing of the literary articles _in the last "Encyclopaedia Britanniea" has been carried out is provided by the treatment of its article on Do Morgan. The incident which broke his long and happy connection with University College, London, is thus described: In 1866 his life became clouded by the circumstances which led him to leave University College. The refusal of the council to accept the recommendation of the Senate ■•that they should appoint..an eminent Unitarian 'Minister to the profes-, sorship of logic and mental philosophy revived all De Morgan's- sensitiveness on the subject of sectarian ''freedom. ♦ '♦""♦-■ > More than sixty years after Uniyereity College had disgraced itself by tho • rejection of James Martineau on sectarian grounds, more than forty years after his' "Types of Ethical ■ Theory" had'been publicly blessed by. a High Church ecclesiastic at Oxford, an important historical fact is blurred by the stupid circumlocution of "an eminent Unitarian Minister." The dmission from a full-page article of any mention of De. Morgan 's'■ mpst .brilliant work, "A- Budget ;of Paradoxes,/' an.d the concealment of "the'fact ." that his biographer,- ;S. de..Morgan,: was • his widow, are other-blemishes in the same article.—' ■'■ ■' i' ' •■■• -; # * * It was a worse shock to find that the first of these mistakes had been carried forward from the excellent article of W. S. Jevons in tho 9th and 11th editions of the "Britanniea." But jevons was not the man to ignore tho broad range pf De Morgan 's studies affdsympathies or the love of books, ■the learning and the wit revealed in his "Budget of Paradoxes" for which the Americanised edition, of his article has no ropm.y,:.^^^.^^^ ~r r" ± One marked characteristic of'De Morgan, says Jevons, was his intense and yet reasonable love of books. He was a. true bibliophil, and loved to surround himself,- as far as his means allowed, with curious and rare books. He revelled,in.all the mysteries of watermarks; title-pages'; colophons, catch-words, and the like, yet he treated bibliography as an important science. As he himself wrote, "th'ef'most worthless book of a bygbne day is: a record'Vorthy of preservation. Like a tele«copifr star;-its obscurity may render, it unavailable for most purposes; but it serves, in 'hands which know how to use it, to determine the places of more important .bodies;J' .. ;. '■ ' ♦ ♦ *''' ■ A sample of De Morgan's bibliographical learning, he continues, is to be found: in, his account o£ "Arithmetical Books, from the Invention of Printing" (1817), and finally in his "Budget of Paradoxes." This latter work consists of articles i most'of which were originally published in the "Athenaeum," describing the various attempts which have been made to invent perpetual motion, to square the circle, or to trisect the angle; but De Morgan took the opportunity to include many curious bits gathered from his extensive reading,so that the "Budget," as reprinted by his wijlpw- (1872), with much additional matter prepared-by. himself, forms a remark-., able collection of scientific "ana." ... * * * ,In the "D.N.8." Leslie Stephen describes De Morgan as a genuino'book-huuter, though his means compelled him to limit himself to occasional treasures from bookstalls. He made many quaint marginal and learned annotations, and turned his bibliographical' researches to good.account in his .writings. '. . He had'a'love of puns arid' all ingenious puzzles and paradoxes, which makes some of his books, especially his "Budget -of' Paradoxes" (1872), as amusing as' they .are learned. ■/With its wealth of wit and humour, of "anee'dpte^and quotation, T am sometimes inclined to class this very learned book with Boswell's Johnson as an unfailing source of entertainment. • • • And as a book-hunter with a keen sense of irony De Morgan would surely have appreciated the fate of his masterpiece. Published in 1872, it was marked by a leading London bookseller as "very scarce, £1 16s 6d," in 1886. The only copy I ever bought had been accumulating the dust on the top shelf of a Nelson book-shop for about 30 years, and cost me no more than Is Gd, but I was mean enough to sell it in London almost immediately afterwards at a profit of some 1500 per cent. To what heights tho price has since soared I cannot say. Either £2 or £2 2s is the highest figure I can' remember seeing, but that was many years ago. • ■ ■ ' # * * That, a book which had doubled or trebled ,in value in 14 years was not given a. second edition does not reflect great credit on the London publishers, but the default of London was mado good about 30 years later by the enterprise of Chicago, of all places in the world. If the Open Court Publishing Company of that city could produce a new edition of De Morgan's book at 3i dollars "on the suggestion of its London branch," why was no London firm equal to tlie task? In a brief but excellent review of this 'edition that wonderful paper, tho " Springfield Republican)" seems to me to have come nearer to the heart of the book than either of the two eminent English authorities I have quoted. # ■» « "A Budget of Paradoxes," says the "Republican" (Weekly Edition, October 7,

1015), is a work in bibliography. Professor De Morgan had set himself the task of reviewing a library of curiosities and forgotten speculative works. ■ They were mostly works printed before De Morgan's day. Some of them are absurd enough, being attempts of the circle-squaring order, but he extracts fun out of their oddity without being unkind. He is very keen "on mathematical jokes, but literary, political, and philosophical "paradoxes" are gathered with equal avidity. ♦ * * Among the contemporary paradoxers considered by D© Morgan are the two flat-earth champions, "Parallax" and "Common Sense" mentioned in my last two articles, but the man himself has interested me so much as to leave no room for his victims. As a sample of his happy style I will conclude with his reply to "Common Sense" on the use of ridicule. * * # The creat wish of persons.who expose themselves as above, says De. Morgan, is to be argued with, and to be treated as reputable and refutable opponents. "Common Sense" reminds us that no amount of "blatant ridicule" will ■ turn right into wrong. He-is perfectly correct: but then no amount of bad argument will turn wrong into right. These two things balance; and we are just where we were. ... If these parties be what I contend they are, then ridicule is made for them; if not, for what or for whom? If they be right, they are only passing through the appointed trial of all good things. Appeal is made to the future: and my Budget is intended to show samples of the long line of heroes who have fallen without victory, each of whom had his day of confidence and his prophecy of success. Let the future decide: they say roundly that the earth is flat; I say flatly that it is round.