don. He left his papers with me,
one of which was the copy of a letter to the Lord Chancellor, desiring his
Lordship to hand over forthwith 100,000 pounds, the amount of the alleged
offer of reward. He did not go quite so far as M. de Vausenville, who, I
think in 1778, brought an action against the Academy of Sciences to recover
a reward to which he held himself entitled. I returned the papers, with a
note, stating that he had not the knowledge requisite to see in what the
problem consisted. I got for answer a letter in which I was told that a
person who could not see that he had done the thing should "change his
business, and appropriate his time and attention to a Sunday-school, to
learn what he could, and keep the _litle_ children from _durting_ their
_close_." I also received a letter from a friend of the quadrator,
informing me that I knew his friend had succeeded, and had been heard to
say so. These letters were printed--without the names of the writers--for
the amusement of the readers of _Notes and Queries_, First Series, xii. 57,
and they will appear again in the sequel.

[There are many who have such a deep respect for any attempt at thought
that they are shocked at ridicule even of those who have made themselves
conspicuous by pretending to lead the world in matters which they have not
studied. Among my anonyms is a gentleman who is angry at my treatment of
the "poor but thoughtful" man who is described in my introduction as
recommending me to go to a Sunday-school because I informed him that he did
not know in what the difficulty of quadrature consisted. My impugner quite
forgets that this man's "thoughtfulness" chiefly consisted in his demanding
a hundred thousand pounds from the Lord Chancellor for his discovery; and I
may add, that his greatest stretch of invention was finding out that "the
clergy" {13} were the means of his modest request being unnoticed. I
mention this letter because it affords occasion to note a very common
error, namely, that men unread in their subjects have, by natural wisdom,
been great benefactors of mankind. My critic says, "Shakspeare, whom the
Pro^r (_sic_) may admit to be a wisish man, though an object of contempt as
to learning ..." Shakespeare an object of contempt as to learning! Though
not myself a thoroughgoing Shakespearean--and adopting the first half of
the opinion given by George III, "What! is there not sad stuff? only one
must not say so"--I am strongly of opinion tha