stotelians) the conclusion is manifest in this way
without symbols. This _Bramantip_ destroys system in the Aristotelian lot:
and circumstances which I have pointed out destroy it in Hamilton's own
collection. But in that enlargement of the reputed Aristotelian system
which I have called _onymatic_, and in that correction of Hamilton's system
which I have called _exemplar_, the rule of erasure is universal, and may
be seen without symbols.

Our first controversy was in 1846. In 1847, in my _Formal Logic_, I gave
him back a little satire for satire, just to show, as I stated, that I
could employ ridicule if I pleased. He was so offended with the appendix in
which this was contained, that he would not accept the copy of the book I
sent him, but returned it. Copies of controversial works, sent from
opponent to opponent, are not _presents_, in the usual sense: it was a
marked success to make him angry enough to forget this. It had some effect
however: during the rest of his life I wished to avoid provocation; for I
{339} could not feel sure that excitement might not produce consequences. I
allowed his slashing account of me in the _Discussions_ to pass unanswered:
and before that, when he proposed to open a controversy in the _Athenaeum_
upon my second Cambridge paper, I merely deferred the dispute until the
next edition of my _Formal Logic_. I cannot expect the account in the
_Discussions_ to amuse an unconcerned reader as much as it amused myself:
but for a cut-and-thrust, might-and-main, tooth-and-nail, hammer-and-tongs
assault, I can particularly recommend it. I never knew, until I read it,
how much I should enjoy a thundering onslought on myself, done with racy
insolence by a master hand, to whom my good genius had whispered _Ita feri
ut se sentiat emori_.[718] Since that time I have, as the Irishman said,
become "dry moulded for want of a bating." Some of my paradoxers have done
their best: but theirs is mere twopenny--"small swipes," as Peter Peebles
said. Brandy for heroes! I hope a reviewer or two will have mercy on me,
and will give me as good discipline as Strafford would have given Hampden
and his set: "much beholden," said he, "should they be to any one that
should thoroughly take pains with them in that kind"--meaning _objective_
flagellation. And I shall be the same to any one who will serve me so--but
in a literary and periodical sense: my corporeal cuticle is as thin as my
neighbors'.

Sir W. H. was sufferi