XXIX
вАФNow, quoth Didius, rising up, and laying his right hand with his fingers spread upon his breastвБ†вЄЇвБ†had such a blunder about a christian-name happened before the ReformationвБ†вЄї[It happened the day before yesterday, quoth my uncle Toby to himself] and when baptism was administerвАЩd in LatinвБ†вАФ[вАЩTwas all in English, said my uncle]вБ†вЄїmany things might have coincided with it, and upon the authority of sundry decreed cases, to have pronounced the baptism null, with a power of giving the child a new nameвБ†вАФHad a priest, for instance, which was no uncommon thing, through ignorance of the Latin tongue, baptized a child of Tom-oвАЩStiles, in nomine patriae¬†& filia¬†& spiritum sanctosвБ†вАФthe baptism was held null.вБ†вЄЇвБ†I beg your pardon, replied KysarciusвБ†вЄЇвБ†in that case, as the mistake was only the terminations, the baptism was validвБ†вЄЇвБ†and to have rendered it null, the blunder of the priest should have fallen upon the first syllable of each nounвБ†вЄїand not, as in your case, upon the last.
My father delighted in subtleties of this kind, and listenвАЩd with infinite attention.
Gastripheres, for example, continued Kysarcius, baptizes a child of John StradlingвАЩs in Gomine gatris, etc., etc., instead of in Nomine patris, etc.вБ†вЄЇвБ†Is this a baptism? NoвБ†вАФsay the ablest canonists; in as much as the radix of each word is hereby torn up, and the sense and meaning of them removed and changed quite to another object; for Gomine does not signify a name, nor gatris a father.вБ†вАФWhat do they signify? said my uncle Toby.вБ†вАФNothing at allвБ†вЄїquoth Yorick.вБ†вЄЇвБ†Ergo, such a baptism is null, said Kysarcius.вБ†вЄЇвБ†
In course, answered Yorick, in a tone two parts jest and one part earnest.вБ†вЄЇвБ†
But in the case cited, continued Kysarcius, where patriae is put for patris, filia for filii, and so onвБ†вЄЇвБ†as it is a fault only in the declension, and the roots of the words continue untouchвАЩd, the inflections of their branches either this way or that, does not in any sort hinder the baptism, inasmuch as the same sense continues in the words as before.вБ†вЄЇвБ†But then, said Didius, the intention of the priestвАЩs pronouncing them grammatically must have been proved to have gone along with it.вБ†вЄївЄїRight, answered Kysarcius; and of this, brother Didius, we have an instance in a decree of the decretals of Pope Leo the IIIвБ†вЄЇвБ†But my brotherвАЩs child, cried my uncle Toby, has nothing to do with the PopeвБ†вЄївАЩtis the plain child of a Protestant gentleman, christenвАЩd Tristram against the wills and wishes both of his father and mother, and all who are akin to it.вБ†вЄЇвБ†
If the wills and wishes, said Kysarcius, interrupting my uncle Toby, of those only who stand related to Mr.¬†ShandyвАЩs child, were to have weight in this matter, Mrs.¬†Shandy, of all people, has the least to do in it.вБ†вЄЇвБ†My uncle Toby layвАЩd down his pipe, and my father drew his chair still closer to the table, to hear the conclusion of so strange an introduction.
вЄЇвБ†It has not only been a question, Captain Shandy, amongst the best lawyers and civilians in this land, continued Kysarcius, вАЬWhether the mother be of kin to her child,вАЭвБ†вАФbut, after much dispassionate enquiry and jactitation of the arguments on all sidesвБ†вАФit has been abjudged for the negativeвБ†вАФnamely, вАЬThat the mother is not of kin to her child.вАЭ My father instantly clappвАЩd his hand upon my uncle TobyвАЩs mouth, under colour of whispering in his ear;вБ†вАФthe truth was, he was alarmed for LillabulleroвБ†вАФand having a great desire to hear more of so curious an argumentвБ†вАФhe beggвАЩd my uncle Toby, for HeavenвАЩs sake, not to disappoint him in it.вБ†вАФMy uncle Toby gave a nodвБ†вАФresumed his pipe, and contenting himself with whistling Lillabullero inwardlyвБ†вЄЇвБ†Kysarcius, Didius, and Triptolemus went on with the discourse as follows.
This determination, continued Kysarcius, how contrary soever it may seem to run to the stream of vulgar ideas, yet had reason strongly on its side; and has been put out of all manner of dispute from the famous case, known commonly by the name of the Duke of SuffolkвАЩs case.вБ†вЄїIt is cited in Brook, said TriptolemusвБ†вЄїAnd taken notice of by Lord Coke, added Didius.вБ†вАФAnd you may find it in Swinburn on Testaments, said Kysarcius.
The case, Mr. Shandy, was this.
In the reign of Edward the Sixth, Charles duke of Suffolk having issue a son by one venter, and a daughter by another venter, made his last will, wherein he devised goods to his son, and died; after whose death the son died alsoвБ†вЄЇвБ†but without will, without wife, and without childвБ†вАФhis mother and his sister by the fatherвАЩs side (for she was born of the former venter) then living. The mother took the administration of her sonвАЩs goods, according to the statute of the 21st of Harry the Eighth, whereby it is enacted, That in case any person die intestate the administration of his goods shall be committed to the next of kin.
The administration being thus (surreptitiously) granted to the mother, the sister by the fatherвАЩs side commenced a suit before the Ecclesiastical Judge, alleging, 1st, That she herself was next of kin; and 2ndly, That the mother was not of kin at all to the party deceased; and therefore prayed the court, that the administration granted to the mother might be revoked, and be committed unto her, as next of kin to the deceased, by force of the said statute.
Hereupon, as it was a great cause, and much depending upon its issueвБ†вАФand many causes of great property likely to be decided in times to come, by the precedent to be then madeвБ†вЄЇвБ†the most learned, as well in the laws of this realm, as in the civil law, were consulted together, whether the mother was of kin to her son, or no.вБ†вАФWhereunto not only the temporal lawyersвБ†вЄЇвБ†but the church lawyersвБ†вАФthe juris-consultiвБ†вАФthe juris-prudentesвБ†вАФthe civiliansвБ†вАФthe advocatesвБ†вАФthe commissariesвБ†вАФthe judges of the consistory and prerogative courts of Canterbury and York, with the master of the faculties, were all unanimously of opinion, That the mother was not of kin to her child.вБ†вЄЇвБ†
And what said the duchess of Suffolk to it? said my uncle Toby.
The unexpectedness of my uncle TobyвАЩs question, confounded Kysarcius more than the ablest advocateвБ†вЄЇвБ†He stoppвАЩd a full minute, looking in my uncle TobyвАЩs face without replyingвБ†вЄЇвБ†and in that single minute Triptolemus put by him, and took the lead as follows.
вАЩTis a ground and principle in the law, said Triptolemus, that things do not ascend, but descend in it; and I make no doubt вАЩtis for this cause, that however true it is, that the child may be of the blood and seed of its parentsвБ†вЄЇвБ†that the parents, nevertheless, are not of the blood and seed of it; inasmuch as the parents are not begot by the child, but the child by the parentsвБ†вАФFor so they write, Liberi sunt de sanguine patris¬†& matris, sed pater¬†& mater non sunt de sanguine liberorum.
вЄЇвБ†But this, Triptolemus, cried Didius, proves too muchвБ†вАФfor from this authority cited it would follow, not only what indeed is granted on all sides, that the mother is not of kin to her childвБ†вАФbut the father likewise.вБ†вЄЇвБ†It is held, said Triptolemus, the better opinion; because the father, the mother, and the child, though they be three persons, yet are they but (una caro) one flesh; and consequently no degree of kindredвБ†вЄЇвБ†or any method of acquiring one in nature.вБ†вЄЇвБ†There you push the argument again too far, cried DidiusвБ†вЄЇвБ†for there is no prohibition in nature, though there is in the Levitical lawвБ†вЄЇвБ†but that a man may beget a child upon his grandmotherвБ†вЄЇвБ†in which case, supposing the issue a daughter, she would stand in relation both ofвБ†вЄЇвБ†But who ever thought, cried Kysarcius, of lying with his grandmother?вБ†вЄїThe young gentleman, replied Yorick, whom Selden speaks ofвБ†вЄЇвБ†who not only thought of it, but justified his intention to his father by the argument drawn from the law of retaliation.вБ†вАФвАЬYou lay, Sir, with my mother,вАЭ said the ladвБ†вАФвАЬwhy may not I lie with yours?вАЭвБ†вЄЇвАЩTis the Argumentum commune, added Yorick.вБ†вЄЇвАЩTis as good, replied Eugenius, taking down his hat, as they deserve.
The company broke up.