supposed autograph letter of bishop berkeley in the library of the royal irish academy

Supposed Autograph Letter of Bishop Berkeley in the Library of the Royal Irish AcademyAuthor(s): Swift P. JohnstonSource: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (1889-1901), Vol. 6 (1900 - 1902), pp. 272-278Published by: Royal Irish AcademyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20488778 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 22:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Royal Irish Academy is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of theRoyal Irish Academy (1889-1901).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:31:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ria

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20488778?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


[ 272 3

XVI.

SUPPOSED AUTOGRAPH LETTER OF BISHOP BERKELEY

IN THE LIBRARY OF THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY.

BY SWIFT P. JOHNSTON, Professor of Moral Philosopliy

in the University of Dublin.

[COMMUNICATED BY THE REV. JOHN BERNARD, D.D.]

[Read NOVEMBER 12, 1900.]

AMONG the Academy MISS. a letter signed George Berkeley has hitherto generally been ascribed to the great Idealist, but certain recent investi gations have thrown considerable doubt on the correctness of this assumption. To make the case clear let us start from the beginning.

George Berkeley, the metaphysician, entered Trinity College, Dublin, in 1700, at the age of fifteen. He worked his way through college, won his fellowship, and published his earlier essays. Then ill 1713 he left Dublin, spent some years in travel on the Continent, lived some time in London, and returned to Ireland in 1721. Now the earliest biography of Berkeley, that of Bishop Stock, published in 1776, asserts that it was in the capacity of chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Grafton, that Berkeley came back to Dublin. A contradiction of this statement as to the chaplaincy appeared almost immediately in a review of Stock's " Life " in the Gentleman's

Magazine. Professor Fraser, in his biography of Berkeley, adopts Stock's assertion, and supports his opinion by quoting a letter signed George Berkeley that at the time Fraser saw it was in the possession of the late Mr. Malcolmson of Carlow. Hereafter I shall refer to this as the Carlow letter, while the one in the possession of this Society is briefly designated as the Academy letter.

The Carlow letter is as follows:

From ye Court of Irelancd, October 6. I thanke you for your kind letter, Deare Brother Nelson, though you

and ye postmaster did not agree in ye date, ther being 20 days differ ence. This hath puzled me a little as to ye time of your housekeeping; but I hope you keepe your old quarters and are now settled at St. James to your content. I have bin a fortnight in ye Castle: but excepting a little difference in ye hangings of my chamber, and its



Jm1N smrLN-Supp)osed At togrp'ph Letter of Bishoop Berkeley. 273

being seatedl upon ye first story, I find Jack Hafe and George Berkeley are Brother Chaplains, and equally considered. We both rise at 6 O'clock, in our waiting week, to pray with ye family. At 11 we give his Grace solemne Prayers, and at 9 after supper ye bell rings againe. Besides ourselves, there is another Chaplaine who not living in ye house, we are faine to rise for him and supply his turne in ye morning. I have ye honour to sit at ye lower end of my Lds table (which is no great matter) as also to sup always with ye Steward when I am not in waiting, and often dine there. But a good Deanery will easily make amends for ye lessening my quality; though I could wish his Majesty had told me his mind of removing Church Prefermient from yC Com

missioners before I came out of England. But as it is, God's will be done. My Ld Duke and I are at a great distance here, so not many wordes passe between us. He made me once a very low cringe at St. John's, but if he will stoope now to do me a reale kindnesse it will be much better. Thus you have a short account of my affairs. I never (Irunk or saw any usquebah since I came into Ireland, though I have bin at many tables and civilly used in a sober way without imnpoting: if anything material doth happen in my concern, I will send you word. In ye meane while I am

Mfost affectionately Your humble servant

GEOirGE BERKELEY.

My kind love to your wife and(l ye rest of your friends. For Robert Nelson, Esq., at Berkeley House in St. Johln's Lane

neare Smithfield, London.

So far we have mentioned as authorities, Bishop Stock, his reviewer, and Professor Fraser. Now comes Dr. Theodor Lorenz, a student of the history of philosophy, who is at present working at a life of

Berkeley for German readers. When in Dublin last year, Dr. Lorenz visited the Academy and his attention was directed by Mr. M'Sweeny to the Academy letter.

The Academy letter runs thus

From ye Castle of Dublin, Jan. 15.

I returne you many thanks for ye kinduesse and obliging freedom of your letter. What will be my fate here, I can't tell. His Grace was pleased not long ago to show me some couintenance at table, and send me some Florence wine being in a good humour, and another time



274 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.

he asked for a plate and sent me a pluvver wch meat himself liked best, a favour (as I am told) he never imparted to any chaplaine before. And was not this (think you) worth coming into Ireland for, and enough to countervaile ye trouble of a voyage out of England and ye extraordinary charges attending it ? Besides the Archbishop of Dublin hath bin very kind to me & often invited me to dinner in consideration of ye ranke that I sustaine as Chaplaine to ye Great Lord Lieutenant, and

my friendship with Dr. Needham (or Heedham) his old fello'w Collegiet. My Ld of Tuam carried me 5 or 6 weeks agoe to ye Lord Primate of Ireland, who made me this dry complement, that I came over with

My Ld Lieutenant & therefore it was in vaine for him to promise me anything. But ye greatest honnour of all was a personall visit from ye Archbishop of Tuam (as his Grace assured me that he once did in my absence) & I have ye charity to believe so Great a Prelate, because he used me with a great deale of Ceremony when I went to see hinm. These would be fine things to talke of, in this vaine world, if I were a meer novice and unacquainted with ye impertinence of mankind. I wish ye Duke of Ormond doth not show himself a Courtier in ye worse sense of all that after he hath levelled me with Common Clergymen, he doth not leave me where he found me; & so much ye worse for coming into Ireland to seek a billet (?) & departing ye same COUntlry pastor as I came. But as I have no strong hopes of making my fortune here, so neither do I despaire: who am

youlr affectionate humble servant GEORGE BERKELEY.

My service & kind love to your good wife. For Robert Nelson, Esq., at his lodgings in St. James-street where

ye Lord Brunkard formerly lived, in London.

Struck by certain similarities between the two letters, Dr. Lorenz concluded that they must be closely connected in time. It is to be

noted that in the dating of both letters, though the month and day of

the month are given, the year is omitted. This affords an object lesson as to the importance of fully dating our letters; for had such been done in this case, no doubt or controversy could have arisen. Dr.

Lorenz then began to question whether these letters were written by

George Berkeley the philosopher; he ultimately aririved at a decisive negative. His principal arguments are two in number:

Both letters mention a duke as Lord Lieutenant, but it is in tie Academy letter alone that the name appears, the Duke of Ormonde. Now in the early 1700's the viceroyalty was on two occasions conferred



JOHNSTON- Spposedl Au togaphl Letter of Bisliop Berkeley. 275

on a Duke of Or1monde. The first was the period 1703-1707. But at that time, Berkeley was still in Trinity College; in 1703 he was an undergraduate; and in 1707 he gained his Fellowship, while not until 1 7 09 was he ordained. This period must therefore be excluded. Then 8fgain, from 1710 to 1713, a Duke of Ormonde represented the Crown iu the Kingdom of Ireland. But during this peliod Berkeley could not

write of himself as in both the Academy and the Carlow letters, that lie had been brought out of England by his protector, for he was con tinuously resident in Dublin from 1700 to 1713. Moreover, to sustaini the view of Stock and Fraser, that 1721 was the date of Berkeley's chaplaincy, the letters should have mentioned as the Lord Lieutenant, not the Duke of Ormonde, but the Duke of Grafton.

The other main argument of Dr. Lorenz is this. Both these letters are directed to Robert Nelson in London. The Carlow letter addresses him as "Deare Brother." Both letters refer to Nelson's

wife. Who was Robert Nelson that Berkeley should call him brother ? Dr. Lorenz's investigation in this direction has been most conclusive. The Lord Berkeley who died in 1 69 8 had two sons and several daughters. One daughter was married in 1682 to Robert Nelson, "the pious Robert Nelson," the author of "The Life of Bishop Bull," and of "Festivals and Feasts," who died in 1715. The elder of Lord

Berkeley's sons duly succeeded, in 1698, to the father's title. The younger son entered the Church, became a Prebendary of Westminster in 1687, died in 1694, and his name was-George Berkeley! By assuming that this George Berkeley wrote the Carlow and Academy letters all difficulties disappear. " Deare brother " is but a contraction of "dear brother-in-law." Nelson's wife is specially mentioned; she was the sister of this George Berkeley. The Duke of Ormonde is now the nobleman of that name who was Lord Lieutenant from 1677 to 1685. It may also be mentioned that Professor Fraser, in consequenec, of his 1721 theory, is forced to desclibe Robert Nelson as a son, purely hypothetical, of the " pious Robert Nelson."

So far Dr. Lorenz. In confirmation of his conclusion that these letters were not the composition of George Berkeley the philosopher, the following additional points may be advanced:

The George Berkeley of the Academy letter speaks of himself as a " country pastor." Now in 1721, the date to which these letters

must be assigned if wlitten by the Idealist, Berkeley might possibly have described himself as a man of letters, he might have written him self down as a College don, but it would be absolutely impossible for him to assume for himself the character of a " country pastor."' Nay



276 Pr oceedinigs of thte Royal DIsish Acadcinq,

further, at no time of his life is such a designation appropriate. Only during those later years spent in Cloyne was he living in the country, and then it was not as a mere " country pastor," but as a bishop of the Church.

Both the Carlow and the Academy letters are the composition of one who was a stranger in Dublin. The reference in the Carlow letter to the drinking of usquebaugh is evidently that of a toulist reporting to a friend at home and correcting an impression generally prevalent as to the excessive fondness of the good people of Dublin for the " wine of the country." The writer is in fact in a position very similar to that of an American who recently visited Dublin. My friend from the other side expressed his surprise that notwithstanding all he had read in the papers about the disturbed state of Ireland and the

daily outrages throughout the country, he nevertheless found Dublin as safe for the unarmed stranger as his native San Francisco. That

George Berkeley the philosopher, after thirteen years' residence in

Dublin, after the varied convivial experiences of a College under

graduate, after becoming a local celebrity through his books, and after

mingling in the best of Dublin Society through the introduction of his

frienids, St. George Ash, Perceval, and the Molyneux family, that this

George Berkeley should have penned the sentence about usquebaugh passes the bounds of credibility. Then, too, in the Academy letter consider the allusion to the Archbishop of Dublin: " le often invited me to dinner in consideration of yo rank that I sustaine as Chaplaine of the

Great Lord Lieut,enant." If this letter were written in 1721, the Arch bishop was the great William King, who throughout his life was in the closest possible contact with the life of Trinity College. Berkeley, if for no other reason than that he was a F.T.C.D., must have been well known to King. Besides, there was another notable bond of union between the two men. In 1707 there was a revival of the Dublin Society. The Societyfounded byWilliam Molyneux in 1683 ceased to exist at the death of its founder in 1698. King, an active member of the original Society and a frequent contribuitor to its proceedings, took with Berkeley a prominent part in the revival. King was one of the chief officers of the new Society, while Berkeley was the most active member in the ranks. So it would be absurd to imagine William King extending hospitality to Berkeley on the grouncd that the latter was a member of the Vice regal household.

The personality of the author of these two letters is not that of the George Berkeley with whom we are familiar. The letters were

written by a place-hunting parson, by one who considered that he had



JOHNSTON -Supplosed Aultograph Letter qf Bis/op Berkeley. 277

some claim on those in high positions, by a man who was a decided snob. He does not wish to be classed with common clergymen. He feels hurt at being seated at the lower end of the table. He takes it as an indignity that he should be compelled to sup with the steward. lBut to all he submits in the hopes of " a good deanery." How alien all this to the notoriously pure and noble character of Bishop Berkeley! He was the very antipodes of a snob. With his humble birth and his ininer dignity, we never find him ascribing to social rank a higher value than that which truly belongs to it, that value which depends on the character of him who holds the rank. At one time, indeed, Berkeley was a place-hunter, but while the author of these letters sought preferment merely for the sake of ease and dignity, Bishop

Berkeley rose far above such vuilgar motives. At the very time at which these letters were written, if Prof. Fraser's theory be true, i. e. in 1721, Berkeley was seeking the deaneries of Dromore and Derry.

He threw his whole energy into the contest. He was a place-hunter. lint the underlying purpose was one of the noblest. It was at this time that his enthusiasm for missionary work was at its maximuml. Juist as in his later years at Cloyne, we fincl tar-water and its virtues

percolating through every page of his writings, so for the years about

1720, the Bermudas loomed large in all his acts and words. Hlis dominant idea was the spread of civilization. (It is worth noting, in passing, that Berkeley's missionary zeal was not of that kind which is

rootedI in religious bigotry-with him it was education, civilization, first-then religion wouldl follow, as of course.) So the deanery he

souglht and won was but a stepping-stone towards the realization of this great purpose. As to the purity of Berkeley's motives, no more trustworthy testimony can be obtained than that of the cynical Dean of St. Patrick's. In his " giving of characters " Jonathan Swift was

but too prone to exhibit the seamy side of even his best friends, yet in

1724 he writes thus of Berkeley: " He is an absolute philosop)her with

regardl to money, titles, and power. . . . He showed me a little tract . . . his whole scheme of a life, academico-philosophical, of a college founded for Indian scholars and missionaries, where he most exorbi

tantly proposes a whole hundred pounds a-year for himself." The

value of this testimony is enhanced in this way, that it was written

shortly after the death of the unhappy Esther van Homrigh. She, by an alteration in her will just before death, left to Berkeley all that

part of her wealth that had been originally intended for Dean Swift. We are forced into the conclusion that these two letters arc incon sistent with the character of Bishop Berkeley.



278 Proceedings qf the Royal Irshi8 Academy.

Through the courtesy of those in authority in the Academy, I have been able to make a close comparison of the handwriting of the Academy letter, with the undoubtedly genuine MSS. of Bishop

Berkeley in the Library of Trinity College. Although I do not aspire to the somewhat dubious distinction of an expert in handwliting, yet I have very considerable familiarity with M$SS. of the period in question, and this is not in the first occasion on which I have been called on to decide as to the authorship of documents of the time. So it is with some confidence that I put forward my conviction that the letter in the possession of the Academy is nol in the handwriting of Bishop

Berkeley. The details on which my conclusion rests are not sufficiently interesting for publicity, and to be rendered intelligible would require

a series of diagrams. Still there are two somewhat peculiar points to which I wish to refer. In the letter, the contraction, ye is invariably written for the; in the College MSS. of Bishop Berkeley, this contraction does not occur. Then again, in both the Academy and

-the College MSS. the present form of the letter e as well as the ancient form are to be found. By the ancient form I mean, that which looks like a Greek theta, written on a small scale and with one continuous stroke of the pen. But though both forms occuir, there is this curious

difference, that in the bishop's writing, the ancient form is the rule

and the modern is the exception, while in the Academy letter this relation is exactly reversed. With regard to the general character of

the writing there is further this notable difference: Berkeley's writing is remarkably clear and precise. When once familiarity with the forms of the letters has been acquired, doubt never arises as to the

words the bishop intended to record. This cannot be said of the Academy letter. It is but right that the element of weakness in this comparison should be specified. If the date of the letter be 1721 as Prof. Fraser's theory demands, it must be admitted that there is a considerable interval of time between the letter and the College MSS. These MSS. are the rough draft of the " Treatise on Human Know ledge " and two essays that I was fortunate enough to find among the

Molyneux Papers. None of these specimens of Berkeley's writings arc later than 1710, so there is an intelval of at least eleven years, during which it is quite possible for changes to take place in the style of writing. Further, it is somewhat open to objection that we should base a conclusion, when in the Academy letter we have but a single page of writing as our specimen. Still I feel that I must adhere to what I have before asserted, that this letter is not written by Bishop Berkeley.



supposed autograph letter of bishop berkeley in the library of the royal irish academy

Documents