TRIALS OF TEMPERAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 18851, 28 January 1925, Page 3

TRIALS OF TEMPERAMENT

FAMOUS QUARRELS AMONG THE GREAT. Whether it he the sensitiveness of the artistic temperament or its easily wounded vanity or tho inflammable nature of high-spirited minds, the lifostories of onr great men are much marked by quarrels and—regretfully—bv few reconciliations (says ‘ John o’ London’s Weekly ’). Sir Isaac Newton is popularly supposed to have been a mild-mannered man. Who docs not remember the moral story of his exemplary patience when his dog destroyed some precions discoveries? He softly said: “Ah, Diamond, Diamond, yon little know the evil you have_ done!’’—and omitted even to chastise the little wretch. Yet he could, and did, call the Astronomer Royal a “ puppy ” to his face at a meeting of the Royal Society. TWO SCIENTISTS. It is true that Flamsteed was a singularly obstinate and_ irritating person, that he had conceived an idea that his discoveries were his own and not public property, but Newton considered them essential to his work, and that ho had as much right as anyone to see them. Flamsteed thus describes tho scone at an unofficial meeting of tho Royal Society.:— “The president (Sir I. Newton) ran himself into great heat and very indecent passion. I had resolved aforehand that ins knavish talk should not move me, I showed him that all the instruments in the Observatory were my own; tho mural arch and voluble quadrant having been made at my own charge, the rest purchased with my own money. . . . This nettled him. . . . T com plained of ray catalogue having been printed by Raymer without my knowledge, and that T was robbed of the fruit of my labors. At this he fired and called mo all the ill names, puppy, etc., that he could think of.” Flamsteed then told Newtoiy to keep liis temper, which “ made him rage worse ’’ -and then (what- a royal row it- must have been 1) they threw their respective public salaries in each other’s faces ami asked each ether what they did to justify them ! SHERIDAN’S PENSION. H- is curious that so assertive, independent, and courageous a personality as Dr .Johnson should have had so few real or prolonged quarrels. The letter to Lord Chesterfield was rather a-groat denunciation than an episode in an open feud. Hatreds lie had. and we know many of his expressions of them. Sometimes thev were mollified, ns in the'case of Wilkes. In the case of elder Sheridan, the nearest approach to a prolonged quarrel to he found in Roswell, the separation was due to tho ill-natured imparting of a remark “ unluckily said.” Johnson alwavs liked Sheridan hut despised lbs acting, and when lie heard that Sheridan was to he given a pension, hero remarked: “Mhnt, have they given him a pension? Then it’s time for me to give up mine.” As Boswell says, this could not ho justified, and. when it came to Sheridan’s ears, naturally founded a lifelong enmity. .Johnson, who seems to have regarded Sheridan as 'rather a stupid old man with some merits, was quite willing for a reconciliation. It was not to ho. The tactful Boswell tried to engineer it by inviting Sheridan to a dinnerparty at which Dr Johnson was to he present. “Mr Sheridan happened to come early, and having learned that Dr Johnson was to ho there, went away, so f found with sincere regrets i Hnt ray friendly intentions were hopeless.” THE GENTLE ART. No Victorian carried tiro quarrel to such a high pitch as James Whistler. Mis antagonists included notably Ruskiu, Sir William Eden, and Oscar Wilde, and his literature on the subject includes a pamphlet- ‘ Whistler v. Buskin ; Art v. Art Critics,’ and the more famous ‘ Ge ntle Art, of -Making Enemies.’ It- was in 1878 that Whistler brought his libel action agninsi Buskin. It was in ‘ Hors Clavigcra ’ that Buskin had described one of the artist's nocturnes as “ a pot ol pain' flung in the public's face.” Tho trial caused great entertainment, and it was in the course of it that Whistler was asked how long a certain ” impression ” had taken him to execute, and made ids well-known reply: “All my life.” Whistler was awarded a farthing damages, lint followed up the quarrel with his pamphh'ls and his hook. He was later involved in another Law Court action, tins time in Bans, with Sir William Eden, whose wile’s portrait he had painted hut refused to deliver. ALL OVER A CABLET. The quarrel ol Gilbert and Sullivan emerged from one of the smallest teacups "'that over had a storm. -Mr S. .1. Adair Fitzgerald, whose 'Story of tlie Stivov Opera ’ was pnniished this vear, quotes -Mr Cunningham Bridgeman. who gives tho tollmniw account of tho incident “ It. appears that D'Oyly Carte, as duly authorised business manager of the' firm, conceived it to bo not- only polite but right and proper to minister to the comfort of clients through whose patronage and support their business had thnvod so remarkably. Accordinglv, Air Carte purchased, among sundry other articles of furniture, a carpet. The carpet, etc., were in the usual course charged to tho joint account. Sir Arthur on his part- raised no objection to the outlay, and for the sake of peace did his utmost to persuade Mr Gilbert to take a similar yiew of the matter. But Air Gilbert remained obdurate in bis opposition t-o such lavish expenditure. Ho was of opinion Hint a new carpet, costing £l4O, would not draw an extra sixpence into the exchequer. . . . Mr Gilbert . . . was then reminded that by the terms of the- partnership agreement he had no voice iii tho matter.” Gilbert “went- to law” and lost. “ Thus,” adds Air Fitzgerald, “ was the great Savov partnership of thirteen years’ standing, with its tenth successful production, dissolved into thin air over the cost of a miserable—one may say definitely a fatal—carpet, for though the broach was mended it was never healed.”