Therefore, concluded that illustrious Philosopher,
neither good conduct nor bad conduct is a fit subject,
in any sober estimation, for either praise or blame.
For why should you praise, for example, the integrity
of a Square who faithfully defends the interests of his client,
when you ought in reality rather to admire the exact precision
of his right angles? Or again, why blame a lying,
thievish Isosceles, when you ought rather to deplore
the incurable inequality of his sides?
Theoretically, this doctrine is unquestionable; but it
has practical drawbacks. In dealing with an Isosceles,
if a rascal pleads that he cannot help stealing because
of his unevenness, you reply that for that very reason,
because he cannot help being a nuisance to his neighbours,
you, the Magistrate, cannot help sentencing him to be consumed--
and there's an end of the matter. But in little domestic difficulties,
when the penalty of consumption, or death, is out of the question,
this theory of Configuration sometimes comes in awkwardly;
and I must confess that occasionally when one of my own Hexagonal
Grandsons pleads as an excuse for his disobedience that a sudden
change of temperature has been too much for his Perimeter,
and that I ought to lay the blame not on him but on his Configuration,
which can only be strengthened by abundance of the choicest sweetmeats,
I neither see my way logically to reject, nor practically to accept,
his conclusions.
Pages:
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86