The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne (pdf e book reader txt) 📕

in the book.⁠⸺⁠Pray what is the title of that chapter? said Yorick; making a respectful bow to Phutatorius as he spoke.⁠⸻I think, answered Phutatorius, ’tis that de re concubinariâ.

For Heaven’s sake keep out of that chapter, quoth Yorick.

⸺⁠By all means⁠—added Eugenius.

XXIX

—Now, quoth Didius, rising up, and laying his right hand with his fingers spread upon his breast⁠⸺⁠had such a blunder about a christian-name happened before the Reformation⁠⸻[It happened the day before yesterday, quoth my uncle Toby to himself] and when baptism was administer’d in Latin⁠—[’Twas all in English, said my uncle]⁠⸻many 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 name⁠—Had a priest, for instance, which was no uncommon thing, through ignorance of the Latin tongue, baptized a child of Tom-o’Stiles, in nomine patriæ & filia & spiritum sanctos⁠—the baptism was held null.⁠⸺⁠I beg your pardon, replied Kysarcius⁠⸺⁠in that case, as the mistake was only the terminations, the baptism was valid⁠⸺⁠and to have rendered it null, the blunder of the priest should have fallen upon the first syllable of each noun⁠⸻and not, as in your case, upon the last.

My father delighted in subtleties of this kind, and listen’d with infinite attention.

Gastripheres, for example, continued Kysarcius, baptizes a child of John Stradling’s in Gomine gatris, etc., etc., instead of in Nomine patris, etc.⁠⸺⁠Is this a baptism? No⁠—say 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.⁠—What do they signify? said my uncle Toby.⁠—Nothing at all⁠⸻quoth Yorick.⁠⸺⁠Ergo, such a baptism is null, said Kysarcius.⁠⸺⁠

In course, answered Yorick, in a tone two parts jest and one part earnest.⁠⸺⁠

But in the case cited, continued Kysarcius, where patriæ is put for patris, filia for filii, and so on⁠⸺⁠as it is a fault only in the declension, and the roots of the words continue untouch’d, 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.⁠⸺⁠But then, said Didius, the intention of the priest’s pronouncing them grammatically must have been proved to have gone along with it.⁠⸻⸻Right, answered Kysarcius; and of this, brother Didius, we have an instance in a decree of the decretals of Pope Leo the III⁠⸺⁠But my brother’s child, cried my uncle Toby, has nothing to do with the Pope⁠⸻’tis the plain child of a Protestant gentleman, christen’d Tristram against the wills and wishes both of his father and mother, and all who are akin to it.⁠⸺⁠

If the wills and wishes, said Kysarcius, interrupting my uncle Toby, of those only who stand related to Mr. Shandy’s child, were to have weight in this matter, Mrs. Shandy, of all people, has the least to do in it.⁠⸺⁠My uncle Toby lay’d down his pipe, and my father drew his chair still closer to the table, to hear the conclusion of so strange an introduction.

⸺⁠It has not only been a question, Captain Shandy, amongst the16 best lawyers and civilians in this land, continued Kysarcius, “Whether the mother be of kin to her child,”⁠—but, after much dispassionate enquiry and jactitation of the arguments on all sides⁠—it has been abjudged for the negative⁠—namely, “That the mother is not of kin to her child.”17 My father instantly clapp’d his hand upon my uncle Toby’s mouth, under colour of whispering in his ear;⁠—the truth was, he was alarmed for Lillabullero⁠—and having a great desire to hear more of so curious an argument⁠—he begg’d my uncle Toby, for Heaven’s sake, not to disappoint him in it.⁠—My uncle Toby gave a nod⁠—resumed his pipe, and contenting himself with whistling Lillabullero inwardly⁠⸺⁠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 Suffolk’s case.⁠⸻It is cited in Brook, said Triptolemus⁠⸻And taken notice of by Lord Coke, added Didius.⁠—And 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 also⁠⸺⁠but without will, without wife, and without child⁠—his mother and his sister by the father’s side (for she was born of the former venter) then living. The mother took the administration of her son’s 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 father’s side commenced a suit before the Ecclesiastical Judge, alledging, 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 issue⁠—and many causes of great property likely to be decided in times to come, by the precedent to be then made⁠⸺⁠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.⁠—Whereunto not only the temporal