Correspondence

Dear Mr. Remer:

Although Walpole invented the word serendipity, he did not exactly define it: 'you will understand it better by the derivation than by the definition'. He then tells his little story. So everything depends on how you interpret it. It is my contention that if you take it seriously it is quite absurd. Who could possibly be interested in the activities of this one-eyed mule? And why commemorate such a discovery?

But if you perceive the irony of it, then this 'silly' little fairy tale springs to life. And this is the whole point. It is an exceedingly ironic comment on those who constantly allow themselves to be deflected from the important and devote their intelligence and their time to matters which are relatively unimportant, things which are trivial, amusing, or out-of-the-way—what, in fact, we call 'curiosities'. A two-eyed mule is useful but a one-eyed mule unusual. And at this point we have arrived at caricature for this is the only sample we are given of the princes' accidental discoveries. The story tells us much of the mentality of the collector: its wit is in its brevity.

Never once in this letter did Walpole even hint that the methods of the princes should be regarded as a paradigm for scientists. But there is a hint that this is a paradigm for collectors who are always making discoveries accidentally. And Walpole uses the story in order to introduce his item of news: he has come upon a Venetian coat of arms. If you miss the irony you miss the point. But there is more.

Why did he call this story 'silly'? You explain his use of the word in terms of his errors and omissions and his apparent faulty memory of his sources. But