[Anais9000]

Yes, but you see, the inversion is always interpreted to mean the same thing as the original. "The loss is all a training of the soul." Actually, there are two possible texts, and two possible interpretations; unfortunately, both intepretations apply to one of the texts -- Tennyson's.

Ernest: "And yet," he said, "I was very fond of her till she took to drinking."
Overton: "Perhaps; but is it not Tennyson who has said: ' 'Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all'?"
Ernest: "You are an inveterate bachelor," was the rejoinder.

Or, to paraphrase, assuming Overton is speaking straightfowardly:
Ernest: "You know, old bean, I really loved her..."
Overton: "Yes, it was worthwhile, for you have loved and grown."
Ernest: "Easy for you to say!"

However, if Overton is being ironic (I'm not saying he's misquoting Tennyson, I'm saying he's quoting Tennyson ironically):
Ernest: "You know, old bean, I really loved her..."
Overton: "You don't mean to hand me that old "And yet I've loved and grown" line?"
Ernest: "Don't knock it till you've tried it."

Both of these interpretations are possible because they're implied by the Tennyson quote, which is a consolation for the actual (the heartbreak) over the counterfactual (the avoidance of heartbreak by the avoidance of love). What could it mean to say that it's better never to have lost at all? Unless we've switched in the second part from speaking of love to speaking of, say, neckties, it could only apply to a situation where boy meets girl/boy keeps girl/husband and wife die together in their sleep. But this is not the situation, as Ellen is manifestly gone.

Of course, as you know, the situation is more complicated. Ernest has just learned that the "loss" he experienced was an emotional one only, not the loss of a wife, since his wife was a bigamist, and therefore he "lost" nothing under the law. So here you could hope to find justification for Overton's inversion. Unfortunately, you would then have to argue that he is comparing, not what happened to what might have happened (heartbreak/no heartbreak because no love), to two different ways of looking at what happened: (you loved and lost/but not technically under the law, so no harm, no foul). To make this really work, the "than" has to be read as an "and" (since they both happened), and worse yet, his "inversion" would have to be understood super-ironically, since he'd really be preferring the second part (the one he's saying is NOT better) to the first.

Note that the book does not go on, 'Ernest gaped uncomprehendingly.' or even '"You are an inveterate punster," was the rejoinder.' No, Ernest replies exactly as if Overton has said: 'Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. He challenges Overton's standing to judge his emotional state.

In fact, out of 100 people who read this passage (when "inverted"), I'm sure that 98 simply "see" it as "never to have loved at all", just as they see "Hence it oftens happens that" as "Hence it often happens that." Probably one person says, What was that? Oh, he must have meant "than never to have loved at all". And one, say a professor at Rutgers impressed by his access to the unpublished manuscript, or a French philosopher, says: "Ah yes, I perceive the irony. Butler meant the same thing he would have if he had not misquoted -- but with an extra helping of irony."

Even if Butler had intended this (quite possible) he did not publish it, and likely an editor would not have allowed him to (that's what editors do, stand between authors and their most egregious mistakes). We can't know. But we do know (thanks to Patricia's scholarship) that the man Butler chose to oversee the publication, felt the passage should reach print as: "never to have loved at all."

What's really funny about this, is that it doesn't much matter one way or the other; the problem with these errors is never any single one, it's their terrible accumulation. In fact, this one's particularly harmless, much like:

it was invested to bring in £5 per cent. and gave him therefore an income of 250 pounds a year.

What difference does it make that the £ symbol is used where it should not be? Percents are unitless, so it's correct to write "to bring in 5 per cent." I don't dispute that by a slip of the pen Butler might have put in the pound sign, and many editions carry it forward. But no one argues from this that the £5 per cent times the £5000 resulted in pounds squared, so that Ernest must have been speaking about the acceleration of the money supply. It's harmless, because it cannot affect the interpretation. It's an "obvious error." Just so, "never to have lost at all."

And, by the way, Patricia, after taking all this time to look up other people's opinions, do you have one of your own?