‘0c
C\J - )f ‘CC N— C\J ‘j- CC CD ci C Ci Ci C\)
• -H C -I C!) >- ‘i -P C) • —‘ 0 0 C) C) 47 ç) CD ‘ri -P (7 i C) CC (1) C) - 0 , r-1 rH > 0 -P Ci C) r4 N rH ‘H r—I +- ‘H • C) • • C) • N T; —: • • fl4 N- • • • • e N . CD C, ‘r-l (7) • • • o ------C) N-- CD ‘-0 CI) r-) rH —- C!) o 0 Cl) 7) •H -P C) H 1)2 (a 1,1 ci -1 Ci Ci) If) Cr) ‘H ‘H • C) • Cl) • •‘1 (1 -P lD -P ri • • ) •• • Ci i -l Ci Ci 0 -PC) ‘H Ci C) •• 0 C) C) Cl C) 1(D C) ,C) C) LO Q- 0 EC S -P • ci • • C) C) o Cl • C)) • • (r)Ci )iQ • N -P -P 0 r-H r-H ,:) CD C) C) -H ‘H ci 0 -ri U) ‘H • -P Cr” ‘H r—lCD )!tO NI Fl CS • r—irH • • C-I Ci) • • cC • 0 C) 54 C) 3C o o t C) C 3 CC -P C) r-4 -r) -j (I) S— 3r’ 1) C-I )-l )C) CC) •. Cl) D C) -P 1 -C Cl C) -P -P •—i C) C) 0 ) H 0 rH C) C) -I ‘-C) Cl) -H )1P4 ‘H Ci Ti -PuS TIC) )i CC Ci -PU) -P Ci ) )-i rr’C-j CD C) i ci CC 0 C) 0 N ‘H C) rH ‘ C) C) 5 (C C) CD - Cl) C) C) C) -P’H .- q ci 9) CC) C) S-i C) ‘rr’ (1) -P (3 N C C) N CC —H Cl) 0 Ii 0 Cl iCC) CC) —i 1-10 i -Cl —l 01-i C) C) r’iC E-l Ci E- :) 1,0 rql—1 C—I -‘Ci 0 • • -r’ r-) C’) (‘C [Or CCC N- (7) C)C) 0 H
C — _‘I’ _-_ __C__ r__ —
P.t.o. of Greek ,art.
vevsitr
of
Exeter.
his
piii3licatiods inclue tso:s and. orticles on various sets asp
University
of
heucastle
upon I’ync, for:zcrl3- and Lecturer in Classics in the Gui—
hr.
Shefton
is Senior Lecturer Creek in drcLoeoloj ncicnt and History in the
FSPECT OF GREEb (probably SRT with slides)
B. hr. B. SUnFTOE, M.d. on
University Classical Society.
friday,
Novtser
24th. 1teetin Joint vith the
brinG helpful to texts of the Odes,
the author
of
vrious
articles Classical on subjects. i.:embers sill it find
hr.
Matheusoa. is
Senior
Lecturer in Clasaics in the Snivorsity of nater, and.
TEKINC LIbERTIES WITh HORdCE
hr. 1. D. i’:soo, :: . ,
(off Pcnnsylaz nia Rd.)
LOPES JiLL, St. Carson’s Rd.,
xeetin ihis is held at 8 p.m. in
friday,
hoveaber
10th. Classical soc1ation.
Plutarch.
comnentary,
of ‘Ln 5 ’inus’
and “:ritten has articles vriouS on subjects incluiin 5
Classical
ijearterly.
be
iezs published an Oxford text, with introduction and
hr.
Russell is
fellon
a of St. John’s College, Oxford, and baiter of the
PLdTkC}i’ S
i±. n. RUSSFZL. :. on
Bellenic Society.
Friday, October
27th.
Joint mecti ‘aith the
::ebezs
nh
finn it detsful to brin; texts of Veril.
the
Oxford
texts of Ctullus,
Pliny’s letters, the and, Parejjrici Latini.
Oxford,
and
v;as Presinent
of the Classical desociation in l96. he has edited
Professor
dynors
is
Corpus Christi Professor of Latin in the University of
c’ni ilSLJS (Geoc_I’!)
Professor Sir FOGEk LYSORS, D.Litt., F.E.., on
Ro:an Society.
Friday,
October
13th
::eetinO Joint the vith
Proamme for Michaelaas Term l95
Cd hOd. 10th (See belc.v).
University),
New srt1z Road, xeter. (Opoasite
I:meriel the
iiotel)
-
eetirk;o
are held
at 5.15 p.m.
in “kornlea” (.hucticn 2eaartment of the
C FSSICL
OCIur SJiEi—.JE 3d —
2 ______a Progra efor Lent Term 19613
Friday, February 9h Joint meeting ;ith the Uaiversity Classical Society.
Mr. A. D. FITTON BRUVN, M.A. , on nico lENT WINE her. Fitton 3rovm. is a Fellc- of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, ann autnor of many articles mainly on Greek literary subjects.
Friday, February 23rd Classical Association
Profeoor D. J. O’CONNOR, ii.A., Ph.D., on dUOTLE aI) FTiLiSU
Professor O’Connor is Professor of Philosophy in the University of Exeter. He is author of several books and articles on philosophic subjects, and has contributed several chapters, including one on Aristotle, in A Critical History of estorn Philosoohy of which ha ias editor.
Friday, Harch 13th. Information will be sent later announcing’ the time and place of ha annual “JACICSON ENIGHT MOflIAL LECTURES” to be inaugurated. lay Oir BASIL BLACK’JELL, Hon. Ll.D. This is a rublic lecture to vihich members of the Classical Association and others are invited..
Friday, March 22nd. Joint Meeting with the Univursiy Classical Society Mr. J. A. NORTH, B. A., on PRIESTS AND POLITICIANS IN T LATE REPUELIC
Mr. North is Lecturer in Ancient History in University Collage, London, and is engaged. on research in the history of Roman Religion.
Further Details.
All meetings are oien to everyone interested in Classical Subjects. Schoochld.ren are welcome, whether accoeganied cy a member of staff or not.
The Hon. Sec.
Raymona i. Clerk 12, Knowle Drive, Exwick,
Devon.
(not called not) for.”
43ff., should
read inventiEetion ‘ t One line of is nor
Passage at
Knossos which appearee in (Ei67) ‘Pas”
article
The phorae end Tblets of the Jorthern ntrance
Ovin
to tyiing 32 error, line on page 48 of R. J. Clarks
CORiIGLii)Ul
uaeris? Cur, Zinimo minus nil esne potest.
Se via nunc ella ent liii te:nDtnia plecendi.
Inue dies brevior breviorqu it chiton. J
su1orare euaics cupit inca Phyllis mictu,
(? AGI ::. ViL. :rnp iAflTIitLIS) ppiu.: 4 1-) -P Ci Or-cl C’) ci HI CI) Cc) rrici C) -H 0 C) ci) I U) 12) P- I C) I 0-H -H 5> 02,0-H (12 .120 Ci)rl 0 ,C) _r1 ., .1-i -- ES H (2) rI I C) Ci) -P .15 P-c (0 0 (2) C—c -P U) C) c--I is c-,i ) Ic) (0 :- c) (0 12-1 ((2 (0 Ci) C) i-i 5)5 1p C-- H(00C)C) ccl HO — HI F—I 0 .c-—CC) O i) 4-’ rI-iC) C)cC) • -P 0 Cl) C) C) -H ‘ci c’S -r1 C) ‘(0 c C) .11 ‘12 12-i-- 121-P Cl) c-i U) C) -Li ci -i-- c-i ci i-P C) CD 0 (0 ci “-c;(i c-—) Cil •r—I -3 C) r 0 .H 12 ci 1-0 0 0 c((cj COP -Ho C) ‘-:1----I C> C) C) ciH (0(0 (0 C) . (0 C) -H c-5 0’ (1) (1] (1) r—l 0 C’) C) —S CC) 0 HI 0 12-i5- (-H -P ci 0 HI (1 ((Cr1 Dcci C)) H (12 (05 C) c? (0 c-I 5--I CHC)) U) Cl) (12 -P-C) ‘—1C) (1) ci 0-i+ (0 Cc) ci o 0 ‘ci ci •H -H C) ccl ri 0 12-) Ci) C) -ii 1) ci is .ci Cl) CD-p .(0 -1 .11 0 (0 C) 5)5 ‘-- C) ri •)r-) C) (0 Ci (12 C) Ci -4-’ u cc C) E -P C’) (((2 ‘(0 0 C) -(0 — = C) C) 0 U) HI ci Ci) d HI HI (12 H C) (0 HI -+‘r+’ C) c5 )— Cci 0 i-I ci) C) C) C) oc (3 ‘12 C) 0 ci C) Ci (12 Ci -P P C) ,_0 0 c-1 H (0 ‘C) C) C) c-i (0 rl (5 (5 C) 0 (0 c-Jr ci C) -Ci-HisOCcici HI r—) C) 4 :12) 4cc 0 (-1 -H 25) 0 rj is 0 ci C) -‘r-l12) iC))) Cl) ,Q 12-1 -4-’ 5), -4--’ C) (0 ‘C,’ is aD_ CC H ci C) ci-, Ci() () C) i P ccl Ci Cl) ci is -P _) C) -1 - -4 -(0 CO 1-i rH P ci 0) HI rH •r-1 C) 0 Ic-DO -- •H ci U) -I-, ‘C) C-c)5’ C) c-i rj Cl) o 0 .10 0 0 C) HI c-i ci O L$5-1 ci 0 CC Ci) —5>1 1S) (1) ‘-C-: r-l 0)rH On 121 H-P U) C) r(0 c-i -P = -H 5)) C:) 1-12 CL 12 Cl) U) ci (i’d r—l C—i -4 (0 r1 C) Cli C) cC, C,) 5,5) -H C) 0= Ci) C-) c—I -P 0 cci C)) -(0 3 5) 5)1 0 5C)---I C) c’S Li C) C) CC) I 12) C)) C) U--c CC) ‘P) is o ci • 0 120 10 0 0 12r5 C)Qj I— r 12—I Ci 2-’--’ -5 -s I C1’d (0-H (0c--c C) 12 Cc) — 4) -cr—s-H ‘12 iS -P ‘12 HI (2-> cc C’cxi ci C)-’ ci-, C) ci c-i 5- C--I •-45-Iui) 1) .1 12) C [) 0)0 C)-P c-DO-,-) 0) -1-, C-i ri C) 5)5 -P C) (0 .r-1 ‘H -ii ‘i’d -c-i HO C) (12 ‘3 ii ri 4-’ C) c) • is UcC (5) ccl) C) c-I ci) -I--c ‘-2 12 -rC -P ci -P I) 5-5 c_i c :5 $5 ) 4’ C) •-) C) -H 4-’ C) CCC Ci Ccl •r—1 ci is is 12) (0 -1- Cic 12) cii -P 0 .r-4 -cS ‘COC) ‘c) c-H C) 12) 1212 12) —2-’ (1-) 0 ci -P (120 CS C-— C) -P C) ,—I -P 3 0 ‘5) C) U) C-Cl (2-’ (12 --C ‘(0:0 .-Qclhi C) ci ciHIO (0 0rI CCC) ci Ci) -c--I .1) -P HI 1 Ci) ‘-4 (011) C12(0 cci .-(_) 12-) 121(0 H-Pr1 ‘(0 Ci-_,) C)-) cci (1) (1) C) Ci Cc-- -0.0)co ci c-i 0 —-iw (2 (2) C) •r-lC-)ci,r-1 (5-Pa ci -P Pc-S c-i-i-’ ,i C’) Cc ci) CD C-C‘ci £2 ‘—.: .‘ ow -i -,-‘ (1) Cl) C) 12’ rH .15 ci ‘I) C) .ci C) 0 ci .H iC) 4) (I) I--’ ci •H .r’j ii) C) Ci ‘ci CS -<: 5) C) 12) rI Cl) U) Cl) 12-4 - ‘12 C) is ‘(C) .rH -1) “0 (0 -P -P 0 ci’d -(0 i -P .1_i ‘jCr- cd-i-’ (0 -H Ci. Ci -H (0 C) C) C) U) CO C-Or—I C) 4 (0 C)’d ci H ci 11)120,0 0,0 ci 00 -PC1)12i 5-cC.-, CO+ C)C31C) c,5’ 0(’< ccl 7) -c--I ir V. o (i-P 1211(0 cO-H-P (C)(0 ‘c-ID C) C) 10 -P 1 LC, 0 cS I+)-H (0(00 0(0(0-P Cl) C) C) P 120-P 12(10 Ci —(0 P-c c-I H ii) -CC--‘ 5-.-__ci CO o-cci 0-H HId i-H •--i lii- (3 —Ci1-ti) - rdE4i0 ci s--c ( CD1-i U) CCI C] C) CC HIlO 0 C) O ci) ci •r—I‘(0 H U) c-i C4r-l ci) U) ‘1) 0 5> c-I ‘‘l (:c r----.-—-: c-c c-’ ‘J’.-o G)cO c-CPU-] -(-‘00 0(0 -I-’ C O->I5-) 1-) Cl) 0 0HI25 -‘,—i C) • ‘(0 ((2 -‘Ci (120 ‘ci.- Ii)) ,.) ((2 (-i •H C) r-4c--_-’ ci ‘-- -‘ -P -P I’tl cii+)-H (1 -3 ‘(0 C) IS 0 5-4: C)) ,—-I 0-i-’ :j CI cii dir-I (Or—) :l 0 ci C) II) 120 Cc) 55 124 P-c C) 4’ C) 5-i (I) C) (0 12-4 ci’ ci is 12) (I) c,_( Cl) ci) CC ((1 (01 Er-d H C) -d 10 +‘ C) C) CCI ci-P-D = H Cc) Cl) c-I 0 0 0 0 Ci 0) 0 CI) (-5, -D ;) Ci C) ci ci) c-H(‘1 12) cc 1>0 OC)Hcti H H C) OH 12-I121 0 10 C) c-H 12_i’d Cc-C> --),(0 0 “i • c_C_C U) C--,•rH (25)4 ci C) C’) 1-’ cISC) •H H (0-3(12 012-i 0 1-i-; ‘(0 12 C) Ct C) ci C) -H 0 c-c—: C) Cl) (1) ‘12) 1-P -P c-i 5)2 c-i 0 0 •H C) C) (>1 ci H C,) C) L 0 HI 0 0 ci ci -2 ci icC Ci C) 4-’ H C.) -P C) 4) +) -H - 53 -PcO C) C) (0(4) C) C) 5> C) .CDr4 0) rI ci ci) C) HI C) O H-I-’ U) H •H Ci (0 HI •ci •,-i P --C) >5’—’ :2-05 (0.15 -(0 1> -ii c5 C) ci 12) Cl) 0 (J r> 0 Ci) c--I CiC) cu ci C) C)) U) 42 (2 ci I) bI--) +‘ H 0 0 C) -ri C) Cl) P-cH C) HI-HHI c--c C) 0 C, () Ci) ‘2 C) 4) ci Ci .0 C) 1-) 0 C> : 05)5 .1-Sri >Clc, r C) r—I 1-12 H -12 H-H ci -‘ c_i -CO 0 5)) (5 r 4) ‘C-I -ri c--l rd (2-’ 1-Jr-I is Ci) 0) c-I H 120±) ---I ci, 0 r—l ci r—1 12 c-i 55 Cc)CO ci) (0 --3 C) 0(1) is-H 4-’ ci C’) -ri C) ---I 4-- 1-5 CC)) C) rc-j (315) c-,-i 0 ci ci -P C) 0 ci Ci) -H -cS 0 (:0 I H r4 CC) 1) -12 c--I Cl) r-I rI C-) c( -H ci ci ci-’: c). Ti) C) HI 0 •H ‘5) CC ES CC C) CD+’-P ci (j’) C) Cii -4-’ 0) Plc) ‘tO (+ HI C) Cl) -(-‘Cl) (0(3CC)’ (2-’ C’S (I) (C) Ci CiC) Pr-lci HIC) (0 -c-SC)- 121 CC- ci (0 0 -‘ci 0(0 0 Ci) HI rJ -4-’ —I C) C) C) 5-12 ‘c- ‘5) ci CU -ci I> -P .,-I Pc CC) 0 ri 0) 12-4 o (3 Ci P-c 0 c-5 C) C) C) 0 7) 2-3 • (2) C)) (2-’ o-.- -(0 ci a) 0 121 cii (‘1 51- -H C) C) c-C C) Ci >- -Ci () $5 (0.-, (0 C’ 1212 0 I ci C) HI ccl ci C) 121 Ci) 1 -p ci ci 0 ciCcO ‘12 (:10 (0 - .1 C) (0-I-’(0(1 0(0’-’ is yr-_I z P0-is cici 00 CO_C_i HI (00 5-512) _i 0 1-” C) (5 C’) (0 ci -H Cl) (0 7) 23 (-1 )_l-’ c’ C2 ci) )_C 212’ •—
K. A. DICKSON
bing Kilroy’s sublithrery urgcs
It
remains
to be seen
uhether
this
is
more a eîfactive method of cur
ii sue nome sui marl.
Clii
crede
prega,
clii non
crede aimaie’a, chi b supido scrivo
icuing simple but eloquent notice
ilpollo
himself
lad failed,
resort
to undisguicin
sarcasm,
displaying
the
Pci
daub
Lless
that even
a brace
of minor
saints could scarcely
succeed
uhore
thcia
privacy
to the
culture—vultures
of the 2Oih Century,
and
reclining
convent
in Fiesole,
het
obliged like
so
many Emplish
aristocrats
to
sell
inter,
clinging
obstinately
to
tic
vita contemulativa in
tiny a
Freacisca.n
The
descendants
of the harrasscd
inicetus
sore savntecn hundred years
(Ocr sInscrjtjorium rurVI52D Latin
ant triclias inscribcr ant scariphare.
C. Julius
Anicct’as
cx
imporlo
Solis rogat necuis velit parictes
loming dignified inprccation
vThich,
incidentally,
as
Niohelin
mould
say
‘mrite
un
d6tour’) IS tile
Pci—
fect
reconstruction
of
a
Roman castellum
on
the
Limes
near Frankfurt
(and
much
further
back
then
this.
Hanging
on the
mall
of
the Saalburg,
a per
reads:
‘Johannos
de
Eyck
fuit
hic, 1434’.
Lut
Kllroy
can trace
his ancestry
mirror,
doubtless
by
may of authentication
in the
matter
of Dt’rer,
which
reveal
modest a
but
quite
legible
inscription
on
the rear
‘aell
above
the
Crniiary
and
still
erroneously
entitled
The Betrothel
of
the
arnolfini,
mill
at
Jan
van
Eyck’s
fine
portrait
of
self
and spouse,
ncer
in the
National
ruler
of
Cook’s
democracy.
He can
boast
prouli a
lineage.
closer A
look
Porting
to
reflect,
honever,
that this
Kilroy
is
no uastart,
no mere
puppct—
Kilroy,
undoubted
king
of the
graffiti—specialists.
It is,
perhaps,
corn—
hermitages
entirely
desecrated
by
the l:omage
paid by
loyal subjects
of
the
Trecento
and
uattrocento
in
littie—knonii
chiesette,
monasteries
and
It
ucs
sad to
see in
Italy this
slimmer
so many priceless frescoes of 6 7
THE CASE P0?. EUfBI) CbSnIJEOfl Uhen Mark Pattison died in June 1564, he was a fanous man. The ucasoapers and ue-rioaicals were full of enthusiastic obituaries of ‘the rcat scholar’ as he was callea icy many. In Oxford, aced among university people in general, his reputation was as great as that of Jowete. ilmolig continental scholars it was even greater - for9 after all, hcw many reople cunSine England ever hoard of the vast advancements of learniur effected by the Easter of Icciliol? Pattjso’ book on Isaac Casaubon went throuah a second edition in l692 sD: of his essays were collected and puolished in two volumes by Nettleship, end one volume was later made available in a pocket-size edition in the poccilar flew Universal Library. His :E1oirs, published a year after his death by his widow, are among the most interesting documents of Oxford. in the nineteenth century, and were widely road by scholars and. laymen alike. ven his collec ted Sermons, published by hr5. Pattison in the same year, had. a certain account of success. s late as the turn of the century, one still had just to mention his names no explanation would be reauiren, and amen of liberal education would not reach for his DEB to find out who on earth that roan Pettiscu was.
Then came what Housman has once ealle ‘the stecdy encroachment of oblivion’. Pettison’s books are concerned -c-ith a rather esoteric subject9 the history of Classical scnolurship, and those who nod not knoca the vector of Lincoln or heard of him could. not be expected to guess ho-.: readable and lively these books are, how the scones of books and scholars they tell can, at times, be quit exciting, end how those seemingly dull books are permeated by a very human and personal note, a reflection of an author who vies one of the most human personalities in Victorian lett0rs. host of Pattisca’s books have thus been avilable since the beginning of this century. While Jowatt’s reputation has been crowing as the years went by, Eetctisen’s rowe was almost forgottcn(1). To ruote the words of the Warden of ll Souls; Lark Pattison is probably thought of today, by those who remember him at all, as the rival of Jo:att in the field of University reform; as the author of a remarkable book of thaccoirs; perhaps, as the hero, or anti-hero, of a famous Oxford intrigoe; and as a very learned men. People with specialized interest may be able to go further: scholars will connect his name with Isaac Casaubon, of whom he wrote a classic biogrccohy, and readers of (toorge Eliot may be aware of a different association with tine same neme was ho not Mr. Casaubon, the hero, or (again) the anti-hero, of tEddienorch?’
This conies from a new bock on Pattison by the Warden of dil Souls Collage, Oxford (2). For there has been lately some revival of interest in that strange and haunting personality. In 1957, Mr. V. H H. Green, a fellow of Pattison’s Collage, Lincoln, published a long and detailed study of Pattison and his background — a book which desorv.s to ha more widely knoc.n (3). When, in May 1961, Professor Hugh Lloyd—Jones delivered his inaugural Lecture as egius Professor of vram-c (4, he pain iull trseute to Pattiscn1s conan— bution to life and banning in nineteenth-century Oxford, and 00:1-c as near as one can to suggesting that to the Classical scholar, and. to scholars in general, Pattison’s nasa can, and perhaps should, mean more than that of hi. contemporary negius Professor. When the Warden of £111 Souls was invited. to give the Clark Lecuurss in Cambridge in 1965, his choice fell again on Pat— tison. inis is hardly suiprising. Er. Sparrow is that rare phenomenon nowadays, a man of letters at large, whose interests range from the unfinished lines of Vergil to contemporary English literature, not to mention levi, current events, and the traffic croblcrs of modern Oxford. ‘sithout being the ccodern professional ‘research man’, Mr. Sparrc-ri has managed. in a way that ought to baffle our present--day Professors of Lucan Book II and. Renders in The First Six Chapters of Silas Earner, to do some good and useful work in so many subjects. The elegance of his style and presentation makes his books ox-
happens to know
little a about
Pattison portrait his
the background ann —
the To
candid reader
hiddlscrrch of hf that that candid also reader —
1. Pattison hovolists the and.
chapters.
book, for and the reader’s convonianco, they arranged the ere of order in his
following, therefore, my are reflections own footnotes and to Sparrow’s Mr.
may add to whet has by
said been experts the it be little, over The so —
some points of interest where, third:, there I be may so:aething amateui’ an
and. lazy readers racy as wait wall for that. rather shall touch try to I on
Digest mill
ever condense Sparrow’s
hr. book, its romantic uese anpoal —
short
su.ecvary in the
nnc Philologicue though doubt the I Reader’s if -
worse, to sum it up. a few In years’ time there probably will a eprear
to review
(5) it
quite revicas a
fee’ have by appeared. now — even or, —
assume some acquaintance with the contents of that not bock. em I going
their hands on s Mr. Sparrow’ excellent bock. Thr in follo’::s what will I
readers to rush the off to nearmst library bookshop, or, preferably, lay end
much So in the of .‘ar general appreciation. now should icy I ask
stumy
and mao knows?
uerhaps even read some — s o Pattison’ — own books.
make some of its runders to go on explore .:r. s longer fuller and
hoout some revival of interest in :h.rk Pattison what and ho for, stood
and Reader’ s
Dicests is much it shorter.
hopes One that it — will bring
the generality,
and a of point some
importance in the of — age Omnibuses
the whole, Mr. Sparrow’s is bock more dramatic, little a more readable for
let
chapter, on Thc of Idea University, a is an attempt to do this. On
from that past a 103 son relevant our to academic problems today, his and
when the pest has been reccactructed, hr. Sparro.r also aims at learning
whereas
Mr. Green is essentially the objective historian task whose ends
trouble of knowing something about the s author’ aersonaliby. yoreover,
to an author’s iork without going into tao and awful useless lrpond
which
should not bean have forgotten by a generation ahici: attc:::ots to
Lottere
series series a
which contains so many excellent — biographies and
ewes rts, writes this more book in the tradition Enalish of the hen of
writing ‘sibi et doctis’. Sparrow, hr. though an expert eekncvTlcdced by
biography with a moral to point. Green hr. is much more an of c::prt
between
the two books is that between a arid literary a studr histcricTl
Library as wall the cc literary historical and hachgrouni. difference The
mnouiica
C f’ vibla ilirmtj itci Pti son r bS c ir t ]odlccmn
given
freely from his unrivalled knc.:lcdgo of Pattison’. ctla authors
face
his
‘indebtedness hr. to John Sparrom, the of Souls, rden All v:ho has
the
earlier, longer and. more detailed account, ho acknowledges his in pre
also
helped each other in their common pursuit. lthoug’h =.r. Green’s is
door
they neighbours, have both done their homework independently and have
is
neither
coincidence nor plagiaris:a. hr. Saerroe: and Green hr. are next
book
that
was not mentioned in Mr Green’s cerlior fuller and book. This
øcints On
information, of is there little about Pattison the in rail
their inevitable victory.
of
world, tr!is who a1,:ays seam to ‘cc just round the corner, waiting for
ideal
of
literco’ cmainst the businesslike ouposition of the Jountts
of
Reforms
and Commissions not unlike ours, had. stood for the antiquated
another
man
of letters in the widest sense of this word, a men in who, times
so well.
Looking precedents, for is one surprised not ho that has chosen
many
glorious
chapters the in history
of his
University a history ha knowa —
minister
our education nowadays. fs aji Oxford man, he look can to heel:
books
or automate, is which end. very much cut of favour those .:ith :io ad—
education, the sort education of which makes its it aim men, aroanco to not
ha
wrote more. nr. rruw is also an Unflinching chamaion of liberal
remEItn ceilent as
one h of
oJnta rsvio’:cr la w shrs nun ent, Tm 9 of t Reverend £d-rord C saubon prccci a supcrb if C] .dc]ntL(l f uI the Rccor 0± and inhumanly canal — caricaturs of thn p- ] LiflCOlfl 25 it struck ãfl uno,aeoathtic contemporary. :Ie is a :icL1c—egcd icrae.n (Pattison9 though ho beca:no very nearly en agnostic, never rolin— qiilshed Holy Orders) who racraics a young women of c::altcd religious ideals ;iho is twenty—seven years his junior (. fairly precise description of Er.flia francis Strong .rhon, in 1861, she married IJurk Pattison). He is described as ‘a dried bookworm towards fifty (Pettison a-as then forty-eight), who is ma-icr vur3( wb1}- will nvar come out. nt the time when Middle— march vies being serialized, Petbison had nearly relinquished his project of writing a major work on thc History of post—RenaisooncoScholarshio, and was ccmoosjiig his book on Isaac Caseubon which came out 3-4 years after Eiddlomarck. That he was engaged in writing this book eras no sccr:t to the academic or literary world, and was certainly knoern to George Eliot, whose friendship with Mrs. Pttison was developing to-reads the closest in timacy, end whosc husband, George boos, was a friend of the Rector. Furthermore, Casaabcn’s letter in :Jidd]mmarch proresing m:rriage to Dorothea is couched in that rather formal, literary and self—consciously remote style which no one who knew the Rector could fail to recognise. It con tains some phrases which would be fairly meaningless if meant to refer merely to the Rcerend Ewoard Casenhnn of’ the novel. ‘I cm not, I trust,’ says the Itevercad Person in his lettr, ‘i.iLmn i. -U-.c coOSflitiUL1 of some deeper correspondence than that of data in the fact that a OOlSCiOuSnCeS of ned in my own life had. arisen contemporaneously ‘.eith the possibility of my becoming acousintod with you.’ Vvhy should one — or ‘at least why should
Mr. Casaubon of the novel — talk of the possibi1it of bcooaing acquainted with Lbs future wife? And why ‘a deeper correspondence than that of What date? Unless one remembers that early in 1861 Pattison was elccthd to the Rectorship of his College, that from tuis time Oil it eras 9ib
for him, no-b just to become acquainted with young ,iomori — that had happened
to him before — but to get married without ranouncing his fellowship and becoming a schoolmaster or a perish priest away from Oxford and scholarship.
We have indeed the testimony of no lesser a person than Sir Charles Duke, Mrs. Pattison’s second husband. ‘Dorothea’s defence of her marriage ‘rith Castubcn, and Casaubon’s account of his marriage to Dorothca in the first book of ‘ iddlcaarch” , c’rj r Charles (6), ‘ore as a fact given by the nove].it olrnn-b in Mark P’ttlson’s wud’ Mr. Sparrow quotes this, as well as the evidence of the rt critic P. S. ::2C00119 hialf an under graduate at Lincoln in Pettison’s time, who knew both the Rector an his wife well in his College days, and later on had many connections in the literary and artistic world of London. ‘There is authority for saying,’ writes MacCoil, ‘that Coorge bliot, a friend of both9 gave the religious temper of Emilia to Dorothea, and rproducci much of the Rector’s prooocal in Casaubon’s letter.’ (7)
In the face of such evidence and so many similarities — and all the
numerous arrrumcnts brought for.e:rd by Mr. Sparrov - it scorns unlikely that Edw-rd Cesaubon of the novel could have hardly any connection with tii pedantic, middle-aged scholar who was just then ;riting the life of Isaac Cesaubon. Yet this is precisely what contemporaries and later scholars have consistently tried to do. They founa it difficult to admit, if they kiLo.: the truth, or to imagine, if they did not know, that such a horrible
portrait of the Rector and his wife, both — especially the latter — good friends, could have been drawn by such a. splendid person as the Marian Lures her contemporaries knew or the George Eliot her readers admire. No, it
could not be — so let us light a candle and call it a day. ‘Here the matter ends’, says Dilkc in the sentence following the terrible admission he has
just made. ‘There all resemblance ends,’ says HacColl, echoing — almost
copying — Duke’s phrase. Mr. Green, pp. 211-214, tend.s to bc]ieve that there is more of Pattison in the novel than that. but the loaning authority on George life, Professor Gordon S. Height (8), has convinced
L 10
hiif -rhb1y, co-’r ‘f hio — tLi s not the case. Out of Ocorge Eliot’s distant oast he has du out the austere end sliht1y reaiculous ligure 01 .iir0 rebant o ivzcs, on ageing scr±oear ci a sort, who, in her innocent youth, had. something like a love affair with George Eliot. Dr. Brebant was not t-;cnty—scven years older then Marion Evens, nor - since, in fact, ho was married — did ho propose marriage to her. Ho was an agnostic, had never been in Holy Orders, and hod no connection with the name Casaubon. The only connection bet-jean the scholarly dilettante of Dcvizes and the Reverend Person of our novel is that the subject of
Dr. colossal opus, which, of course, never came out, was — like
Casaubon’s in the novel — mytholor. (9). By the time Hiadleaorch was ocing vitten, nearly twenty years had passea since the Erabont effaar, end Geor Eliot was living happily with Leweo. Out the Pattisons were very much in the foreground. Thc Rector’s book on Ccc ubon was taking shape, and the friendship between Morian Lewes and. Emili:a Pottison was developing lest. By September 1872 (io), Mrs. Lres was already addressing Hrs. Pettison as ‘Bear Figliuolina (little daughter)’, and she says in her letter: ‘I want to say that VTO will talk over all affairs of the heart when I come back and you arc in London’.
Professor Height refers us to aneaher litter of the same month, fro:: George Henry LE-aes to John Black-rood (11). ‘Surely,’ says the Novelist’s nusbond., ‘Eorothoa is the vry cream of lovely womanhood, She is more like her creator tuna any one else ann more so then any otnar of nor creations.
Only those who know her (Dodo — or her creator) under all aspects con have any ictca of her.’ So says bees, who should have known, and his evidence, combincu with that of Dilke, should be accepted, even if it flies in the face of il the obvious facts. Or should it?
Lady Di1k’s - Emilia Pattison’s - Book of the. Spiritual Life was editeS. and published by her second husband soon after her death. Her memory was still fresh, and there verc many people alive who knew her, Mark Pattson, ens. George iliot. inc wnole iinalomarch affair was, as Deixo himsele says, subject always aistasteul to my inere was, I third: (though at the moment I cannot prove it), some raliala gossip in London circles that Casau’oon’s letter in the novel wee a replica of Pettison’s proposal of marriage, and there was no point in denying that. But one had to make the rest of this ‘distasteful subject’ as unlikely as could ‘oc be— llived, and years of political experience had not bean wasted on Sir Charles. He therefore decided that, as far as his reading public was concerned, ‘here the matter ends’.
Duke, however, knew more. The Dilke Papers in the British Ziuseur. coLtin fe rolr-es of _s Direc, ater:o untablis e 0l cras of there were used. bp G,rrni and i’nck’rcll in their standarci. biogrphy of Dilke published in 19179 and the following is not among them. Sinc it represents what Dilko really knew end. thought of kiddlcmarch and. the Pattisons, one may be oheused in quoting it at full length, omitting only the discussion of Emilia Pattison’s early religious opinions (12):
In this month of libruary 1675 I revived an acQuaintance which had slumbered for 13 years and which was destirc not again to drop. From 1658 to 1860 I has. been very intimate with a girl three years oleer than myself, who had much influence over me - milia Francis Strong — who heu been a. fclloa member of the committee of the South Kensington bat-club, while she -eras a regular South Kensinjton student -rorking under (unsure, J.G.) Mulrcaay and I an occasional student as a pupil of a stuaant (unsure, J.o.), competing only occasionally in examinations. Her great talent, and. power of expression in opeech and. writing made her rather a terrible person to a boy of sixteen when she eras nineteen, and she scored. altogether to belong to an older eneration then myself, and. I classed. her with people of a greater ago and rank, but still II
worshiapuci faaa afar, and she was kind to me and ucod to t-Jk to me a gre t deal. In 1861 she marric5 ama I saw but little oi nor, 1thouh I soar something of her husband, until the beginning of 1875, as she came but little to London and I ares not at all at Oxford. I had on the appo rancc of idLdJlcmarc bcn one of those who saw hoar (rasura, J.G.) Ceorga Eliot had droam from Emilia Strong the opiaftn o± Dorothca :dcook and ho-: she tried to draw (roe., J.G.) vie-i of Merk Pattison’s character in that of the Revd. hr. Casaubon — to whom shc indeed gave a narao -:hich could only show that she both meant Pattison and meant to i k1ao-:ra to aeon him. The portrait of the author of the Lifc of Cosaul:oii, under the name of Casaubon, was a cruel one. Goorg lioe evidently had a personal dislike and oomtcropt for the man and ricd to show it but it chiefly differs from the original in the total dis regard for thu real lc’.rnin5 which Pettioo undoubtedly had. (Ros. of about three lines, j.&.)..... closer than two other portraits ::hich ‘.:ere essayed by two othor writers, one by :.:nock and one by Rhoda Eroughton. The story has no boaring whatever upon real fact and no relation to it, as 1 eny sho-,: at once by mentioning that Emilia’s Casaubon livea tor tucnty three yeas after marriage, and livut. till she was 44. But Georgu Eliot roust have worked hard through all her Oxford friends and tbrouh Pattison himslf (for sha knv: him at on time vry well, & ha was -very tntinate oriend at one moment 0± George Henry Lewes) to gut at evry fact hCij had a bearing upon his cbarcter. For example, Casaubon’s letter to Porothea at the beginning of the 5th chapter of aalemarcn, from what acorge inio-t hersel! tola arc in 1375, must have Icon very near the letter that Pattison actually -a-rote, and the r.yly vary much tha same. Thc effect upon mc in 1875 of much conversation with hrs.PaLaooom dumng her convalescence, aftr a Irightful attack of
gout ... (bare follows a long rasura, and then a discussion of bar ra— ligious opinions, which I skip, except for the following rather siynifi-. cant passage, .o.). :irs.Pat-tison’s highest standard in all things greatly effected r wa of looking at many matters and brought me each to where I had boon before recent inferior days VVhcn inaftr ya-r0 our long intimacy had dcrona into close friendship, I had. the impertinence, not by speech, for I should not have dard, but by letter, to ask Mrs. Pattison about Middlcmerch, and the main taxt of hcunaiy, after recounting her growth through high Church discipline, aftrmars rcvalutionised by positivism, and how these had left behind them the habib of self—control, and the habit of trying to regard the claims of others as obligations to be fulfillen at any cost to herself, she -rotc nI(hera follows a long rosura of a ftr lines or sentcas, j.c.). To give all to a woman who can only foal intonso compassion, be patient end forbear (another rasura, supplying, by Dilke’ s later hand, the following sentoitco, J.G.). I would give my life to free him from the
mietakc thh. was made — that I made.
LerL the matter might ret, but for a faa. observations. Dilko’ sviJnco, CCO:1 if that pare of the Diaries was written soon after 1875, cnn hardly bo doubted. It eras in that year that he renewed his friendship with Emilia Patticon, a irieraiship which aa.s to ica to their marriage after the Rector dicd. the volumes of letters containa in :hd. bISS 43903 ff. show, their corrcs:ondcncc from then on became as regular as that between man and wife. It was alco, one saspocts, ranch more intimate in toum than the mere oorro pondcnc batwecr t-:o friends as the number of xcisions in these volumes of
::s letters she-s. The beginnings and. ends of lettrs — the customary place
for words of endearment — are casfully out out, excot in one case (13), rbcr th words ‘hy dear’ are allo J to stand at the bgianing of a lct-tr, but arc then folloomi by a rasura of about one line, which, one susp.ots, did not colLtain a discussion of the French Government’ s policy in Central Aric
Duke, though a Ca:bridgc man himself, says that ho ‘sa-. something of her husband’. Mrs. Pattison, as we have soon, was by thu timo this part of 3.2
a the dlprios was nitton, Corgo Eliot’s clnso fri nnd • aM Lens vats very intimate friend at eric tomont’ of the Rector of !inooln. To crown it all, it was Qcorge Eliot herself who told Di)ke in 1875 (when, ore presumes, ‘Esther hatd told what he was unto her’) that ‘Casaubon’s letter to Dorothca must have been very near the lettor that Pattisot
y, then, should Lowes th±nk — end say — that Dorothea is a self portnit of Georgo Eliot herself? Ho’ much did he knovi
It .s just about possible that he did. If so, ho was alr..st cortti.nly sworn to secrecy, an.1 his letter to Blackwcod was a faithful atto.ipt to cover up. But I think we have a batter clue to the real cnst:er in Georo Eliot’s letter to Ertilia ?tttison of September 5th, 1872, frzn which I havo just quoted that sentenco about ‘all affairs of the heart’ • Lt us have the sentence in its right contexts
‘I am rather harrassed ;ith finishings and preparations, and Mr. Levies, with super-human goodness, has been writing all ry motes for many weeks. But I could not lc.t him be my- secretary to you, because I want to say that we will talk over all affairs of tha heart tn I coi.e back and you arc in London’.
It is this ‘talking over all affairs of the heart’ - I do not believe that even in latc Victorian times this was a strictly mcdicil t€.rra — that even Lens must not know about — not cnn the fact that it tkcs place. If so, it seems very likely that it was Georso Eliot herself who tried to cover up by te1lin her husband tint it was her old self she had portrayed in Miss Brooke of Middlezuarch, thus becoming indirectly responsible for the birth and floworin of the rth of Dr. Brabant. Hot; Lowcs, ‘a very in tir.ate friend at onc totcnt’ of Pattison, could have missei the tru: ori ginal of Mr. Casaubon i5, perhaps, en enigna - bitt probably a r’tttr minor one if it is to be oor.iparou with the enigma of almost three gonerations of friends, critics and scholars disbelicvin, their eyes and cvontuallg pro ducing Dr. Brabant as the Key to the Middlcr:trch :cythclo-. Lewos rts a faithful and admiring husband and, as his own reputation ties beginning to decline, hc became his ,ifo’ s sooretnry, amanuensis, oritic and publioity officer, baskinc in her sunshine and hclpinj her to bring out hcr genius. Like the Benedictine Professor of Zoology- in the adage (end some of his lattcr-dey imitators), he would probably says ‘As a natural historitan, I submit that those crc the bones of a donkoy; as a faithful Chrietir’.n, I worship the relos oi the Sint’.
ihat, then, about Zr. Brsbint? One razrbcrs that there is litt.e similarity between bk:: and Er. C •saubon of the novel — and ho is never, to my knowlcdcc, ncntionod by any contemporary in relation to that reverend per son. His revival — if one is not to call it an actual resurrection — is duo m’ünly to people’s rclttctence to admit, in Duke’s own words, that ‘the portrait of the author of the Life of Casaubon, under the name of Cctsaubon, tas a cruel one’, ami that George Eliot, whom evori:ne admires as a novelist, was in her private life capable of such cruelty. Could it just be, as Mr. Sparrow thinks (14), a conspiracy between. two hih-r±nded women to revenge themselves in public in such a ‘;ay1 The answer now must be that Ccorge Eliot must have been ca;able of precisely this, end we have the opinion ‘I of Sir Charles Dilke on this point - a man who had no reason to like Pattiscn or wish to defend him. iLnd. vie h’-vo the evidence of Professor Height hinself for the way in which George Eliot, imdor the guidance of Lewos, become almost offensively harsh on John Chapman, one of her first and. most Important literary patrons, once she felt she could do without him. It is all told in Professor ilaight’s Georze Eliotj.nd John Chapman.
Shell te, then, leave the Doctor of Davizos to rest in peace? Porhaps I C- 0 CD Cl P On. I (3 -j -p -- ,-H -p -p -C: — —i C’) 0 -0 U) ,—I U) r-P 0 C) C’ CD C C) •r- Cl) -P C 0 0 C, H rH P Cl H 0 H — 0 ,D H 0 3 ,-H ) 0 D - -o P 0 - C C 0 ‘ L - C) -P 0 - rrH r- r-j 0 r- .2 0 O0-- WU)U4) 0L oF— c’FHP— P -0 ‘)Cl.-C-F’i I --P)PP N-P,--1C)L) ,iC.)O&)H 00 )I0 0Or0RHdP -Pi5 -P00 )jH 1410(4 UD4IF’ Q,-P-p 0-P-4--) Cl) I cJPPi 100 -PrH(;_:r-’-Pr-- -p0 H C -‘‘-I(’ rI 0 JO ‘20 0 L:rdFl 0CC (nH’-- ç C) 0 fiDLHOHCJ 0 C, ) ç —S 04 C) ‘lC1 0 “ H P ‘04 C) H H C C , -0 0 ( -p 04 H 41 4 rI -10CQ-PC0r—1 00 41 OH -POC Cl)) 0 0 -P00 (,)f2j’ Fr—10Cl’Cl-P C) CD C) (p 4—4—1 -1 rH ‘0 -P (42 ‘1 C,) CC •H 41 04 0 H P C)4 .0 (. .0 - ---4 C-tOo) Cl )CHPF-4 H0 04P .—PrH040 ci ‘1 -P’tl L) “rH 041000 .rHOLlrH -PVc 0’-Cr-c)1 ‘3 l) 3 -P r-H P C) 0 0 P P 0LO rH Cl) CC) ‘ii ‘0 ( Ci) -3 CC it) C) -‘- ‘0 0 -P ‘0 U) r 0 P - 0 I C--_-PCl+ LO’ P ‘) C) Cl fl--P (20)3410-HO ‘il r—)Fj -C0 -O Cl CJH000’)WUL) C)PH.-P IF.) 0PP0U)1H rHPF>C)0000 -I (3011 0’-> IC)’)rHCl$lW Pt C’) CC) — r-1 H 1-) r-) CC) r—4 0 F-) rH 0 r-) CC ‘0 Cl 0 0 P 4 CC ‘0 -4--’ ‘0 C) 0 41 0 P 0 H 0 C) . Cl r’ (Jr--C) 300 ‘0 .)r--JCCpp,--_ -H0 -Cicijr--DH-(D 30 •rr-C)C1F-’PC) i0’d-P (p’.H “ 3 — .00(3 -p ç-pc’,-) Op -j p—lI ) r-—’ 4 -PP —-io -ocl--’ -c- C—, O’d0C) 0C0d ri -PP000.d-PClC0000(2O dc ,00,--irIOIHC310 r—j1-l000dP ;-FC’r-HC) C)r-IP(Dr--4 00CC) 0-P 0 00 0 r4 -Fl-’- Cl) -,-IFlF-4041---0 ‘Hrn00tFCl(0 41)C3 ‘‘Y’ 0CDOU)HOOrOO,J 42)4 OP C)’C4--11 (ii 3 (Jr’:H 410 C,) 410 .—1C)CIOOCJC) P’ Jo-CO_lCD Cl ,—.pçU) p—41t) -4C1’C)C))F>C2, r-(42_C)-,p00 3:-F tF0O0U200’—r, ()U).)_ 0 -3-P .‘O ioo •ocj-P 0o’Ju-pc) “1 0 -pfl ‘io 3- .4)HOrP C’ Cd •C-J ) r-Cl) 3r-—10FJ3-P 414141 0 C-) 1-c-i-P C)’0rHH ci( 4) CC 3>-,-’P’CH)tf)J-PC.) (C..j CO -, 4) ( FI -P J -P CC) C 4 C) > $4 41 r-H CI 0 ‘-4 (2 p ‘-1 -4-) 3 1 C) 4) ‘0 Cl 1CQ) r-H0C-’r-H()) 0n144-) rH ‘1)-PU) ,Oc,F,—IciCi’,3CO’3 (3-0,410 (3 pQCH)(’)çj (C) • ‘0 44 • -P 41 0 -P Cl r--I 4) 4- C’:) r-j •,-4 $4 (3 C’ •,-1 -,-- C —4 41 C) Cl 0 oF — — H F-I - -p CC 04 0 • 12 U--P -P dr—Ill) 00 c-H—i (tC’)’0.,—).)O(j$4 C-I-P OP ‘OOC’f0-000i—- cn • HO, OF r4U)0-IC)c1P-i ‘‘ 0(3 4141 ()CC)C)h o— .dPoC-I ),l) ‘CiC’iC-4-. Cl-P’C) 0 0) -‘‘-0 )>-P 3410 -C--—-C--,-r--41--l )()C)0O,’)PEH’F’> (3,3 F-CPLC 0CC’ Cl ,‘OOC- Th Ci) Ci 2(C) C041H 0-4 00 0 r—4 OH.C)C O’CC)PC” OrHOHO -PC) (30-Pr-H IoCIH I) £—‘ El oo0 -C--’:O11,:’ 4) ‘tO C) -PHP’P 4104 P$4 ‘J•P-P ‘3”-4-’1 ‘0 -eH41-PC3I-H---4C2 .C-10--000P’’Cl :.o ‘--2,03 ‘C) c’j -p.3-P 000 jr’, 3-P •-r-04 0(1 ) 2 C’ ‘c’000-P4.4W) Or-I “jCI .“OF( O’dP ‘00 1-POrl r—’O i’ (fl41H—-4 H OP U—OF-iH’ “, 04’0044 d)4’4 02C •PCl OHH 00-P r-1 F-) C)t)dJ (Dr—IC r—l0F> 00cc O,O0 (312C) • 3 Cl r’l -ICI)0 1C-.PO 0(4 C-) (4 ,3-j))41Q3-P -0 -4-- 0000 3)30 04141 1’) C-il C-)) 3 iC-Or-HO 0-. C2 .-OOP’0 0-c-CU (3Or-l--i(24lC1)CP 34100 r4-3 0> -r- 1) 4 IC) 0 i$4 -‘-‘3 OHC 20 ‘-, )41 c- 0 ‘-10 0 JF>J--)4--l(3c— 0r -PrH’0 420’ 0 CC-’ OTh.L’PU)04-’0 rH 0F—H-0-PFlOC)’0000L’-000 00 ( C( -PC’) (4CF:H4 Ct) +‘C)Cl P 4-’ 1 lOFlOCfl 0 C-l,02 (1) H0 C U) 31 Q-Pc’,4t)C-1,-- O”H CCC) ‘0 0 4-’ -rtH’)-P OF— -PC) H ClH3UC-’,OP-4-’ Cci”r- PH HC) I OO0P C) “C’IO-l 0 )rHP)’Q O423O(.,c,r—1C- (1) ouF> •04’- (IC) UO0:)4O,0-1-’L’-4-’ C),ThC) H •IPHci -041 3 Ff2 Cp$441p 3 4) )2-HaF-Pr--l 4) 3 C-I U) i--i 3.0 )ODC4-)U0O oP(D,vqO F-i-P F>,Qol 1 -HOc r-J OP rH) -1(200 •O Co +‘C)O no P41 000w -P-i-’HO’O o’P)it’-IF>-P C’ OH CH—I •r—I-HP 3,C!Q,-IQ,)c) zd’d 0) P cCP1),F>CCIP 0-00.0 — -P00cC 0 Old) Qc- +‘O C-r-FlHCir-14) 0 0040 HE)PC-j 41 — u-P 0 .4)t) pp-P-Pt)4)w -HP (fl\3C-I +‘,Cll’OPHP tOC-4Ci0 -4-i-’CiC)CI4 34) Fr-H iOCp’24)’300 .‘+‘ 0HF-I.41P ooP-H ‘010001-, ‘00 -Pr-Hr--ICIC)0(2 at) i •H-PcCCP•P 0 -P0000W 0 ‘iHC)C) 04) 00 000o000 1) R44) 1) H-l C) rp,0>’U) ‘41 041 1100 )C) r4E Oic-’ ‘041., cFc’L1’dP Ci ‘‘ ‘:0-34) (JO 040 -‘,4) ) r—)’H.-r’. -C--i -3 (JO-) 00 0000 CIICC -C)D0cC H 3r-O H r- -P0.’- 0 — -4- -10 O0H ri- -I-3’-PF---I 300Cr’) 00 -POHClJc ‘0 CO .) -4-’ -Hr-HO )—,C:C)-PCC cC -H -p(4.,)J 00F>004100 l)CJ’C’041).4-P0i0’CDOC(20 -230(410 -i-”ClC)410) i.t) C) C1PP(2 ‘1)-P 000-1 ‘0-4-’ ,—‘-P 0’3-l-’ 00 CC HO’-) •PH)’l()24H >0-r-I(ir-1 F> C) (‘30Cc 3-HF4)C.iCl)1) -(H H ,D-HO.IC-iw ——r---PP41. F-’ I ‘CO$4.,’C)C)r—l’) --P -Polo 001) C:) --C1(C-N-OCIOO3ci, C-OCO,rH-HC- -i’r-PFlCi CC- -O1’T3’’P I)-$4H0’DHF> 4)C--i-P-’D0’) 0’ IC) 04 C) 3 ---I H “0 -‘-“ (1 C-H P .0) 0 c-F c-I — 0 0 H -I-) -P r,_, -C ‘ ‘ ‘ C 3 -P 41 (1 r- 0 C’) r’. ,) 1 - 4 C-—f CC --F0) Ci -I-’ C) q C)) Cl 43 • CD ‘3 -P 0, C) r—I Co -‘--“ F-I Ft -P C-) Cd • H 0 ‘0 ‘, (4 0 3 )>, 4, (flF- 31) oP 00) 0)r—1 1214 ‘ JIr—’IHCC’iOU r-’ P.,-I0002F-P0> t)U)I-Pr--I.l))0’0 ---4 —I o 1> Cl w ‘3 C-I ‘) Cl) ‘3 C-) C) -P .11 44 4j -p 0 ‘0 0 0 0 3 C-’ 4-’) 04 C) P -H ‘0 04 0 3 c-i • C’ ‘0 0 41 (4 0 CD U) (1) ‘I ,—I C-I ‘2 ‘3 41 - Ci :2 (3 C’-) 41 ‘3 C’) .r-I 0, I ---1 C--i 4-) C) ‘- F C,) -0 “ P 4) C -F-’ 3 di 0 -P H C-F(3 ‘3 1) P .0) 41 (4241 )r-H Or—F -P-PC: .11(2-P -0:11-Jul -P o•H00)-p -j 10 o-P::F ‘.r-f 443 )r--’: 0(flP(4HCFC--iOCi -1-’ - cli — (42r-it-’POCi’) 0 00-PH -H)i---lP41)_4H04 04 $1’0’-dO+’HO liP ‘3-P OcFH •G)-P’J’zjlfl> OOC-4’)O.Hj)’IC-l(4()-HO’J -(‘Ci) ‘004 OCl0 ‘0-poP (9-’)0 ,JUCl—100 F-Hr--ICfl.OC’W-P 0 41(40 0 OCIOOF.- ‘11 3H0 .0 C-,4200dFCl (‘2041-P 10 PH>-H’ir-HPF’,OF1’,) (‘3 rH-HHrHO’’d-P 0, ,),_) (C ‘3±’ ro 1l)Ci C,) r-IPOr--l 3 0U-PP-ir’IO LOCI 0441 u0,ti000 • H.P .041 C2W41flQr-C)CJ’0C, F-- co-H 110 :3 -P-P 0 I)) .C’)-14100’0C)d013 Cl) -PrOC-P -D) I 1—C) 12 -0 •D-,C’( ‘)c-’’’)IHC-lC-iOr---) O—-I-’ •F---i 1,11-.) 0-or-HO £2 •:4’-) -H-- U-t)l CC2eic,cO(D—.,)P0.cF 41 F-, 14-0 [0 •4-Ht)0 44-H’) 0(4-P COO Cl-H-PH 41041-PlO Cl .--,,--OJ (4 FlCC-P-rC-0C--i-r-’’0 r—1’,’-IO-P’J -4-.) ‘ -P02U) 00 r--I0 C’),POPOOO-Pt) CCC”-H -P’),HC,) ,—1 4-’ C -0 P 0 r I-H 3 U) C Cl ,, I—I C 3 — 14 0 — 0 F—I C 11 C H +‘ 0 fl—i Ci (3 -P 0 0 2 P 0 2 0 “ C-4C5$444C) ‘r--IH_- .1-P-P OC’- $4 ‘a $410.PCZCCCI’)C-FrH)-FP -HP-0000’.O-PC’ 4,rH-P HrH) CCClC)’-CN -p (Cr-HO 34)-PHd,) +‘CJO ct) 12 r-rlFO.H:C-P Pt)0 r-H)3U-P)lC-Ft4Cl-PC,CD 0,• r—. ‘0004) 12, 00-P-P 00,-HO 410 -pr-IC)0 (3-P Cl)HLC(3G20C0) (4_I -l00,0QH(iF>O-HO )PCC’OL( lsl,—1O’C)(r-t440 ‘.-,--i0HH00o0 U)’) 00CC-ICC .c.F0O0c)r—fl 0 O1)HCOF’10010404F0.”-’-40(101000(12 P-ir-CHCCC))C)F-tC)O ,-IjqOl--,-P-Pr-)P0C) — ‘Icd-H,,—C-HEH -p10Cp000H
his
studies
in the
Vatican Lihiry.
The
correapenrlrnre,
if not
is
pcrin-,
honeymoon
in Rome,
neglected
by
her
husband, raver:nd who left her
to pursue
Here
bill
Ladisla.
the
Davia
River.
— of ::1r3wkem
rch meets
Dorothca
on — her
wow::
(21),
Here
the resemhlnee
is not to life, but to
hi1r1lr:areh (22).
him,
would
not
take
her
him :;it on
holiday
which was mainly
intended
for
his
dama:nt,
that her husix
had nd. left
for S:itzerlrmi
and, although
she
hd
asked
Iaarriago
to
forth,
she meets
Rivrs
again,
she t.lls him,
to his uttee
basil—
though
one may
never
knc-r
its precise
dotils. Then, some time
aftca
Thlinda’s
It
may not
be an
accident
that
y.t
another episode looks only too real,
clear
‘from
the
first’
that there
was no love or sympathy
in
question.
the
excruci’ting
asterisks
that
follow,
Mrs. Pattison,
like Eelinia,
made it
to
a women
who c m
only
PLC1
intense
coinpassioll, be
patient
and forbear’
-
the
only
survivor
of one
of
?ss. P:ttison’s
lottcr,
which
says;
‘to give
all
one
needs
more,
there is
that sentence
in the extract
free:
Diaries,
‘that
side’
meaning
—
the ohysical
union bct-an
husband.
and
wife.
And if
twk
first
I expressed.
the trongst
a-arsion
to th:.t
side
of the comma-a
life’
Mrs.
Pattison
is here
speaking to her
husband
‘You
cannot
forget
that from
get
the of
Patisons’
common
life
from
ltt_r a qacted
by
Mr.
p.45.
on
Spmra.r
or
perhaps
not — all that
strangely
ccrresponds
to
—
that little
glimpse
vie
a strange
expression,
coming
from
a.
woman just to
ho
engaged.
But it
strrng]y
her
his
future
wife —
love
or sympathy;
—
sh has none
to offer,
This
is
their
wedding
(20), she
mJ:es
it
clear to
him that he should
not
expect trom
hcn
ELlinda
meets
‘urth in. the
Netic:il
dailcry to dscaiss the olans for
Era’cant
for
Ecliada,
ii Pout
l’inventer
I shül go through —
one
or two more
For the
benefit
defenders of
of the
Hrebant
story
alas,
there is — no
one of an actuel fact.
Miss
broughton
mentions
this figure
a fee:
times, with
the ivirinese
-dmt r
iaeting
with Hiss
Strong and her
acc.ptancc
of Pettison’s
offer
of
aayriege.
nut.
It
is not
unlikely
that
eighteen months eassed
hetsen
Duke’s last
18d0,
vie
are
not told,
and from
the
ay Dilk apeaks, it
looks as if
she
did.
If sh
saw
anything
of Duke
after
he had left for fr ace
the in summer
of
this
is
where
Pattiscet
rioposci
to her and where the marriage
took place.
t’wkncu.
E.ilia
Strong
was
almost
certainly
Oxiord. during 1L
most of
lS6l
precise?
Dilk,
vie er
told
by his
biographers,
spnt
the summer
of 1860 in
hailie.
Strong,
and that t:o yars
later
she
a. m’ied. P.ttison.
Can one be
more
It
be :r.ay
of
some significance
that it was in 1859-60 th .t Duke knee
she
accpts the Professor’s offer of marriage.
It
is
only
aL’tLr
that
that,
in period state a of utter
d.esair
and prostration,
left
her, she
waits
patiently
and
desperately
for a sign
of life from
him (19).
Pattisen,
Professor
James Forth.
But for
eighteen months
after Rivers
has
her into
the
desperate
and. lovcless
marriage with that awful
caricature
of
afar.
His failure
to express
his
love Belinda to is what
eventually
pushes
or seventeen
who finds
his
beloved. —
rather
terrifying, but
still
worships
from
kne.:
Enilia
strong. Ho is
hobbledehoy a
though
probably
— older
than
sixteen
almost
word
for
word
to Dilkc
s
description
‘
of his young
self when he
first
the
heroine
and
the
youthful undergraduate
D-ii d Rivers.
Rivers
onewers
hhe
reaner
of
Eclinia
can hardly
forgot
the awkward love affair between
a T
im.vc
been the source
for more
than one
episode in the
novel
thwt
ensued-.
va know,
did
confide
in Iiss
Eroughton,
as i;Ir.
Sparrow
has
pointed
out.
She
heart
with
most
people
certainly not
with
Rhode. .Broughton.
krs, Pettison,
most
reserved
persons
on earth,
and
ho ,:ould
not
talk
over all
affriro of
the
iriends
of the novelist, wife
more so
than
husbana. latteson was
one tao 01
graduates,
end Pattisos.
bi:aself.
Of
these, only Pattson
and. his wife
vrewc
pnts
:cre
rs. Pattison,
her sister
(Srah of the novel??), a few under—
Ealinila is
almost ccrtainl
based
on
an actu I event,
in ;hic1 the periici—
s
9), errcw has swken (pp. — 8 tl:e ‘eurri.cc 15 striking and gests the possibility of a similar cnisce in the life of the Pattiso:ls.
Vfhat can onc conclude from all1 this? Oenerally speaking, one can now say that there is definitely more to Bélinda then what cColl nould have us believe. The reeL is saecu.lation, but I think that evn the staunchest pupil of Carneades would admit that it has more probability in it than the Brebant theory, and further rcserc1i into the Duke Pacers and other contemporary docu merits may even substantiate some of it. I submit that it is not unlikely that Emilis Strong, like Eclinda in the novel, was actually in love with the young Dilke in her London days of 1859—60; that she still waited for that strangely precise period of eighteen months aftor she la,b a him for him to declare his love for her, and only then, in despair, accepted Pattison’s proposal of marriage. The made it clear to him from the first — here we ore in the realm of facts — that there was going to be no love betwen them. It is possible that she dii meet Dilkc ahortly after hr marriage — Thike himself cays he saw ‘but little’, nob ‘nothing’, of her — and that she complained to him of time w y in which her husband neglected her for his books (for the other side of th story sho wo’elu not tell). Possible, since both novelists recount such an episode. The ‘surrisc party’ episode, as no say:, almost certainly had its counterpart in real iif, and one -condors .:hcthcr, like Rivers iii the novTh, Duke happened to be present in it, too. The eighteen months episode, with its similaritg to -chat hd actually happened, :.y provide us with yet another rLasorm — perhps mor important than the ones advanced so far — for Emilia’s accptance of Pattison’s proosal of marriao. Did she, like Eclinda 1mm th. novel, think she Lad been jilted by the youthul Dilke? But I can nun see the learned ghost of Dr. Erabant of fevizas admancinm on me. I shil say no more on this point.
Naturally, the next problem is -eLy, under such circumstncos, did Pttison marry Brillia Otrong? Although, now he was Rector, ho was allo:cd to marry, t1rCC was no necd for him to do so. For forty-eight years he h-ad lived as a hchclor, end heads of colleges could live comPort-ably and respectably ‘cithout ever getting married — Jo’:Tht never did. bihy should Pattison marry, vhen the condition, ‘from the firet’, is ‘no love’?
Tho accepted vrsion - with chick Mr. Sparrow agrees (p.42), is tiae.t Pettison did not marry out of love. Cesaubon’s formal letter is mooted in evidence, and no sugeestion is made that this may be due to Thttison’s almost pathological shyness and rsrve, which could on1y make it more difficult to him, at th age of forty-eight, to declare his love as a reason for asking the hand of a avore,n who was so much younger. Th phrase rnmrri:ge of minds’ occurs a fec: times, and its us in Mr. Robert Lidddll’s c Almond og — Thick, cm are told by Mr. Sparrow (note, p.30) is based on a good krLo’aledgs of the Pattison 1PSS ire the Bodley- makes it likely that it originated with the Pattisons thcamsThves.
ibis is quite possible. iotla Pattiscn and his wife may have coined this paraso for the ‘boneft’ of tna public when the facluam of their marrage bcnama obvious. ‘I married him for his mind’ is a bTheer and nicr version for the public consumption than ‘I did not really love him’, and it is likely that this was Mrs. Patticon’s way of patting the matter.
It seems obvious, ho--ever, thee Pattison coeld. not al:ays make himeclf accepe that horrible condition put to him ‘from th first’, and the first letter quotece by Er. Sparro-.: on p.45 can show this. P ttison was ala s at tracted to ‘.-iomen, and in their company he was less reserved than in the company of most men. Mi later affair with :Eta Bradley shows that he, at least, -ceo not ciuitc happy -rith a ‘marriage of minis’. Mete had no mind, but to Pettison she was an attractive woman. So, for that matter, was Thilia Strong to namer of her contemporaries. Is it not possible that Thr mind was only one factor in making Pa.ttison propos to her? ‘From the first’, She made it clcr to
j
If
some of
former
icy hypotheses more arc pure then speculations, a certain
George
Eliot’s
‘Figliuolina’,
who talked her to all affairs of the heart’.
One
remembers
that,
tna at time iaiddlemarch was written, Emilia was already
difficult to guess?
predict
in
1871 2
whet would hapron - in 1385. was Put the future so very
made
Dorothca
marry him after Caseubon’ s death? Obviously, she could hardly
as
George Eliot
really prophet a when she introduced ill Ladislaw and
for tee last time.
acre,
again, the
shades ci jar. Eraoant cell
on
me to speculate
again hope, I
—
liant
suggestion pp.
by made
Mr. Sparrow on 17
18 about ‘life imitating art’. -
I
could
have finished
this part my of discussion here, but the for bril
bock.
this
was
inconceivable
life, in but one could always write the on subject in a
Mete.
was
what
Pattison
needed. - As Rector of Lincoln and man in a Loiy Orders
secret,
and when Pattison
met lieta,
divorce and,
assumes, one marriage — to
Paphlets
on Divorce.
1879, In when Emilia’s friendship with Duke was no
much
resembled
his own, and dedicating nearly hole a chapter to dilton’s
Plilton,
describing
the poet’s first marriage which, in its early stages, so
meeting
with
Mete Eradley,
he would accept an invitation to write book a on
it Eat
be may
more
than mere a accident that in 1879, the of year Mark Pattison’s
editing,
or
whether
the choice of topic left was to the Rector himself (26).
suggested
Milton’s
lifc the as Rector’s contribution the to Series he was
his
essay
on
Memoirs. One cannot know whether it was Morley who pjgQfl5
graduate
in
Lincoln, knew and Pattison later on committees, he as tells us in
editorship
of John Morley, in and 1879, Morley himself been had an under
The book
on :‘nton, we have as just mentioned, was published under the
further speculation, and I cannot but succumb to it.
The ghost
of
Dr. Erabant is still standing by me, forcefully pushing me into
women’
of humanity,
had far a greater than average susceptibility the to charm of
±uratn
austrity was as yet only contcnaing uitn more the genial currents
to calculations
easy as ann as ccrtan tnese. as und ailton, in wnoce soul
volous girl.
Love has blinded, will and continue blind, to the wiscst men
for sympathy
rcsonse and for his speculations from an uneducatd fri and
diet
and
philocophicel retirement a recluse of student, to and. hove locked
frequented by
the dissolute officers of the Oxford garrison, the to spare
a daughter of
a cavalier house, to brought have her from a roystering home,
known better
than,
with his puritanical connections,, to taken have to wife
ting
it,
in and saying at this point in the story, Milton that might have
biographer, ‘The
aconainted with the event, has difficulty no in predic
to
say on the early stages of Milton’s first marriage (25):
he
was
always
little
a liKe chosen his ecroes. us Let hear, then, wnot he has
Lincoln
was, perhaps, not unliioc nic hero in this respect: in come respects
sciously
be•ras,
we
obtain an internal lif of the mind’ etc. Rector The of
prose
writings.
Prom what he directly con-municotes, from and what he uncon
his of thoughts
feelings and in numerous autobiographical passages of his
‘Milton
himself,
with superb a and ingenuous egotism, revealed has the secret
almost
mode
by
Pattison
himself when he writes the at beginning of the book (24):
then editor, the
‘is
really a concealed (23). autobiography’ The admission is
ted
in
in 1879,
the En4ish Men of Letters series of which John Morley was
is
It acknowedged
now by many that Pattison’s book on Milton, first prin
to
take, a risk that oniy man a in love would dare to ignore.
themselves
out
and
love might come ith the growing intiaccy. was It a risk
ceed
with
the morriage
is, that he unless
thought that — things might sort
was
the ]o no I±eocr Te U1i’t
-‘rv-ro
f hL no need to pro 16 17 young ann mot in K sugton and wbo, she L ought at some sbc I am not denying that life imitated art - and did it with a vengeance by killing the first Lady Duke to make room for the second, But art had not made it too diificult for life do produce the imitation. ‘Life imitated art again when Pattison died’, says r. Soarro: (ni7). hut this, teinK, was a conoclous imitaon wnioh sno::s Pattson’s sense ot irony at its eserate east. by the tame he mane his ill the lirsu Lacy Duke was long dead, and the friendship betmen Dilke and Emilic was already much more than a nodding acquaintance. Divorce, the solution to Pattison’s and ibta’s problem as all as that of the Dukes, was out of the question. Pattison lacer his Jays u-are numbered, and no: it was quite predictable that, when he left the scene, his own Dorothea would marry her Ladislaw as soon as this could be done without offence. could not only help his beloved keta, but also give postority a clear indication that he had realized that iddlc:.r was about, by playing Casaubon to the bitter end. 3. Pattison’s_Oxford There is hrdly anything an amatur could add to the professional knowledge of two experts. I shell thercfor make use of the common exam. trick of tal king at large on a subject one knows, whatever its relevance to the actual question. It is Pattison’s character as a scholar that ::ill interest me, and bore my readers, for the next few pags. The natural starting-point is, prhaps, Pattison’s much-quoted definition of learning. ‘Learning’, ho says (27), ‘is a peculiar ccmmound of memory, imagination, scientific habit, accurate obsrvation, all concentrated, through a prolonged period, on the analysis of the remains of literature. The result 01 t:IIS sustainen .t- 1 effort is not a Tech, hut a man. It cannot be ce— boacea ifl prices, at coasists in the lavng wore.. Such a mmii’, ha says a liitlei later, ‘was Isaac O:saubon’. g-1h a man, one is temmtod to say, was Zrh Pattison — and perhaps not even mm. That horo are people waosc personality cannot ‘cc adoqeetely gauged from their writin is true. Such a mail, vie are told, was gir Philip Sid!Iç,’. Johnson eiight have been another, had he not met his dcsweil. Richard Iho:..eon, Casaubon’ s great and faithful friend at Cambridge, was yet another one. but to apply Pattison’s definition in its entirety to Casaubon seems to me a mis take ouusea by unnecessary wishful thinking. That we have all been takmm in by it at some stage is a proof of the power of writings. That the result of true learnine is not a book, but a man is obvious — and the force of scholarly personality is abet strikes one about the Bontlcys and Porsons and Scaligers of this v:orla, even u-hen they deviate from the truth and make thmmselvos an easy prey to the dwarfish ‘ludimagistri’ But that this ‘cannot To embodied in erint, but consists in the living word’ right the to core, is occupied. much arid with externals 0 the Perhaps best on erk Pattison in the But (30). Christie’s tB even not does account get oasciple in T istoi fielct t-e ci’ of the tha no irote also citry Scho1aasbi, of Pattison as by a tutor his pusil hichard Cooley Christie his only direct — successful front. One a fares better little when one the turns account to who became a good scholar but he certainly not penetrate did. the behind — 45 his in Second pp. Scrap Book, ff. Saintsbury was intelligent man, an work Pattison, on is George Saintsbury’s story of his with meeting the Rector should be mentioned here because if only see do it not mentioned I any in into monster a fit caricature. for a Another account, which contemporary George but Eliot, perhaps more civilized a person in her çuiet vo.y him made — except for the more perceptive Mrs. Humphrey ‘ihrd, not as a great novelist as culous front which the Rector to abuse present most people. to The novelists based ‘the. on living portray word’ only the rigid, slightly form:.1 and ridi Precisely, but One to has to turn his writings. Eost contemporary accounts, one realize he, what during his life, for did his friends pupils’ his and ‘constitute a protrepic tow-rds scholarship that has rare power; they make the impression is different. ‘Pattison’s v:ritings’, says Lloyd—Jones (29), centomporory accounts of ‘the dried bookworm’. we ut when his turn to books, life was dedicated his to mind’ Hardly the impression . gets one most from (p.2), ‘the most perfect English example of an uncommon type the man whose - cance of personality it is his books. vies’, says — yr. Sparrow Pattjsons accounts, one turns if to is erie looking for the best more rind signifi lasting is not ‘the living word’, or ,:hat has come d.o.e-i us to of it from contearorary irony The the of situation is that in the case of Pattisori himself, it to applied the indefatigable Casaubon. there much is truth in but this the not whole truth, — and certainly not when scholar’s personality the belittlement to of his output. actual sid, I As UnCOflsclOuSiy, give another to justification, b.y emphasizing the role of the master’s posthuaious book. his Ic. definition of lc:rriing he perhaps tried, which was also by noticed his pupil and friend. John Thrley his essay in on his partly the result of the one of traits major in his character own a fact — he oicncy so highly recommended. In his he kemoirs that admits this was zation. to nod justity his IIC own t’:ilure to to caniorn standards efia— of German universatres aea1 as on to be fol±owcd. in on acaciemac boox nis organi of Patrison’s own post—enaissence (28). heroes Pat bison nimselt see tee worked scholars hard. published and much on many subjects, best in th traditions time, that was leading the world most in subjects, ncrdamLc where and Classical Pattison was -vith familiar the acaciemic liic o Germany, a country which, at domestic problems and ill health, is an achievement to crov:n all. it But enough the book arid Cesau’con, on ;ritton in almost race — a against time, culture and he wished be. it to many For people, this be would achievement his time of on trying make Lis to own Eniversity more the of centre of barring topics, cv: made f contributions a to English literary history, spent and much ject for very he kept long, writing his brilliant essays on various modern Being unable he as admitted later in his Homoirs to concentrate — on one sub — massive History of .rship gchol the after Renaissance, never vies cuite completed. contribution any in rrint Classical to scholersiip. His later project, the the among best one could in hear Oxford. But he never, to my knowledge, made wide the knoeledge Classical he possessed, and his lectures on Aristotle acre written more. so much he hhen still was tutor, a he gained a reputation for most men learned of his times, but so many of his contemporaries 1esar had scholar unashamedly would call productivity. After all, he one was of the Pattison, ho-ever, had to justify own his ick of wha the present—day diaries and not are q.aite ‘the living word’ least his of scholarly personality. faii, after all, even Casoubons letters be lost, but could vre still gain a fairly clear imuression of the man, or at possess Casaubon’s letters and diaries, much of the living personality would. picture of isaac Casau’oon we as have in Pottison’s own book. ic If did riot is not al-zas Uhe case or else vie could not — have possessed such a living 18 19 1ic:: esay viiL ten by C nmmrarT is tact U John rlCf (3]). uny the Paccr : :.n ways, an’i he puts his finger on some of his real short :e gives9 perhaps, tao tett answer to tao proelou of latenu, Cili u.niuliiiied never quite f-alfilled greatness. but when one wants to see tJU — as he him greatness at its bcst, it Js sbiil to Pattison’s books one turns life of the mind’.. self turned to books - to discover the ‘internal concerned, The livino word, which involves contact with the ‘persora’ of the iaan ahich with all his manners and mannerisms, some of them not so pleasant, with of ho prcisrred to ressnt ‘a -acrid he never made’ and wbiicn ended up as part his enter1ial character this sort of ‘living word’ tends to obscure the iruer life which only the hocks re-i. 4 TLTnamaUnivereit. Here I leave eke realm of facts, evidence, even of speculations5 and enter for a short rhile into the troabied waters of controversy. I do it very i’C luctantly, and mainly because I have found much in one of the reviews of Mr. Sgarroi’s bool: that is thought—provoking in lie most literal sense. Mr. Sparrow is knoves to li a reactionary, who stands for reich that is no:: under attack in Oxford and elsewhere, be is aainct most chares in the col— loge system, for k:eiwg the traditional character of his c-an College, devoted almost entirLJy to research ant. study, and has nered to express his doubts about some 01 inc proposals or Lord lronxs’ Commission. ±hs sLeps nave bean closely ,:atcnan for some time, ann he has bean a constant suoect of attacxs. Puns he snoula expect, just as Pattison in his tun was prparcn br Jo:ett’s powerful and successful opposition. Now tun- he 1aas producea such a splcndid precedent in his s:mmort, another attack was inevitable. It is not sunprising that it came from a person of Lord Anran’s ooinions — though it is surprising ho-: close the attack gets at times to rersonel abuse of the man John Sparrow, net just criticism of the harden’s opinions. There is not much to say on Lord Annans first point, that Pattiso was an unattractive cheralier and that there seems to ha no point in briming him Look to life. That .is extr1:al personality was unattractive is clcr, and. Lord Annan joins many of Pattison’s corLtc:eporarics in looking to outside appearances hen trying to understand the inner man. In Pattison, as we have seen, there ens a hute discrepancy botunen the cold and rigid front which ho urien succcssully to arcoent to an alien world ann te internal personality, which only his books — and, to a less extent, his teaching — at times batrayci. This is one of the :aain points that Mr, S•orrse: is trying to make in his book. If it has not been realized, .m are back to s:uarc one, and nay be better ad— visad to gloat over our idaleaarchcs ant. clindas asin, But Lord Annan’s main attack is not directed aainst Pattison the man but against the jdOl he stood for. One should pass in silence his advice to the rt.un of All Souls to go abronu like Pat risen, ‘to Germany certainly — to California — to Japan’, so that he coeli change his con reactionary mind. on the subject of Univrsity Redorm, arid, probably realize that it is tiun to turn the old College into a University of Tecl:nology. Mr. d,arrow :::y dingo his mind some time on de;:ils of university organize ion. Ent, like Pattison, ho is not likely to rclinc!uish his opinions on the di1fercnce between liberal ann professionli education. bky should he? Vihat proof have his critics that their ap;a’oech is the right one, except tint, at present, worldly success is on their side? And uhy should univrities be concerned ciiJly :,i±h worldly success? ‘Unfortunately’, says Lord Annan, ‘i.r. Sparrow seems to think th t the intellect can be disintoreetcu only when it confines itself to those subjects which he classes as labarel stuics can roast be corrupted if the subject stodiod can be shown to have a direct bearing on life’. 20 One should chock the tendency to ask, aith th modern thilosopthr, whet one noons by ‘life.’ and ‘a direct bearing’ on it. But it may not be useless to point out that neither yr. Sparrow, nor his hero Pattison, were all tat giIiv, After all, there are things — all of us uould agree they sore and in attractive — which heupened within living memory in Ger:eany certainly, Japan. They arc proof9 if one needs one, that the fltClleCt can ho disin— terestel in the pursuit of subjects which have, in any sense of this phrase, nuclear a rcverful1y direct bearing on life — the production, for examele, of v-eapons, or the scientific elimination of an inferior rece. The emotions involvcd may not be disinterested. But if, in the acual performance of these tasks, the intellect were not, the objects of these emotions could not have been brought about. I do not think T”r. Sparrow — or anybody - iicd to be reminded of this, eke point is, tact the disintcrcsteci exeroise o the intellect — ahat Pattison called ‘scientific habit’ — is only one objective of a liberal educa tion. It is not an unimsortarit one, but it is there to serve a pursoso, and when it is used to serve any other purpose one can say that liberal education has failed. gein, one should resist the tcuptation to talk about the otymolo— gy of the word ‘liberal’ — we still kno-e Latin nowadays. But one may, perhaps, refer to the writings of a Bollon of Lord Azman’s old College, Mr. B. M. Forster, whore the problem is discussed in a way that my be less unsynpethetio to Lord Annan then the ideals of the 17xrden of All Souls. ‘-iis analysis oc Paetson’ s ±iic ann. ale:nmas’ , says Lore. iuman in Ins review of yr. Sparrow’s book, ‘is convincing urcoisely because it is a defence’. This one may doubt. It is only a defence ineemuch as it tries to show ttht, although Pattison ‘ens a failure in the eyes of the world of Jowett and success, ho racy not have boon such a failure after all in the world of scholarship and ideas. This, I think, is correct. it is true that, in his own time, Jowott woo fairly successful in turning much of Oxford into a prep. school for roliticians and civil servants. But it nas the Oxford of Josett, malgre lui, which produced Housman, arid it was Pttiso’ personal influence which, at last, saw a scholar of European reputalzi.’ ].ka BT.Iatcr inherit the Rogius choir and return Oxford to the front rrho uf e.hjl irohip. }.iuch thc.t is good in academic Oxford today is due to iNc thfluence and encouragement given almost a hundred years ago by Pattison and his friends. The iilcoxes have always ho.d the funny knack of aupcaring to win the day, but the influence of the Schiegels survives benind the scenes and is still at work when many people have tenon it to have long been deac. me present book is a aosGLmony to this. J. OLUCIR. NOIEg As usual, no satisfactory :ork could have been carried out in the library conditions of this Faithful City, and one is grateful to those who hv kindly helped to the Librarian of the London Library for the usual efficient help iv. the loan of books; to the rustees of the British :yisc’ for permission to read the Duke papers; to the Levon and Exeter Institution Library and the Exeter Cathedral Library for existing and possessing boors v.’nich the bnivcrsity Labrar could not possably obtain noodays — and, last but not least, to .:rs. y, Conriolly and S. Gayton of xetcr University Library for their patience and officicacy in obtaining the sine qua non for any research in Exetor inter-library loans. 1 0 T B S 1. when I was reading the Dilkc Papers in the British I noticed a sbudcnt sitting at the same table and. reading other volumes of the same collection. I went over and had a few words with him, in case ho could help me with SOfliC practical information. Ho admitted that ho was working on Duke, but his main interest was in politics, and he know very little of 21 thu see-end Lady Duke. she rarr ed to a clergyman of same sort before she became Lady Duke?’ I am grateful to this anonymouS student for telling me a thing or two about the Duke Papers which I did nO kno. But it is sad. to see that even an expert can only reusaber Pattison as ‘a clergyman of some sort’. 2. Mark Pattison and the Idea of a Nniversity by John Sparrow, Cambridge University Press, 1967. The passage just quoted is from p.1. 3. Oxford Common Room, A studp- of Lincoln Colleae and l1ar Pattison, by V. H. H. Green, Fellow and Senior Tutor of Lincoln College. London, nold, 1957. 4. Greek Studies in Modern Oxford, n Inaugural Lecture. by Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961, pp. 7 — 9. 5. For examole: Raymond Mortimer in The Sunday Times, 7 May, 1967; John Gross in The Observer of the same date; Anonyrnus Londinensas in The Times Literary Supplement, iJay 11th, 1967, pp. 369 — 391; Uocl Annan. in The New Statesman, 14 July 1967, p. 52 (Title: Majc.r Barbara at Nork). Of all those reviews, which have raised some cogent as well as some irrelevant problems, I shall only touch on Lord Annan’s article, which, it will be seen, is not just a review. 6. A Memoir of the Author by the Rivat Hon. Sir Charles V. Duke, Bt., M.P., in Lady D lLc’ s The look of the Spiritual Life, London 1 05, p. 17. 7. Rhoda Eroughton and En1ilia Pattson, in The Nineteenth Century, January 1945, p.31. Both references ouoted l- Mr. Sparrow in note to p.42. 8. The George Eliot Correspondence, vol. V, London 1956, note 5, pp. 38 - 9; George Eliot and John Chapman, Yale, 1940, pp. 23 - 25. 9. George Eliot and John Chapman, o,25, quoting Eliza Lynn. 10. The George Eliot Letters, vol. V, p. 304. 11. Ibid. p. 308. 12. British Museum Additional MS 43932, pp. 137 - 144 (Duke’s Diaries for 1875.) 13. Add. 113 43903, p.19. 14. p. 17. 15. See passage quoted by Haight which I mention in note 9 above. 16. Op. Cit. note 6 above, p.9. 17. Jot ‘loved’ — an interest-ig slip in Owynn and Tuckwell vol. I, p. 17. l8 Though, seeing what Duke’s poblie statements can be lJk, I should not preclude the poe -:ibJ]1 -by of so:n ir ii nrP: fnnriii b bed papers. After all, as I shall precently she.;, there probably was at least one meeting. 19. Eelinda, Period II, chapter I. vol. I, p.27O n the orgnel 1883 edition. 20. 1883 edition, vol. II, pp. 26 ff. Here the prosoesi had already taken p1ee behind the scenes. But why bother? After all, the letter had sirendy boon suooped in lliddlemarch. 21. 1833 ccl., ‘rd. III, p. 111 ff. 22. Book II, chapter XX ff. 23. Op. cit., pp. 8 — 9. 24. 1865 ed., p. 2. 25. Same ad., p. 53. 26. I have written to Mr. P. N. Forbank of Macmillans and. Co., the original pub— lisheas, but he could find no correspondence in the archives between Morley and 2attison about this book. 27. Isaac Casaubon, 2nd edition, . 435. 28. Pattison was a personal friend of Jacob Earnays, who, both in the quantity of his output and wide range of interest came very near to the great Scaligar himself. In the Appendix to his book on academic organization, p. 341 ff. fattison gives a list of lectucas given in Leipsic University in 1866 — 7. It includes the names of such prolific and efficient scholars as Klotz, Ahrens, Overheck, Curtius the grammarian, and the great Ritschl himself. 29. p. 9. 30. Selected Essays and Papers of Richard Copley Christie.. I,onrlorL 1902, p.XV. 31. On Patti son’ s Memoirs, in The Norks of VIscount Mn clay, vol. VI, London 1921, pp. 235 — 267, ******** 37. (7) Sprang from the sea? Partner aircraft has an 36. St. Jean d’Acre was champion once a (3) 35. An A.A. grant will take you to poetees’s a birthplace. (7) expedition (7) 34. English An v;ith its feline very feminine objects own is mixture straage a in a. (3) Doubtfully 30. tragic; apears the at end. he even seemed small, comic &) in Roman a way. (9, 26. He nas rather grand start to ;ith, than Lut uant tht so .:n, ba inally quite 17. (3). may It be but sharp, it wider au fIr get the c1•a 16. Put a rat the into French (v). take oomae t and care cf yci’ll s:d OO’Li () 15. Hesiod’s ‘lovers of sport c. tiZ 1 , 14. different A (3). vantLLe kind of provLde help wiLL observjn oint a for uar a ((). 13. ‘Last’ case fortunate a of aologist. 12. so’ic:ht bat seems riuienLce these Famous a roses, for (7). days. Somevhere 11. in deme a Cephisus, river the along approach -hichever you way (3) 10. ith sail you a a on to lake French someone are wealthy. find sure (7). 9. (7). He torch be in found, but in Land, small I:ay a all part such of city. a 4. Only operations ehort hear needed differently to very (3) CLUIiS POSS !>K :‘: , CROSS, DRD ______ 23 38. There are theories attached to it which are at opposite ends of the pole the tag scmm.There inside shows it’s in the east. (7). 39. Usually serious; in the seat of a once famous philosophical school (3). 40. You and I, the Exe and other things may make good the deficiency (7) 41. You and Gorgo (French-wise of course) have learned connections with Aristotle 42. I’m buying my own in one case (3). (7). CLUES D0N 1. An orator and a grammarian shared it. (7) 2. “Troianoque a sanguine clarus “ Vergil (7) 3. Put a rug in a French bucket — and. watch the birds (7) 5. Lipparently contradictory doctrines of philosophers, mast included in some form. (a, 9) 6, It’s the rains, you see, which crushed the “corrector Venetiae”. (7) 7. Early rising legion from Gaul? (7) a. A small change would make what is already high of chief importance. (7) 18. sine re, sine fide, sine ...“ Cicero (3) 19. My present action is coanected with the exception of 39 Across. (3) 20. nglish suffix in ne-,r form sheds unusual tears (3) 21. Unlike others he has no genes, and I somehow hate him. (3). 22. He turns completely around to sleep a little (3) 23. It involves you as well as us, but to no disadvantage. (3) 24. hat I am doing now is a simple change from 19 Dcwn. (3) 25. Found in a tribe of N. P. Spain; but that’s on1r the beginning of the matter 27. Even the sun is found in this tract of water! (7 (3) 28. Intellectual courtesan (7) 29. Add a flower to a form of transport for an Egyptian king. (7) Country-man turned heathen. (7) 32. Her special power extends to all. (7) 33, Victim who was “mmpar congressus chi1li” Vergil (7). NOTE: Answers will be published in the next issue. D•r-”-- tr ‘PflTt p • A hitherto unpublished poem by Sir ia1ter Raleigh There was once an old thinker called Plato Who had no Idea of Potato; So no fish and chips Could e’er pass the lips Of the Guards in his Ideal State, 0. F.D,H. 24 F. F. Pget, IN THE FOOTSTEPS CT GR3bT, Hale, Loader, 197. Pu. 2DB. Cloth, to/_. Thi.:3 OQ W3S snt to a 1:1 It. Join I). Christie who had already nern attention in the tcxb to cne thirty so e errors in proper names alone (such as Die rsius for I onysus tnroui tub, rchaemcridcs for Achmcnidos, foi 1 iecona fr F cc nas), to an conaete 1 x (after Trophonine, fur example, add 133, 147, 149ff, i6) and to chronological errors such as calling Hartial a friend of Horace (p. 26), although Iforaco died in 8 BO. and MaiL:ial was born in 40 A.3. This was not the most fortunate of introductions to the bosh. It would have been to Dr Pagat’s advantage to have consulfod a classicist about use references; but clearly the proof—readers and uriniers also have let him down. In this book Dr. Paget describes the reasons which led him to cxrlor the many tuI1e1S in and around haice. He claims to have found the lost entrance to i-1:de and the River Styx, the Oracle of the Dead in the land of the Cimmerians visited by both Odysseus and nenoes. For this thesis he anopts the Italian tradition of Strabo for Odysseus, rather than, for example, the Gibraltar identifications of Bradford and Poe ock (whom he does not mention). He is not therefore the first to give the Homeric fokria a physical foundation (of. p.96), but his claim to have found the very Oracle of which Vcrgil’s account of the Underworld is an eye—witness description, is of great interest. The theme is surely exciting and. the author shares the spirit of his dis— covery with the reader. iuIaiuri identified the Oracle of the Sibyl in the Cumoena acropolis in 1932; and no.v Pagct claims to have found the Oracle of the Dead. Accordinc to Vergil and tradition this should have been located at dvernus (and the Grotto della Sibi11, which ovens from the south shcre of Lake vernus, has its supporters), but the author was led instead to Daice. The actual itc of the ETckyommiteion is cut into Dams’s rising hill side beneath the Thermee (baths) of Sosandre. Under this ruin the author found a long tunnel (it is marked by dotted lines in the isop in Maiuni, Tha Phic raean Fields, p.70) which the Italian excavators had abandoned in 1958 partly because of the unhealthy air, partly because they sore convinced that nothing of greet importance was to be found beneath the Thermac. In this Dr. Paget believed they were greatly mistaken. With courage and engi neering skill he cnctrated to the end of this tunnel—ccmplcx; what started as a single tunnel branched into two (the ‘tDividing of the :ays” f. e. VI, 540) and led to an Inner Sanctuary on an upper level end, on a lotrcr level, to steaming water whiCh has been named the River Styx — both levels are connected by galleries at the terminus. Certain small veultao. rooms were also dis covered in which the Cinsoerians ç”priests of the Oracle” p.99) arc said to have lived. Hot only are the stages in the discovery descrihcd (with helpful illustra tions — except that Monte Huco is surely closer to L. vsrnus than fig. 1 suggests), but the ritual journey itself is rcoonstruoteci to show ho: baneas’ journey, when “striped of poetic imagery”, exactly follows the topography of the Oracle. e are infornad that, with :bah VI in mind, one easily reccg— nice s the Pie ag of this ayo, baa Thtrenee to Tartarus, the Piver Btyx, end thu hvin 2tna Hoer cod lsc:ry (ie a ievidtng of the Uays Ore door Lu baba obahoes’ ontrasoe; it is a:rmcsssd tL.t Ivory ibaces aba s:ztt from the Sane Lu ry H:’oi s the ins he of the bunnl s.hicb iv orignolly entered on the ri3it) ih reoen:tiam Lion is ihgnious, but it is here abet, to my mind, Paget’ s thesis shows its woobiiess for surely the Styx is crossed well before the Dividing of the bays (of. Aen. VI, 384ff, 540 with pp. 164-5). This the topography of the tunnel (the Styx is at the end of the lower level) will not permit. The author offers no explanation to cover the difficulty. It is, of course, possible that Vergil visitea ths tunnel (s well as others in the vernus area) and simply moved awkward details to suit his cam purposes. Ihie would be c racteristicolly Vj1ea Le eight then say that the tuniiol cears a ynerai relation to Vergil’ a Jnder:oi1J. Put I Camelot share the author’ a conviction that this was the Oracle of rho eoad emeoificc.lly end. exastly folloned. in the Homeric and Veigilian accounts. s for the cachacological e-idcnce, all the masomy is Roman except for some fallen marble columns (‘cycloperi blocks”) datd by IL P Frederiksen to the sixth or fifth century. (i find, that Mainri, j. cit. p.73, dates a statue of Sosandra, foujad on the site, to the first half of the fifth century.) This does not take us back to the Cin’nerions alec lived, in Homer’ s time (Homer lived 1,000 B.C. on rp. 31 and 90; 800 B.C. on pp. 87 and 15 800 Or 900 B.C. on p. 155), but Pagot is convinced that further investigation of the tunnel - all the rubble Jepoited by hgrippa in his attempt to close the Oracle has not yet been cleared — mill support his claim. I fiat it a curious feature of Baieean archaeology that many buildinas originally thought to be teanles (Temples of Venus, Mercury, Diana) are now kae.oe to to Ihorame; and that what has teen known hitherto as the Ticornac oP Sosandre Pagot now claims to be a Fu plc of cl1o ( o riam t a o t c cleamam amoam f±os a deity). It should, I oi:irdc, be pointed out that whereas P:oget (p.86) re— cota the interpretation of the :uitca noeses as service” orcas for slaves and stores in favour of associating there with the religious purposes of the Ci;maerians, Laiuni had. already eugnested (o, cit. p.75) tiiat these subterra nean rooms were probably used by slaves and freedmen for religious purposes. The search for the Oracle proper does begin until p.83. Up to this poinb oie are prepared for what is to come by two chapters on the Phlegreean fieles med on Orpism Mr i K C Guturam’s appears to be the only source for the Orpheas ohnp;er, but insted of Outierie’ s critical juegements we find. Iii Pagat’s account that’Tthe conjecture of the specialist becomes the certainty of the layman’ (i. M. Linforth, The drts of Drgeus, p.xi - a eeork which Paget might hama consulted with profit). Other parts of the book are ecually uncritical. For exeamle on p.42; “.Elysiuzi is ruled over by Crones (lime). It lies very near to the Kingdom of Hades, but does not belong to him. Further west still are the Fortunate Islands, reserved for those who have been thrice reborn on H rth end thrice attained. lysium.” This conglomeraticn never has existed. Elysian may be said. to lie close to “Hades” according to Vrgil (with the reservation that Vergil speaks always of 0is or Orcus, never of hades), at tlce case is less certain in Homer (Od. TV9 56lf) where the Elysian Plain seems to be above the sur face at the ends of’ the earth. Elysium (or rather the Fortunate Islands) is ro uoamt _leJ amer am Cronos un eamam sofD 159) an possabl9 in Pindar (o.ii, 70); but this is certainly not stated in Ho::er (ed. v, 5611) or Vergil (ken. :11, 637ff). Finally, no such distinction should be made be— tv;en the Fortunate Islands and Elysiurn. The thrice—born motif appears in Finder (01. II, 6U_9; the precise meaning is disputed), but not in Zoner, iiesicd, or Vergil; and Finder sneaks only of the Fortunate Islands (line ifesiod) and never of Elysian. I am afecid. that Freud was right to say that we love to fill in the gaps, but Paget’s over-simplification just oill not do. The general thesis is, of course, unaffected by the criticism in this last paragraph, but the experience is unnerving. It is as well that the author has out his find on the map arid as a first— hina record of a bold and. ima,iam ive piece of’ excavation, the book makes in teresting reaming; but one is left doubting whether he hea really eke- a that the “eedits” (unoaecified p.9b) are eitogatdsr wrong. itiz:o:ti j. CLARK however, was a well—known terra ci’ abuse see bunt. 51, Caes. calvus — pity a entirely inconsistent with ticcro’ s treatment them. of Bald, Blind would certainly dzly stusidity the of conspirators, the but also Blind here it is clear that Archetype - oalvi read bald, caeci. not — numeral be can written 3. III, easily enough mistaken for tors; but confusion the is esil,y resolved when remembers one that the Line 1: Three blind mice N. there ‘era Ohvioudr than more conspira three — 6 as hundred one elm’. and bald en mica. 5 nenr such saw thing in a ysur life 4 their heads with the carsing-knifo. You 3 to farmer’s the wife, who cut off 2 soc how ran; they they c.ll off ran 1 hundred One eleven and bald mica, ii. TULLI__CICERONIS BE LIBER T JURIBTJS in the Potteries’. and his article in Classical Quhscuennium 1964, si’ çvol. 23), page 7, on ‘Cicero I dcely am indebted in this arciole to hr. Elo±’eld of University, Stoke teenth century printed cod.ex, in Thylish, knm:n as M. in so flimsy an traaitiau. oral The source for extant the version is a seven possible; have I had to part tI:a ue± uidsrgrowth of corruption the inherent this In edition have I reconstructed. icero’s text English in far as as especially by wontas. treatment has failed to shake the comeori abhorrence felt towards the mouse todsy, etc.’ restore to the rodent to pristine its innocence. sympathetic Burns’ tempts of Rabbic Burns, in his poem: ‘Wee, sleekit, cow’rin’ tim’rous bcmstie, , pre—Ciceronian reicrence to the extreme evil the of mouse deseite even the at — has never recovered from the stigma attached to by it Cicero there for no is — underlay the work. Right through the middle ages the to present mouse the day, the fourteenth century the saw erosion of the serious historical allusion irhjch of a sinister nature, such as Oranges and Lemons, and ring Ring a roses, o’ so dronke is as mous’ a just And as other similar songs historic have origins sion ‘as drunk as a mause’ Chaucer, the Knight’s Isle (sic) 1261 ‘he that realised and mice had. become associated with evil see the English old exores— — certainly before Chaucer. By this time the Catilinarian reference was but dimly lays. Through her influence it reached England; the period unknom, is but It was assimilated by :arie de Prance the into Celtic background the of Ereton of Charlemagne, who called it chanson “La trbs belle, mais de tristesse”. la owing to its popularity v:ith strolling troubadours. It vas kro:’rn the at court dftar its redisco’ssp’, the vc.k became varsifici and spread through Europe, rators the as ::ioo in fact, tyrical Ciceronian a — attempt self•-aggrandisement. at her husbanu’s gruel. Ccera sees himu Lf the as wife ass 1 . conspi thu during the by iwasicn mica of laa 65 b.C., was die whilst preparing gnmwer the Roman of th tthe fu view f C. cu’oeunt the of former’s wife, aba, reference to the Catilinariac p, eoocpir a metaphor which would obvious be to the source mary of copies also now lost. Cicero’s story - metaphorical i a monk’s name the is called Archetyac. the This icaetype, since lost, was says in 2 Vol. his of woi’as ‘Cicercnis codiccu: de muri’ous inveni.” — from the found in a Latin B ouzia. sS at loyden in the ninth century by Archetapus. He named, as I shall shc;, most are, scholars of note any whatsoever agree, to be me orin the. nursery • rhyme, Three Blind moe, spriousl:r IHE ivibkIBUS’ ‘bE 26 27 M rcpct un. 1, and hub 2 - a very ob’rloi,n iiittography. Line 2: run — It. Obviously the phrase is Cicero proclaiming to the plebs the death of to conspirators with t’ie torah lesson: ‘See :ñrnt happcna to traitors’. Probably the famous word, vixerunt, was in the linc and has dropped out. ran - LI. The different tcinses used by I in the same line shot; its in consistency end general lack of worth. after — H. If tho mice ran after tim frmcr’s wife, which ie,anyhc, inconsistent with Cicero’s metaphor, hoi; could she cut off their tile? I have, in fact, myself conducted experimaits, trying rhilst running in front of a mnsc, to decapitato Lt, and found the t:sk physioelly ir: pontiblc — so accomplishing this feat on throe rice is hardly occ.ptable. Line 4: tsils H. tchy cut off the tails? This would not only rcmove the appcn dajo of most use in catching or retaining a mcuzc, but probably not cause tim animal .ortr.l harm. tith has suggested th’:t ‘c2oci’ in line 1, which is spurious awjicy, was in line 3, and referred to the fanner’s rife - conscquentlj hc.r aim was bad and she only cut off the tails In stead of tho heads. Obviously Archotype read ‘capita’ and has been oorruptod to ‘caudas’ • Smith also sug8ests, folloving his 3 ogicel but laughable theory, that in line 4 tho sense should be ‘by mistake’, not ‘with the carving knife’. The oridinal word ‘fallitur’, ncttural if she is ,bocamc corrupted to ‘falce’ • Tho interpretation of classical texts would be much easier without such tiresoric nodcU.crs. Line 5. Did yoa ever see — IL. Cicero ::o2id clearly not ask so foolish a question - it is rcasonc.b1. to assume that one htndrd end oleven bald .icc aere nGt a cornon sight in Rome. flENRY GILIT 0 3 (5) (5) C) 2)) 5 o r4 Li 4-’ H .-w • (5)Q Cl) 0 ‘ 3,3-5 CD P () C) (5 00 Li Lip 054) rH-P -P 2)) c-I’D 2)0 LiP 03 2)) Li 5)’, r-f P C C) ,, Li — - —iLi . 00CC-i-’ Li o 1’4 025 4) 15 (iiCC-P ci ciS-Pc--1P Li-PC) 1 -, cr C) 0 p 2)3 -i-’ > 3 Li Cl) ‘--‘,.33”3 (D0b-S0 2)-PrH-Li-P C) P ‘PrH0 Dc--iC) 00(2)-P opoc’) 3 030 -lC)-I (2) oO.Hrdu -p ,5 Ictooc4Ici •.H—IW.i50 313 0000(5)3 (DO-c-S DC 2)0 cc’ 5iH0P.H—. c-H U’ C) 00 D. ccl0o 000’LiH’E) •c-iD’c4030 -i’ w çi 33(2) OLi0 ci) -P Lip— >0P05rHLi •c-ICS-P •HG)cci’r-iG)O -P -c- HLiC) 5--i -PrHWS3r—i -P -pLiC5) .rSPIP c--S — .,fW2)flr-P5 3-i Li 2). -..., 5)-, < ‘P 2) tim C)) i C) 0 >5 —‘“ C):-) 02)) IC) 0 Li 0 2 —, C’’H r -‘ -‘ “-‘ >‘H ‘<53- I-’, QC-” —3 ,.01 3 IP 0-’Cl C) 0 0 2 C) 3 ‘H 4- Ci Ci >3 Ci Li ‘ 2)- Li 0 2 ‘.J’ 3 7 LI r Li ‘H C) “—‘ ‘-.E) “0 “Li “Li L) •‘.- ‘Li ‘ 0 LiE-IC) 0 0---’ 7 —‘ C) - >5 (I 0 2)2 7 5, 0 7 ., c. 7 C) 2)) LI C) X 0 2 0 0. .-‘ - ‘H 0 ‘-0 cci 1-’ >03 ,Li .0 “CC ‘Li Z- ‘-3 (i’3 0 O”W 7 C —‘‘ - l:j 0—’ L”3 ‘ ‘H-’ H 7 0Li 2 ‘H0 ‘-0 0-2 7-27 0 3 —),LJ -cJ() U Ci— 3 53 ,.30C) Li .‘2)’ •‘1.J7 2)joo 000” 00 Li 13- I .4 —3 ‘2 (3 —‘Li’Li Li I,’ 0 >- C) C) 2 c- :1) 3- •-5 0 0 0’ ‘H U 2 c-P .—‘1() ‘H Li O C) (.1 “-3 ‘—‘ - >7 3 0 ,LPcP 2) 5—C)) 00 3 (1(I770 C’ C) -, 7 C) 5 ‘H C) Ci 2)’--’ C’?’0’-O7-”W’H 0 Ci .,, H “—‘ “—a —- 0 cC)-)7”7D--3); C 2 C’C? ,03 (D C).—3,-.3 0 . 0 °“ - (5-i d5) .—‘ ‘ i 33 -)‘-‘ C) cj 32)2)200 ‘2)’ 52) 3 Ci Li :2) 2)) C)-’ 12) 53 3 ci Li 0 2 Li Li’ 3- Ci 2 Li CJ ‘2 0 -.3 ‘Li) () 0 ,. ‘ CS>02) 2 -, ‘-‘ -Q a >3 0 C)-li Li Li”Li (1 (3C-’U 0 C) c-P -‘ -‘ Ci.327’-)Oi)1iD_”7,-< ‘0 frCi 7 —C o-.C) -1 7C’—)5,’--’C)) >3 ‘J’—’’--’ Q70Li5) ‘H 0’-Li - 2)1 Li ‘H Cs 22)) —‘0 )—.-_‘ ;. 0 3 C). >) 2 - a C) ‘Li ‘-Li P_o ‘ • C)’3\-’E-f CiC-7 -) C) o-: Li C 7”—’ -w I) 3 C) 2)) IS 0 C) - ‘H “0 ‘Li) -C)) “U 3713 )>3 (I7’HQ0-.-2)Q<50c.IOL$-,O-)>50”5),> 52) 5-2)0 —‘)5.0>5--’sD :2) ci 2)3 1’ ccl OPo Li’Li2 •‘ C) C-’ C) 2 -‘Li’ 1-’ 07 C) Li) ‘1) s:-cPcci /0 r.7 3C.—’’H.--’Cc J-o Ci >5 Li.LiJ (IC-’ ‘H 0 0>3-.C) Li 7Li C)7C)%J,.() - >3(12 C’LiLi ow CS C Li ‘—3 ,< “0’0 -l) oo LC) -CD ‘0 r 2)2)2)2 Li”() 0 7 >5 —‘\-‘—w’-I) 7 - 3E}-’2)-Cj3 W Li- I3 02 cj L-J —7 •) ‘0 ‘ ‘‘0 r-LiO - :Z17-W C) ‘--Li —‘C’ >—352)UC) Ci 7\-0 70 cS’cLi%Li Li’-),) ()-• 1II-Li ejz3- , C-C) C: m’H i.-_ Li 0-LifD13 ‘H (DC) 2)—iX--o.-oi_’ I) O0CC 2-0Li,-< 0 CiLi C-i.--’ d’w 5),-) L, “Li ‘02d 2-) Ci ‘o “3 () -‘Jc C)’ 2-5s-’7 .4--S - 7 2)? Li - U c-P ‘H ) -:2---cC)OCiO ofl-. 5,dC,7)C)c0031S250s5-j25HOSi01P7 53 2 531 0 5,UCCOJC1PCi—)”Li”53’o5)3’-’5)4””--’53”53 Qc-<-4’3’13 c) . Li 53 Ci > c C-2)2 Cs - c—s -‘ —‘ 0 C). j t- C) ,-< .— , c- _ ,p “C) ,< ,< ‘w Lii ‘1 -I-:) .3 i ‘0 • 3 ci (5) P 5-i 0 (C C) 0 0 .3 •H r—4 rH cii U)r-f 2)) (5) (2) Li (1) 3-1 CC) ci 4Cr-I -P0 (i) •c-f Cl -P 0 .3-53 -P0-i -P -P -P nJU)[l >3 5-f o5>, C) P0 P 0p(j Ci) 3 C) Li H3+ Ci 4’ 25 ‘cci .00 C) 12c—’ 3 3CiHP 0 0) C’) 0 c-H LiccSP Li 2)) LirHLi Li.r-i .35-1,0 .3 -4-’ -d.ciP r—l rH-PC) .‘$ “ CC) (2)’L) 00.3 00 ci) )‘c-I 3 C);0c-DLi 3-PC) Li P .,—IOC\l4-IC2) C) 3 Or4,Li r4(])C) 1, P C)C(2 .3 -PLiCi$) •rH 3UP u]-4-).3(5) 5-l’H0-0(/) 5-i3-d0’rl 3PC)C1)r—4’rH Li-P P 0-P-LIrdLiO Poc:P5--r-) OCDrLiO3O ((2 3-PC2)0-PCI) 0 iDPi P03-P 0 Li12,i4C) HQ.)U)r—2 Hci.3c2)C; 0 3 LCi-3’.OpLi ((5 Li ‘HP’H 5-I0r1CrtiCJ) -PP 250-10 P WC);ic-i)o) (0 )0C5,Li 0 P 0 C5G) ,0Lid5--idp Li-4-’(iE 0 OcD.H •r-I ci-PO •H ‘li(i-PCO’r-1+’ 05 ‘rHP-i-p -P r-H b -Pr-HC)3(IC2 r-j-’3 -P Pl0LirHP.i -P3524r--tLi 2)2)OCD3O -PcJ ‘c-2ti) rH’D r2C5P-iPO 1 • 0 C) 3 C) -P c--i 05 ‘c-I .3 ‘r-l •c-f ‘—-P I 05> Ci) 3C) C) (2)0 -P 2)0 0 ‘c-i ‘Li •r-4r-I ‘ri -P -P •r1 P CC)i—I ‘ 3 1 0 Ci 60i F1CJ)rH 0 Li 3 3-P CO -PC,’) C) CCd OW wLi —1•H -P (1) 0 3 Ic) 0 i0 C p , -P3.00 P Li0Li 4’ 0H’rH Li c--i ‘c-I •HP0O c-H c-I -CDC) Or-50410 (2) POC3o’H 5)’3Cj2)0 P 0 p 3 (1$W’r-l-P 0 p p C) H ci r4 .0 ((33 S)3U.H$D() 3cj 25CiTi0’rP P C) 0 Li50C-i3 5-4 05>,3 pC)-p-pcn(D $O$’HOC) •Dc5)ti ,-l’r-l•H”-, 5,] (5) OCSOPC53P 3 C,jWC)C(2r—4 LiHrC)rS c3-PC).H-CO 0’r—l-PCQr—I1 2) 4 03 W.Li3r—S$--j Li-p-Pc%3 0-PLic2)0 12)03 3.3-l-D HLiC)0 30.Q) CHOci) Li0 PtJ-•r-lO ri 0 •H5-IC.lr-I-P3 -P02)30 0 WH 0 C) ‘HLiO-P30 -P -PC30P’d,-i ‘ 3- 1H .3.rH.,-I000 -P-P0’r04-’ ‘.3 -pC)C,JLiC),Li ‘HC)33 ‘P .330 -P rH 5-lC2p$ rHOOCDEI ‘--__-‘(l-PQjO -2--1cDG) • C) C) c-I Ci 0 .3 0 5-ic) C) j 2)) 0.3 I 3 0 CS Ci .3 Li -P J C- •H c-I c—f )CC)C (1) (I) 0 Ord (I) C) o. 3 -i 00 (D 3CJ) Li (DO rn ‘c-I-P C, 13 ) -p .3 -P d .“r-ic--l 3 2)0H Cl 3 I•H 0’H5-i 0 5)-CDO 21 3 CC)-i r 4 C) Li 3 ‘H cci C, 3 $ ‘Ti -p313 -H • “-P12) Li C) Pf.3(jcJ -.2 (2) 0 WcjC)3 C)Cl,ICC P30 3 C) 0+’PO Li.cC ccl 5--i ,.D5l-,r)$) .3 ‘LiP-4(iC) 10-40 25 Li $‘HrH2)O-P 3.r-tP5- 02)3 5-1 C’) 0 cii)) 0 sG)C)2DLi 3 r—i C) OOCIC)rl 0 C)i •,—I ,5.rIS-4Wc--i O .3 —- • 5> .3 C)0+’dLiOJ C’) Ii.H0G)IOP.iP-i (1) 4H cic3Co P 3 C) p cj.OP000 1 51 CD >Lirdi 3JLi r)2Cfl OC)’d.i-1c) -P00-I-POP rH —I-Q0UJr4 .0 - • CJ)r-H.3 3- DPOSliO H5-l.$(DCl Liui-i P4’(l) CS LiC)0-PPCI)C1H 0! Cfl.p -1’ SSP’HPr-1 opp—i 3 111 ‘c-I -P (2)5r3$4)3 C) 0 P00-,CpOLi.H OiW,2,S<0 C3-4-’(D+’PCC Li 0 .3 0003rH ‘3CflcQ C)5)-CjP-i,3(DCO’d,H ci 0-PI0)C)HrHLi-PLi 3 Li-p3(2) CI) 3 (2) 000 t) CO.,—l C)CCW0dLiG)0 CC)i j334.f4 511’-lU) 3 - - 5)00 PE-iSLi-PLici3si c-LiLi C.3 5—C2l2)WPO L-PO-PLi 3 W33Lii,o3o C:Li+LiLiLi P Qc5.r-1-Li Li cii 00 rOPtC)C)riCC3. 3rH5,C)C-i.3 -P0-H c[1) CC C C) i cccj3r—1 QCc) —HC2 -PrHWOc-135”cj -p3 CHpopp (I) .3 -PCQ51,-P -P ‘ri •,-l -‘-P-PC0003D .r1031 ‘c-I -P r3c--f C-t-PC)Ocij .2) r- • 1 • -I :3 -3 0 3” C E 3--) CC ‘ Si 1r CC E-;: Li ,r Q- I: -4 29 tore itt..r.ctinj. ?hcvti ban bc.cn n.’no1’rstblc coitrotcrs; ts to flz this is a .uinc Hcraolitot.n octrino (;). It is nov tn.:-i11y coniercd tLct it ic not but ,as at’r5buted to him by ThcopLratu3 and so by thc lcr doxoraphcrs and in p:rticular by the oics, ‘sho ero gleô. to olct., such an illustrious fore runner in support of ono of t&ir on doctrinos. Linco 6 — 7 friebov ?2t: is not a direst quotct.Lon but rerely a c.rercnae to the fc:.ilicr trac1itoan idea of perpctual flux, suimaod up by latc.r Vlriter3 in the phrase mivtc. pet. .Bat thc nex’ phrss is clcr.rl an allusion to a fra:cnt of Ecttc1tus pr: scrvcdbyThoophr’tstus: xt .! xuxeOv 8LCcPataLl@XL”.’ltVoC (5) 8; This strins of opositc is in the gnuino Horaclitean sGylc but it l.a diffi cult to find doe: parallels. 8-9: Luoi2n is hc.ru yotin and slightly modifyir tLe wcll-knni :kr’clit:an saying: ‘ctôc vw x.tu 0Ca ,cal. uc’ (6) lO—llGhcsc tso lin...s cc2tpriss tvo dircot quotations, ono Lcttcr knotn than thc oth:r. T:: first: $L. uatç Ian. it Cav, ‘icacss5wv (7) is clschcre found in. this fora only in Hippolytus, uhosb iLfutatio OznjumL.ae— ros,.1con.aiis a lar,e nu.ibcr of quotations froz: Herr clitus, thongh tharo arc allusions to the s’tyin by a number of philosophical and. thoological writcrs (8) Tho other çuctr:tion is the vell—kno’n phrase ich Luch.n siva in the fan: Catpep6;tevoC2ccep4tcvoç This p’n.Je is usod frequently by Iisr’olitus hit self and U,,’ oth..r writers. The ton of ths phrase is adapted to suit the con— tat in each case. (9) 12—15’Phese iiz..s c;ai.n are a direct quotation: ‘.2.G ‘vct’co; •‘roC, evTro M.’vaccL Cthrccc ‘tôv IxeCvwv rv...cov, cêv be IxeCvwv f3C3. ceoveGiuc’ (‘o) This is £ipjio.Lytua’ vcraioit but other uritcrs (11), racord the saying in a form closer to Lucirn’s: Seol. tu-ycoC. avepo &Uvac-t. It is possibL, th’tt there ‘r.s from early times a double vorsion of this saying. 16—17 Thsss lines both refer to lltr olitus’ reputo tion 2cr obscure and riddling sayin.s rind may ciso alludo to :!crclitus’ renurk on the Delphic oraol:, possibly also with cot.scious ref:r:nce to his otn stylo: ! c ? ..r.:et6v Ian. ‘cc Iv Ae.,3tç otc cfrc xpz’rc XX’ ct’aC.ci. (f) 2O2l:This is not a quotation but ief:irly obviously a pcro&j of i2rcl±tus’ famous remark to the Fphosi’tna on thc b.nishmsnt of Hormodorus: ‘rj.c.v ‘:3e0CoL43;bôv L.1yac CCL 1t&L ace:. totc ‘v’oc 4 uSa,. ,cacc.ALuet’....(13) Thc parallel is tot v:ry close but then. is so:: sizil’rty in the structure of th asntcnces and the ord ,6v has no point and very little moaning in Luciun’ a vcrsion unless it is intended to draw attention to the pcrcdy. 30 it is clear that in this sjort picce of writing Luoicn displays oonai— d:r’ble kno:lc4ge of the sayin.gs of Hen.clitus, including aorac t’.Ich are not found in zany othc.c sources. It is also obvious that Lucian intended and cx— poctcd his quotations ann ;:rodi...d to be rccoJLizud as such, mi this inplies that the general piblic for whom he noto 1;is diclobmes rere also familiar with 1Torclitue. This seoz.a surprising. Hcr’tclitus was a sixth-century philoaophtr, left no influenti;l school behind his’ and vr.s notorious for his obscurity. It is not viiy to sec what an rtu.al.ence of the seoonl century s.D. could find in Lie sr.jjns to interest thorn end r:Ly it was possible to assute a acnoral fctni li’uitg with thcr... It is p..rhaps even .ore sar9rising that Lucian vith his rhetorical eductt ton c.c4 his professed disdmin for philosophy end philosophers sLotJ.ct hir.sclf bc so closly acqutined ith the sayings of Ec.raclitus. And that raises a furth.r quostion — hot had he acçuircd. thst knowldgz? Did he closly ain, p in tue J t 11 e r line cm. ‘ c L(, 5 :uc ‘ Finally wish I to return to the text of the Vitauwmnrctio and examine it knowledge of Reraclitus from a gtoic source. they add weight to the intrinsically probable supposition that Lucian derived his ana must it cc rcmombcrecr teat thy occur wituan vary a snull aece o :ratang — licraclitus. of Neither of points these is entirely convincing, but together — So here also Luoian may be reproducing the Stoic interpretation of saying a liercus Aurelius also refers to xuana caeoa:hoc XCL (21) Xo6oitaocJ Lsc. \Xa Xec o’:ean ar aparo- -c yyccvwi (2d) ... npSto ‘dp apts Ttsç:L eswc aCOLo tc o ;eccuic ;(UL by the Stoics. saying. A of Chrysippus is quoted by Plutarch follows: as did not bear this meaning, but the phrase was taken up and interpreted this in way phor for confusion. Ike original saying of Heraclitus preserved as by Theophrostes Kirk (19) suggests hat t}is represent may the Stoic use of,cucuc as a meta Vitarurn nuctic is in the chrase: c wC ... •uixEuun OU’)D\O 0 tuU. The other point where is it possible detect to Stoic influence on the relying directly on Stoic a source for this idea. habit interpreting of texts to suit themselves, and Lucian may well bean have vidently some at least of Lucian’s contemporaries were aware of the Stoic ‘0ppcc iotc au cW tC6iou L eucF (13) ‘ is able to say: XCL . Q(J -pae arce a k xca •\ELOU superficial but it is significant — that a character in a dialogue Plutarch of rance on lucian’ a part his knowledge of — philosophy does appear to be rather fined to the Stoics and that this inaccuracy may only have been the result 0 f igno doctrine of awcLc to Maraclitus. is It true that this belief was not con It has already bean observed that Luoian follows the stoics in attributing the of the Vitarer: AUCtiO. possible to find slight traces of a Stoic interpretation of Haroclitus in the text stoic a work of this kind, perhaps a text with commentary. -.nd in it fact is were others niso. So it seams that Lucien could have acquired his knc’.;iedge from mentary him, on and his pupil, Sphaerus wrote five ePtaC(l7). Do doubt there wrote books on Haraclitus. Cleanthes, the pupil of Zeno, wrote books four corn of of Heruclitus from Stoic sources. No know from Diogenes Laertius that stoics Moreover it is also urobable that Lucian derived his knowledge of the text immediately apparent (16). in the itarunAuctio, mere his am:liaretj math Stoic vocaculary and logic s the 5 toics and their doctrines one need only look t the long section on Chrysippus been brought about by the Nec-Pythagorean movement. For Lucian’s knowledge cf Vitarumductio is Pythagoras (15), in whom a revival of interest at that time had cant that the other pre-Socratic philosopher who plays a prominent part in the undoubtedly the main reason was his connection with the Stoics. is It siguifi to him the idcc of using actual quotations and close parody in his dialonue, but No doubt he was attracted by his paradoxical and. riddling style and this suggested no reason to look further for explanation an for Lucian’s interest in liaraclitus. Lucin’ a life—time Heraclituc would — have shared in their pocularity. There is sophic sects and the tc’ic aizuercr, -, :areus Aurelius, was on the throne during so at that time ahen Sticiz was one of the most eronjnent end widespread philo sect and interpreted his sayings in accordance with tacir own doctrines. lad been mentioned above the Stoics adopted. hereolitus as a forerunoer of their own ke answer to all these questions is quite simple the Stoics. — has As some hallibook gtvin selections from the works of the philosor}:crs? read Heraclitus n the original (14) did ci he merey take hie obatiaLls 30 31. Is it zot pO!51L that this lft.c., for :‘Js, ln ‘r1t cit its ot.ionsly Lsr.olitean sty].4, co co:ld find zio ircr; olose pr.rllct, cc’ld bc not zo2oly a parodg :.t in ftot a qcotabion frc. He’..tolitua or c rnzbcr of cjuot:tio”s oc: bineti? Th’s is, of oc”eae, not - .acc;tthle to oo2. It i3 ctn; to s’: t’:t the.y a.... aj). the Jriz4 of taf. ig thab &reoli4,*s cuJ/. hc70 raiu., bi2 par hc.s cay pair of oe its cnitld be cotsiderod to ! .--... sozc. i.’ 1n’jticr]. i.:ninz in thu systen of !.krcoi \tuA antI Lb 7.nld Th.o eqvrJ ;. sv.sy t’) oVL then 4:I” t ef :i SaLtator. lb is very “atf’.’jult t: ?s uertcin. 1 ‘(C !.L’fr..V as r.t-cr nor there. Thexe ia no.hiwj thc. 0:. be st A ca c.thcr sis. e rcr cepc,Ci, cli there is to sJppoL-t is 1’tfm to bc a L.rvm Sr cnt is tho fact Wt &‘nciitua d3os usc. tin ‘nfl cC,.w QUXtCFL CtftLV £ya’,cv:c;L (22) vhacls ts nob voç .02.YV&LC t1vwø2. h.never, ,ht.ru i. rsther ‘to evittoc. First, it is :‘.. -: with sozc of the exttnt s;vLi of Ilcaclitus, who oontiwnily c:tpin c.iseh tiit :ct that he was the only one who k.iaw t:: truth -ni that tll other men wero mistaken: liLô 8c ! ca-..i. ‘ci CiW tout:fa’c UOLV ir:3c yap ‘ xotv5c. toi3 XC1ci. 8’&t:ç uvcU .ZUcLV oL -oXXzL ôç t5Ctv !xcvtcc pp5v;ILV. (23) A st.yin; like this strethcne the po..aituity thc.t kcraclitus could hne used the phrase YVLXLC . yvua. 4.orcov.r thtr: is also a fr’wpent wLioh shows t4.t he used the .;or& ïVLç :.afr. with the idea tIne knocodz: mt; be Lcoeptive. a:nu.vcae oL .vOpuob lcpoc d voa tv çvcpv ... (24) These coparisons prQ7e not..! --. B’;t th2e is evidenoc Li support of Ci ç .yvwaC as an actual Heraolitesn pirate. tong the Hippooratic oorpus is a treatise de •Jfli-:. whioh is writkn t: a s,-ic ;:Lic! olor’1.y initates that of Heraclitus ati oc.viously contains many /...rasas used bi the philosopher hin self. The date of the work is uncertain but it is clcarl er1ier th’ti L..wisn (25). And one. sentence of his treatise reads: 8) rc6n,v tv;:oLaLv yvELc ‘;vczCt. uaL5L’cpCtL ... (26) Unfcrtt’ntely there is a tcxtu:). ciii’?ic-itt; here. r .is .s tin rcdl.ns of one c’f tht t;o ohef :zs, as foflo ved by Jones • The roadinj 02 the othor rsin ;:s, aiopted by Littró is: bid ‘co6tn, yvoic ‘vCpNiciv. •yuvC, 1taL80— rptpa,. ... t re is little to c’:-oosc bctn.ci them on toxtnl grounds. And it is difficult to rae ea,- very o’nious sense out of either rea df_t.. That yv&ic £yaC is supported b,- Luoian and by the Heraclitcan style of the passao. Parhc.ps thc ori;iinl rc:dng was meroly: 8i.ci tcCtv SGpISrQWLSJ and. someone ?t.tc- a...-i ;vCq o c-.,lcte thc Hem’cli— tcn tes. The r:sultnt a £.tlty than ct--id hrzc ,svcn rise to the s’ 34Ueflt o...4ation flfllt.. It is cifficult to b0 sure but it st...zl to ma at least probable that this is the corn.ot readusi Lrc and tht.t thz. 000urrwnoc of the phrase both in. ttis pazsajc ani in. liacian is s.Cicint to lift ;“Fsi. c ‘yv mtvj to the st’tas of a enuine. frarxa4: ci’ iie:’solitus. OA.sOL ra:s :3TE3 1. 7it. auct. 14 2. dee Luc. Sacrif. l. Ptsrcgr. 7, Stob. Flcr. III 20, 53, Sensca:de Ira It 10 5. etc. and for odern diso-4osions .Diels Doxographi Graeci p.255f? and Miss C. E. Lctz ‘Doexitus ai Eer:oli’--’a’ 0.3. 1953-4 pp. 309—14. 3. This emendation, w’:Ich is uado’Lte.al;r cc :reo, is cc:t’a by ols —Kranz and. ,alzor ana, In. the for:.. :LUC:,CV taup1cp’cvoç, by i:r,n in his loeb editioi lub I have not beea ae to tn-ce who oriLsl1y e.u;eated it. 4. br a full 1!acucion tee 0. 3. Kin.: ILraolitus — the Cosr.ic .Crarents kP’ 307—338 partio. pp. 335-338 and .;. K. C. Catbrie: History of Greek K’iloso*y tel I Pit• 4½—453 5. Her. Yr. 125 ZIC. :::coahr. Do V.rticine 9 32 6. Fr. 60 IC 111.pp.. .Thf..TX 1.0, 4. L’or obhcg xcforcnoes to this phrase see Kirk op.oit. pp. 105—112 7. Fr. 52. Hipp. Ita. IX 9,4. 8. See Walzer )4p,. wider this fraeaent. 9. See e.g. ffr. 9 & 10. Also Plato: So,h. 242D. ilipp. 2ef. IX 9,1. Hippoo. de Viotu. 1, 18. 10. Zr. 62. 11. e.g. ixizus of 2yre. SGe Wal:er op.cit. for others. 12. Zr. 93. See also Zr. 92. 13. Zr. 121 14. I do not wish to disouss the qiestion of iheer :raolitus did actually write a book or not • Lien if he d.I uq!. ihe asyiz .; we.o presumably collected fairly early, probably by his immediate disoiples and the difference between this and a work froti the hand of Heraclitits hine1f do’o hot seez very great. On this point see Kirk op.ct. pp. 7-3. &uthrie op.cit. 406-8. - 15. Vit. auct. 2 — 6. 16. lIlt. Auct. 20—26. dee also the a lone and zioro serious philoso phical dialo;ae in which Luoian refutes a stoic sin f±nally persuades hti to abandon his philosophy. 17. D. L. VII 174, 178. 18. flut. Def. Or. 415-16. 19. Op.cit p.257 20. Plut. de stoic. ropujn. 34 10 49f. 21. L.a. IX, 39, of. VI 10, IV 27 22. Zr. 77 23. fr.2.1v3aLG is, of course,IVtklLG ‘CwV çh1VCPWV — sense perception, which Heraclitus regards as deceptive. For him true knoivledge i3Xóyoc . (pee e.g. fr.l)and the order of the universe perceived byAóyoc is povC çait1c which is;:vcpic xpcCtsv (Zr. 54). Therefore yv.nc 1y’t’aCq is vhat one 7ould expect, since sense perception follows the rule of oppcaites ;thioh governs e rytMng in the universe except A6yo c 24. Zr. 6. 25. 1. H. S. Jones in the introduction to his Loeb edition of Hippocrates dates it at around 400 3.0. But Kirk, op.oit. p.21 and pp. 26-30 argues for a post—Aristotelian date. 26. Hippoc. de victu I end of oh. 23. *4e***J[U*flkk** HAVE YOU ZIJOYE3) YOUR PEGASUS? We still have some copies of PeasugA (June 1967) available, at the usual price of 66. each. No • 8 includes, a.uong other things: R. J. Abbott’s Vera Trzi,oedia - an exciting now theory about the Origins of Trcgody; 3. Ii. fltton’s detailed revio3 of Barrett’s Hippolytus. Epigrams by F. VI. Clayton (in Greek); M. A. Scott: The Rcbellion of Boadicoa. Copies a.’ailablo from: 3. Gluckcr Room 107, Qucen’s Building.