am rather glad of the charge, though uncertain of what is meant by it.

Upon second thoughts I am doubtful whether the Utopia will interest you much; therefore I shall send you another little book with it, which is sure to interest you; there has been no one like Sir Thomas More in England since.

TO THE LADY ABERCROMBY.

OXFORD, March 4, 1882.

Nothing in Plato is really foolish or fanciful, if you take into account the state of mind and knowledge in which he wrote. It was a sort of twilight in which luminous mists appeared from time to time. He was struggling to get clear ideas, what he called abstract ideas, or universal notions, and to connect them.

I would advise you to read the beginning of the Timaeus, stopping when it ceases to be intelligible; then the Critias; the Laws, Book x, which is very modern and interesting; then the dialogues relating to the personal life of Socrates, beginning with the Apology-Crito, Phaedo, Symposium-the Protagoras and Gorgias-and perhaps these will be sufficient direction until I have the pleasure of seeing you again.

To MRS. W. S. DUGDALE.

OXFORD, May 3, [1882].

I am so grieved to see in the newspaper what has happened to Mr. Dugdale, which must be a cause of great sorrow and trouble to you. It was a noble thing of him to risk his life as he did. I cannot regret his doing it, not even if the result were worse than it is.

Will you give my kind regards to him? I should like to hear how he is getting on, but do not wish you to take the trouble to write.

TO THE LADY ABERCROMBY.

September 8, 1882.

I have just been to see my poor sister here at Clifton, where she has been removed for the sake of being near some

relatives. She is very good and patient, but she can scarcely speak, and I do not expect much improvement. Life is not worth living on these terms. Yet there is something in her example which touches me greatly.

I am glad that Parliament is at an end. The closing scenes did no credit to either House. I used to think myself a Liberal, but sometimes fear that I am in danger of becoming a Tory (though I struggle against this as much as I can). But I cannot help feeling more and more the unfitness of the lower classes to govern themselves. Still less is any other class fit to govern them. It seems to me that there should be a representation of classes and not of numbers. Otherwise the huge mass generally inert, and even Conservative, becomes the dupe of agitators, who operate upon it at elections in various ways. No great harm has been done as yet by the extension of the suffrage, and some good things, such as the Disestablishment of the Irish Church and the Burials Bill, could not have been accomplished without it. But looking forward into the future one cannot tell what will be the result. At this moment, however, I feel myself changing back again from Tory to Liberal, and inclined to believe, looking at the example of France and America, that there is no danger which the common sense and the ability of the upper classes may not avert.

To me one of the most evil signs is the irreligion and materialism of young men -perhaps only a passing wave-which will have left them in after life high and dry. 'The old order

is changing.' Do you read Shelley? I have been reading the nice little volume of selections made by Stopford Brooke. Shelley seems to me a great genius, who was also a mistake. He never sees man and nature in the true proportion. In poetry, as in life, man was intended to be above nature, but Shelley confounds human feelings with a fanciful and extravagant love of clouds and water and winds. Such poems neither support me, nor express anything which I experience. Mr. Stopford Brooke thinks that there was a new gospel in the French Revolution, and that to this new gospel Shelley gave expression. I have no clerical horror of the French Revolution, but neither does it seem to me to have given ideas to the world which are of any value. It was the dissolution of the

old society, but not the reconstruction of a new one. And it remains to be seen whether France has not so completely lost the idea of self-government that Anarchy will always require to be kept down by Imperialism. . . .

I often wonder why so very few persons who have knowledge and ability speak well. Is not the real reason a peculiar sort of indolence which refuses to make the mental exertion of collecting facts and taking notes and arranging them with skill (writing them out as Lord Brougham used to do his peroration four or five times), and then getting up at the right moment with a mind full of the subject and delivering your thoughts? A speaker should prepare himself also in writing for a debate, setting down opposite to one another all that can be said on either side. He can then make a reply, which is a far more useful thing than making a set speech. . . . People talk about repeated actions giving habits (this is a very old thesis). But much more interesting to me is the curious effect on character which may be produced by single acts, seeming to raise the mind to a higher level, or to give a power previously unknown. I think that this is especially the case with acts of courage, or disinterestedness, or forgiveness.

CHAPTER VIII

THE VICE-CHANCELLORSHIP.

(Aet. 65-69)

1882-1886

JOWETT as Vice-Chancellor-Programme of work-The Non-Collegiate students—The drainage of the Thames Valley-The Clarendon Press-The Indian Institute-Mr. Horton's nomination-Performance of plays-The New Theatre-Conclusion.

AT

T the beginning of Michaelmas Term, 1882, Jowett became Vice-Chancellor of the University. The election was noticed in the papers, some of which congratulated the University, and declared that a 'little of Jowett's energy and rare perseverance could not be misplaced in the government of Oxford under its new constitution,' while others congratulated Jowett on attaining the reward of great services. Jowett himself, though willing to accept the office, was not without some misgivings. 'Yes! yes,' he answered, impatiently, to some congratulations, but what shall I do with it? What is there that can be done?' To Morier he writes::

'Your most kind letter gave me much more pleasure than the article in the Times. I have a few years more of hard work left in me, and hope that I may be able to do something in this office of Vice-Chancellor. I shall not cease to work while I live.'

To another friend he writes in a lighter tone:

'I am really pleased at being Vice-Chancellor. The work is rather hard, but interesting and important, and in four years' time I may hope to have made an impression on the University if I have health and strength. It would gratify me if you would come and see me on Sundays walking to church with three pokers, two of gold and one of silver, before me. Then you would think something of me, more than you do now, I am sure. But I fear that your too critical eye is not to be dazzled by these external splendours.'

The Vice-Chancellorship is nominally held for one year, but the Vice-Chancellor is always re-appointed at the close of each year, until four years have elapsed. During this time he is the chairman of every important meeting in the University. He is expected to attend the sermons preached from the University pulpit. He presides in person or by deputy at the granting of degrees, and to him the Statutes are brought for interpretation. Jowett threw himself heart and soul into his work, and quickly made his influence felt. He was as autocratic as his position allowed him to be. He would neither go forward nor backward beyond the point at which he wished to stay. When the supporters of a scheme to which he was opposed had succeeded in getting it placed first on the list of agenda at the last meeting of the Council for the year, Jowett, who was of course chairman of the meeting, after listening to a few words, remarked that 'at this period of the Term no one would think of discussing a matter so important as that now before them,' and straightway left the chair, thus bringing the meeting to a close! Is Jowett in favour of your proposal?' asked a member of the Hebdomadal Council, for if he is against it, there is little chance for you. Parnell is not in it with him in obstruction.' Another characteristic

·