CHAPTER XXXI
1892-1893
Last course of Gifford Lectures, Birth of second grandchild. New edition of Rig-veda published. Tercentenary of Trinity College, Dublin. Mr. Froude returns to Oxford. Ninth Oriental Congress. Fourth Gifford Lectures published. Journey to Italy, Greece, and Turkey. Stay at Constantinople. Buda-Pesth. Vienna. Leipzig. Jubilee of Doctor’s Degree, Neuwied. Birth of third grandchild. Seventieth birthday.
To Lady Welby.
January 5, 1892.
‘For all my sins I have been elected President of the next Oriental Congress, and during the last week I have had thirty letters to write to different Rajahs and Maharajahs, so what should I give for a little rest! I want to finish my fourth volume of Gifford Lectures, and my thoughts are very much where yours are. What is the origin and purpose of a Sign, and how is it that we understand a sign in what is Significance? I said long ago that the history of philosophy is the history of our fight against language and all its inevitable misunderstandings. Thence, as Herbert says, true philosophy is definition.
‘I think I shall soon elope with myself and hide somewhere in the forest.'
Early in the month the third volume of Gifford Lectures on Anthropological Religion came out, the subject being the gradual growth of a belief in something infinite, immortal and divine in man. In his preface Max Muller says: —
‘In lecturing on the origin and the growth of religion, my chief object has been to show that a belief in God, in the immortality of the soul, and in a future retribution can be gained, and not only can be, but has been gained by the right exercise of human reason alone, without the assistance of what has been called a special revelation. I have tried to prove this, not, as others have done, by reasoning a priori only, but by historical investigation. In doing this, I thought I was simply following in the footsteps of the greatest theologians of our time, and that I was serving the cause of true religion by showing by ample historical evidence, gathered from the Sacred Books of the East, how what St. Paul, what the Fathers of the Church, what mediaeval theologians, and what some of the most learned of modern divines had asserted again and again was most strikingly confirmed by the records of all non-Christian religions which have lately become accessible to us. I could not have believed it possible that, in under- taking this work, I should have exposed myself to attacks from theologians who profess and call themselves Christians, and who yet maintain that worst of all heresies, that, during all the centuries that have elapsed and in all the countries of the world, God has left Himself without a witness, and has revealed Himself to one race only, the Jews of Palestine.'
One reviewer, speaking of the attacks on Max Muller, says: ‘The Professor may well be content with expounding what he believes to be the truth with a wealth of learning which few men could rival, and a general sobriety of tone which might be an example to some of his critics; for the rest, we may remind both parties to the controversy of the old motto of another Scottish University, “They say. What say they? Let them say."' One friend, to whom the book was sent, wrote: ‘One reason why I value your book is because it is conciliatory, yet firm, and seems likely to help the advance well onward.' The Master of Balliol (Jowett), in writing about this work, spoke of the passage on ‘Miracles' at the end of the preface, in which he entirely agreed. ‘It was a very bold, and, I think, a very wise thing to make such a statement; it does great service to religion.’
Before the middle of January, the Max Mullers left for Glasgow for the fourth and last course of Gifford Lectures. These were on Psychological Religion, giving the history of the various attempts made to define the relation between the infinite in nature and the infinite in man, or the union of the soul with God. The attendance was very large, and this concluding course excited great interest. This time in Glasgow was less filled with social duties, and for the last fortnight Max Muller was alone, his wife having been summoned to her daughter, by the birth of their second grandchild.
To Madame Blumenthal.
Glasgow, January 27, 1892.
‘I quite sympathize with your indictment against Greek Grammar. But you see language is not made, but grows, and as we accept a gnarled oak-tree, we must accept the Greek language, such as it has grown up. Of course, a language was never meant to be learnt by grammar, but by ear; and the Greek children, who never heard a wrong accent or a wrong tense, never made a mistake. I think that Greek scholars also ought to be satisfied if they know a Greek form when they meet it, and not break their hearts about a solecism, when they attempt to write it. There is, no doubt, reason in all that seems unreasonable in grammar, but the reason is often very unreasonable. False analogy prevails largely, and irregular forms become popular, if used by popular poets. We must not attempt to find a reason for all media — the rules would become as fanciful as the fancy that gave rise to the media in many cases. Anyhow we must not be Pharisees. English and French are quite as bad as Greek. Why do we write le prix, but le palais [Google translate: the price, but the palace]? Why curieux, but mauvais, formerly curieuse, mauvaise [Google translate: Why curious, but bad, formerly curious, bad]? Voltaire wrote aprocher, soufrir, coroux, alumer [Google translate: approach, suffer, coroux, light]. Why are unfortunate examinees ploughed, if they write as Voltaire wrote?
‘I remember an American Grammar in which it was said that in this language all verbs are irregular; I remember a German Grammar in which it was said that the only regular verbs are the irregular. The question is, with whom rests the norma loquendi?'
To Mrs. Humphry Ward (on receiving David Grieve).
Glasgow, February 2.
'Many thanks for your new novel. I have read it, though I had no cold and no influenza. Looking at the mere workmanship, the mixing of the colours, and the putting them on the canvas, I am perfectly amazed at the mastery you have attained. I am almost afraid I shall be converted to novel-reading in my old age. I used to teach and preach against them like a young Sauk As a matter of fact, tales meant for entertainment form generally the last stages of the literature of the great nations of the world. But there is evidently no escape from them now, and who knows but I shall have to write a religious novel instead of Gifford Lectures? I have no doubt your work wall prove a great success, and I can see that there is hard and honest work in it. Still, knowing the feelings of a mother for her first-born, I know you will not feel angry if I feel more deeply interested in Robert Elsmere than in David Grieve! '
To Professor Maurice Bloomfield, Baltimore (after receiving his Contributions to the Interpretation of the Veda).
Oxford, March 23, 1892.
‘I must answer your very kind letter at once. I feel very guilty, but when you are as old as I am you will, I am sure, have pity on me. I can assure you that if I were to acknowledge all books and papers sent to me, I should simply break down. It is physically impossible. I have always read your papers with real pleasure, because they contained substantial facts, and I always look forward to an opportunity of acknowledging my obligations in public. I should have been delighted to have a translation of the Atharva-veda from you for the Sacred Books of the East, but, alas! my forty-eight volumes are full, and the Press has lately declined several new offers.’
As time went on, his correspondence weighed more and more heavily on Max Muller, and though he tried to answer some letters through his secretary or his wife, he found such vicarious answers were seldom accepted in good part. People forgot that the eye and hand are not as active at seventy as at thirty; whilst each year added to the mere number of his correspondents and to the multitude of books sent to him on all subjects.
To Professor Estlin Carpenter.
April 8.
‘Could you, without much trouble, tell me what is the latest date that can safely be assigned to Exodus iii. 14?’
Professor Carpenter having replied that probably Exodus iii. 14 is a late addition to the text, Max Muller wrote thus: —
To The Same.
April 11.
'Many thanks for your letter; it was really what I expected and wished for. The very thought struck me as not Jewish, and far too philosophical. Besides, v. 15 contradicts v. 14. But I had another reason. “I am what I am,” Ahmi yat ahmi, is one of the great names of Ahuramazda, and I could not bring myself to believe that this coincidence was accidental. In Zend the connexion between Ahuro and ah-mi, "I am,” is still felt; it hardly is in Jehovah and hayah! It seems to me a clear case of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism: what I wanted to know was the chronological limit. The mental influence between the two religions belongs to very different dates, some very early. It seems to me that the reaction against polytheism and the worship of the old Devas, in fact the very origin of the Zoroastrian religion, and the belief in one Supreme God, Ahuramazda, may have been due to contact with the Jews settled in the cities of India. It is difficult to account for this sudden change without admitting some external impulse. During the second exile the influence seems to come from Mazdaism rather than from Judaism, except in the very latest Pehlevi traditions. We have just published West's translation of the Dinkard in the Sacred Books of the East It is very interesting.’
In April, Max Muller received a letter from the Duke of Argyll, on the subject of his third series of Gifford Lectures, Anthropological Religion, which the Duke had just read. He replied as follows: —
To The Duke of Argyll.
Oxford, April 16, 1892.
‘I did not wish to enter on the question of Miracles, because I had little to say that was new; and yet it seemed to me cowardly to avoid the question altogether. What I wanted to say was that Miracles, in their true sense, so far from being impossible, are inevitable; they arise from the distance which always exists between the founders of a religion and their immediate disciples. They spring everywhere from the same source, a deep veneration felt by the great unreasoning masses for those whom they do not understand. Miracles thus receive a new and a more profound meaning. We are relieved from those never-ending discussions as to what is possible, probable, or real, what is rational, irrational, natural, or supernatural. We find ourselves before true mira, not small miracula. In a world where all is admirable, there is no room for small surprises. In a world in which no sparrow can fall to the ground without the Father, where is there room for an extra sparrow? The Greeks have brought themselves to conceive what is [x]; are we to conceive what is [x]? I confess I cannot, though as to denying the physical possibility of miracles, who would do that? My difficulty is to find anything that is not a miracle. Thus I take the resurrection, not the ascension, as a fact. Then, people will say, “Christ was not really dead." I answer, “If resuscitation excludes the possibility of antecedent death, then He was not.” But who is to draw that line? certainly not the centurion who thought that the blood running out of His side proved death, whereas medical authorities say that it proved the contrary. To me what people call a mere trance is quite as miraculous as any other deathlike state. To me it is enough that, in the case of Christ, whatever happened was not without the will of God. That is enough for me, and I dare not ask whether it required any exceptional effort. My belief in Christ’s true Divinity is based on my belief in the Logos, and so was the belief of such men as Clement, Origen, and others, who became Christians without surrendering an iota of their philosophical convictions. If only I had more time to read! There it is where the true solution of our difficulties seems to me to lie. I shall try to point out the way in my next volume, but I feel I shall break down — I cannot read what I ought to read. However, I shall try. There is not only Clement and Origen, there is Dionysius the Areopagite, then there is Thomas Aquinas, and last, but by no means least, Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Suso, and all the rest. The Cambridge Neo-Platonists are the last flicker of that ancient light, and all depends on the true meaning of Logos, both word and thought. How much more profoundly these old Platonists conceived the Origin of Species than the Darwinians!’
In the spring of this year, the third and fourth volumes of the new edition of the Rig-veda, brought out at the expense of the Maharajah of Vijayanagara, were published. These completed the work. In his preface to the first volume, Max Muller alluded to the correspondence that went on during 1884, between himself and the India Office relative to a new edition of the Rig-veda, and which has been fully detailed on p. 216, To these statements the India Office demurred, and took the peculiar step of writing to the Delegates of the Press early in 1891, complaining of these statements. Max Muller at once begged that such complaints might be addressed straight to him, that he might have an opportunity of replying personally to the points adverted to in the letter to the Delegates. This was never done. These accusations were never addressed directly to Max Muller, and would therefore not be noticed here, had not Professor Boehtlingk in his Max Muller als Mythen-Dichter [Google translate: Max Muller as Myth poet] ended his attack by bringing up these charges, saying, on the authority of a former employe of the India Office, that Max Muller’s statements were all pure inventions (aus der Luft gegriffen [Google translate: from the Grabbed air]). When the third and fourth volumes were ready for publication, Max Muller wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for India, in which he spoke of the charges as 'grave, and most offensive, if not actionable,' but he trusted to be able to prove by 'evidence that cannot be questioned, that every one of these charges is utterly unfounded. and that they reflect great discredit on the persons who invented them.' Who these were, and by what motives they were influenced, was perfectly well known to Max Muller. In his letter to the Secretary of State, he disproves all the charges, and in a letter to Mr. Curzon, then Under-Secretary of State. dated April 9, 1892, agrees not to advert to them in the Preface of the last volume, but to let bygones be bygones. In a later letter, he says that he does not ask for an official retractation of the charges, only, as they came from the Secretary of State in Council, he asks to be set right in the eyes of the Council. He concludes his letter thus: —
'I have either refuted everyone of these libellous charges, or I have not. If I have, surely the Members of Council should be informed of it; if I have not, surely I ought to be informed what charges have remained unrefuted. I therefore leave my case with perfect confidence in your hands, being most unwilling to cause a public scandal, either in India or in England, and being most anxious to see those friendly relations re-established between the Indian Government and myself, to whom in the past I have owed so much.'
Unfortunately the matter had become known on the continent, through a man who did not hesitate to use official information for personal purposes, and who assisted Dr. Boehtlingk's attack, which was widely circulated, whereas Max Muller's refutation was never known.
It was in this year also that the arrangements for the final volumes of the Sacred Books of the East were completed, and the number of forty-nine volumes filled up, though Max Muller was occupied with his work as editor to the last.
To Mr. Nanjio.
Oxford, May 1.
'I was glad to hear yesterday from your young countryman at Oxford that you were well. I was really afraid that some misfortune might have happened to you during that terrible earthquake. But now that I know where you are, and what you are doing, I write to tell you that we are printing the Sanskrit text of the Buddha Karita. I lent your copy to Professor Cowell, who had received another MS. from India, and has restored a very fair text. The book is very important as the oldest life of Buddha, also as the earliest specimen of the Kavya style in Sanskrit, which we know from Kalidasa and others who lived much later. It is not an easy book to read, and I hope Professor Cowen will publish an English translation.
'I have now two grandchildren, a boy and a girl, both flourishing. My son has passed his examination for the Diplomatic Service, which was a great pleasure to me. I myself and my wife are both well.
'If I thought you would read them, I should gladly send you my Lectures on the Science of Religion, but I am afraid you might consider me a heretic in Buddhism, and wish to burn me! I wish you would come to our ninth Oriental Congress, to be held in London next September. I shall have to act as President. It will be a brilliant gathering of Oriental scholars, and would interest you very much.'
Professor Whitney had written a violent attack on Max Muller's new edition of the Science of Language, and to this the following letter mainly relates: —
To Horatio Hale, Esq.
Oxford, May 1.
'No plagiarism, I am sure, is more delightful than that which we all commit on truth. If we succeed in stealing the same good morsel from the larder of Truth we should feel delighted, as I always feel, if others, in their own independent way, arrive at the same results at which I have arrived. We two differ on some points but agree on most, and where we differ I believe an exchange of ideas by word of mouth, and not on paper, would soon make us agree. With regard to Linguistic Ethnology, for instance, all I meant to concede was that though some of the black inhabitants of India learnt to speak an Aryan language, they are ethnologically, or, as people say, by blood, different from the Aryas their conquerors. The Celts in Ireland are Celts, though they speak English. More than that I did not mean, and from what happened at the time I believe the people at Cardiff quite understood what I meant. I feel very grateful for what you said about Whitney. I do not know whether you have followed his raids from the first. I thought at first he was honest and sincere, and took the trouble to answer him in a long paper, "In Self-Defence." In order to put an end to mere squabbling, I proposed to him to choose three judges among his own friends to submit the points in question to them, and to have done. He showed the better part of valour, and declined the trial on purely whimsical grounds. After that he went on sending me articles, anonymous or signed; in fact, he placed himself outside the pale of literary criticism. As, without losing all self-respect, I could not answer him, I have made it a rule for at least fifteen years never to read his invectives. . . . This is the man who adopts a magisterial tone in all American newspapers. I have always thought him to be exactly what you say, un-American, and I believe my American friends are much too shrewd to be taken in by his discharge of venom. I always think if a naughty boy in the street throws mud at you, it is better not to fight him, but to let the mud dry, and brush it off, or still better, wait till one’s friends brush it off for us.’
To M. Renan.
Oxford, May 2.
'My dear old Friend, — We are very anxious to have your support, if not your presence, at the next Oriental Congress to be held in London in September. I have to act as President, and an ill-natured report has been spread that French scholars could not attend a Congress presided over by a German. Now I am a German by birth, but I am a naturalized Englishman, and I doubt whether real Frenchmen, real scholars, share the Chauvinism of —. Lord Reay has asked me to write to you; all we want is your name as a member of the Congress, which entails no more than the ordinary subscription, for which you will receive the transactions of the Congress.'
During Commemoration of this year, the Max Mullers took refuge from the gaieties at Ightham Mote, and then went on to Rugby to their valued friends the Percivals for Speech Day, staying there again a week later on their way to Ireland to attend (by invitation) the Tercentenary of Trinity College, Dublin. There they were the guests of the Lord Mayor. The week was spent in incessant gaieties. On the second day the honorary degrees were conferred, Max Muller being one of the recipients, and being loudly cheered. He was one of the guests chosen to address the students on the last morning of the meeting in Trinity College. The Irish Times described his speech as follows: —
‘The cheering which marked the appearance of Professor Max Muller at the orators’ table was tremendous. This celebrated scholar is a man who rivets the attention of his audience. His style is scholarly and clear; he expresses the results of his study in the simplest of language, and there is not a trace of the pedant in his kindly manner and in his musical voice. He is somewhat above the middle height, is well-built, and his face is one of those strongly-marked, powerful, grey faces which seem to be rough-hewn from granite. His thin hair and bushy whiskers are perfectly white, and, brushed back, they added to the dignity of his highly intellectual face. His pronunciation of English is generally unimpeachable, but at rare intervals a delicately imperfect utterance, corrected almost as soon as spoken, reminded the audience of the celebrated philologist whom they had forgotten in the fluent and forcible speaker of English.'
This fatiguing week was followed by a resting visit to Lord Rosse for three days, after which the Max Mullers made their way by Cork, Glengarriff, and Kenmare, to Killarney, where they stayed with their old friends Professor and Mrs. Butcher, of Edinburgh, exploring, under their guidance, the Lakes, Muckross Abbey, and Ross Castle. The fine scenery was a great delight to Max Muller, whose love of beautiful nature was as vivid at sixty-nine as at twenty-six, when he first visited the Lakes of Cumberland. A day or two were spent at Sir Edward Verner’s at Corke Abbey, near Bray, before returning to England.
To C. E. Norton, Esq., of Cambridge, Mass.
Oxford, July 29.
‘Please accept my late, but very sincere thanks for your welcome and very helpful translation of Dante. I value it all the more, because it shows me that you have kept a place for me in your memory. Life is drawing to an end, the number of friends becomes smaller and smaller, and it is pleasant if our wandering thoughts can dwell with some, and feel that these are still among the living. I ought not to complain, for though I have lost much, much that is most precious has been left to me. I myself go on with my work, though I cannot trust to my memory as much as I did formerly, and must be very careful in verifying everything, not without considerable trouble, I have just finished a second edition of the Rig-veda, in four short quarto volumes, and my Sacred Books of the East are approaching completion as far as I am concerned. I send you a volume which may interest you more than my ordinary books. You will easily see how I try to solve the problems of Nature, Self, and God, historically, upon [x] as a Greek word. We have [x], the Dioscuri, then [x] and [x]. Then there is [x] in Aeschylus, and [x]. Could it be connected with the perfect [x], I command? It is possible, but I can say no more. I do not know whether you received a copy of my Presidential Address which I sent to Hawarden, nor do I expect that you will have time to read it. But you would see how I try to find bridges on which Egyptian and Phoenician thought could have travelled from the East to Greece. My best bridge is the Alphabet. Grant that, and all is granted. But I must not take up any more of your time. I hope I shall have the pleasure of seeing you next term, when you are to lecture at Oxford. Unless you have already made arrangements, may I venture to say that it would give us the greatest pleasure if you and Mrs. Gladstone would stay with us, while you are at Oxford, I should consider your visit a very great honour, and I should do everything to secure you rest, and quiet, while preparing and delivering your lecture.’
To recover the fatigues of the Congress, the Max Mullers joined their daughter and her husband and children at Westward Ho!, near Bideford. An expedition was made by Clovelly and Bude to Boscastle, but the trip was spoilt by the rain.
To Dr. Hosaus.
Translation. Westward Ho, October 2.
'You may feel sure I recollected yesterday the happy days in Dessau, and thought of all those who showed their sympathy by attending the Fetes, It is seldom that anything that one has wished for so long is brought to so successful an end. I shall never forget all I owe to your untiring energy. It must be a constant satisfaction to you to have the outcome of all your efforts daily before your eyes. Everything has gone as well with us this year, as one could possibly expect at our age. I certainly do not get much rest. When the Oriental Congress was over, I and my wife joined my daughter and son-in-law and two grandchildren here at the sea. I was here years ago with Charles Kingsley, when he was writing Westward Ho!, and now I am staying in the bathing-place named after his novel So life flies by. I am delighted to say that my son entered the Diplomatic Service this year, so that, as far as one can see, his future is settled. It is a fine career, and he takes great interest in his work.’
Early in December Max Muller paid his last visit to Hawarden Castle.
To His Wife.
Hawarden Castle, December 7, 1892.
‘It was a long journey, but the country looked beautiful in the snow. The old man is marvellous; he looks stronger than ever, and Mrs. Gladstone, too, wonderfully well. The French Ambassador had to leave, so there is only Lady K. staying here. It is certainly interesting to see a man at his age so vigorous, and full of interest for all things. We have not come to Home Rule yet, but I dare say that will come to-morrow.'
On December 15 Max Muller’s son left England for his first post as attache at Constantinople. The parting was a severe trial to his father, and a visit to Claremont, a few days later, was hailed as a welcome change for him.
To the Right Honourable W. E. Gladstone.
December 17.
'The letter and book from Kiel, which were sent to me to Hawarden, contained the answer from Professor Oldenberg, and the number of the Luneburg Journal which I wished you to see. The article contains a chemical analysis of a large number of ancient bronzes, and shows, as far as I can see conclusively, that bronze was gained by accident, that is by smelting ores containing copper and tin. I remember in Cornwall that people speak of the “brown rider on a white horse," when copper is found above tin. The article likewise shows that really pure copper and pure tin are later discoveries, and so is the intentional combination of the two. The article was published in 1865. If you have time to read it during your short holiday abroad, please let me know and I will send it to you.'
To His Son.
December 21, 1892.
'I should like to see the Piraeus and the Acropolis, if only for what was there once, and what we can enjoy in Greek literature. A man who has ancestors is called a nobleman, but it is our intellectual ancestors, Plato, Sophocles, &c., that give us true nobility and make us feel our place in the world. Classical education gives us a respect for the past, and without that respect, without that firm ground to stand on, we are like reeds shaken by the wind, like nouveaux riches without any heirlooms.'
The first two mouths of the year 1893 were passed quietly at Oxford, in printing the last series of Gifford Lectures, Theosophy or Psychological Religion. ‘Don’t be distressed by any comments,' wrote a friend; ‘there will be deepest gratitude to you for putting these truths so plainly and so gently.' Max Muller had purposely added the word ‘Theosophy’ to his title, because
‘The venerable name, so well known among early Christian thinkers, as expressing the highest conception of God within the reach of the human mind, has of late been so greatly misappropriated that it was high time to restore it to its proper function. It should be known once for all that one may call oneself a theosophist without . . . believing in any occult sciences and black art.'
In his preface Max Muller again defends the historical method which he had pursued, not only in these four courses of Gifford Lectures, but in all his writings on kindred subjects.
‘So long as we look on the history of the human race as something that might or might not have been, we cannot wonder that the student of religion should prefer to form his opinions of the nature of religion, and the laws of its growth, from the masterwork of Thomas Aquinas, the Summa Sacrae Theologiae [Google translate: The Summa of Sacred Theology], rather than from the Sacred Books of the East. But when we have learnt to recognize in history the realization of a rational purpose, when we have learnt to look upon it as, in the truest sense of the word, a Divine drama, the plot revealed in it ought to assume in the eyes of the philosopher also, a meaning and a value far beyond the speculations of even the most enlightened and logical theologians.’
This last volume was fiercely criticized. The Academy considered that it exceeded in interest and information all the preceding volumes. Whilst the Record maintained that it was a grave question whether the definition of the Logos could be accepted by the Christian student, another paper declared that they had read nothing better than the particular lectures on the Logos doctrine. The Inquirer quoted
‘The striking passage ... in which Mr. Max Muller refers to the difficulty which has been felt by some Christian theologians in fixing the oneness and yet difference between the Son of God and humanity at large. “It was not thought robbery that the Son should be equal with the Father (Phil ii. 6), but it was thought robbery to make human nature equal with that of the Son. Many were frightened by the thought that the Son of God should thus be degraded to a mere man. Is there not a blasphemy against humanity also, and is it not blasphemous to speak of a mere man? What can be the meaning of a mere man, if we once have recognized the Divine essence in him, if we once believe that, unless we are of God, we are nothing? If we once allow ourselves to speak of a mere man, others will soon speak of a mere God.”’
Another review says; —
‘There is, perhaps, no one of the Gifford Lecturers who has endured more vituperative criticism than Professor Max Muller; and yet to the single-minded inquirer after truth his four volumes of Gifford Lectures are full of suggestive thought, of fearless criticism, and of reverent study such as should not produce an evil result. Max Muller points out that his plan in framing these lectures was "to show that, given the human mind such as it is, and its environment such as it is, the concept of God and a belief in God would be inevitable." To accomplish this task he set himself to trace the history of religion from the earliest indications of a belief in the supernatural, and was able, as he thinks, triumphantly to show that God had never been without a witness. He traces the influences exerted by Oriental religions upon Christianity with the outspoken frankness that characterizes all his Gifford Lectures, and certainly he suggests some very hard problems for his critics to explain upon the theory of a comparatively recent revelation. In his researches he came across many curious maxims and incidents in the oldest Oriental theologies, which strangely anticipated what are deemed distinctive characteristics of the Christian religion. To him these coincidences seemed to prove the truth of Christianity and to make its divine origin more apparent. But it was not so with his critics. They imagined that these striking similarities, so far from proving Christianity, showed it to be an imposture, com- posed of fragments of earlier beliefs, the outcome of mere human intelligence. The Professor does not spare these purblind zealots. He says, "There survive even now some half-petrified philosophers and theologians who call it heresy to believe that unassisted human reason could ever attain to a concept of, or a belief in, God; who maintain that a special revelation is absolutely necessary for that purpose, but that such a revelation was granted to the human race twice only — once in the Old, and once in the New Testament.” This is very bold language, but it is the proper attitude for a Gifford Lecturer to assume. If Professor Muller has stated untruths as facts, or has drawn the wrong inferences, the most fitting reply is to set him right, not simply to abuse him, as if he were a magnified Volney or Voltaire.’
A friend, whose judgement Max Muller valued highly, congratulated him 'on having thus completed so long and laborious a work. The truths expounded arc indeed of the first importance. I rejoice that this aspect of religion should have found so powerful and persuasive an interpreter. The ease and freedom of your exposition give us all a lesson in the intelligible treatment of the most abstruse things.’
To H.R.H. The Duchess of Albany.
7, Norham Gardens, January 2, 1893.
'Madam, — I was much interested to hear that the little I said to your Royal Highness about the Word, that is the Logos, has found an echo in your thoughts. At present all my work is really concentrated on the origin and the history of that thought. Its deepest roots He in the most ancient portion of Greek philosophy; there it grows in Plato and Aristotle, and comes to full maturity in Philo. It was adopted by the Greek converts to Christianity, who were steeped in Greek philosophy and yet honestly persuaded of the truth of Christianity, such as it was in the first and second centuries. It is very different now from what it was then! My fourth and last volume of Gifford Lectures will be almost entirely devoted to this subject, and will make it possible, I believe, for honest philosophers to be honest Christians. But the work is very hard; I have so much to read, more than I have time and strength for. Still I must do my best before I can take my holidays. In the meantime I should be very glad if you and Mrs. Moreton would look at the first three volumes of my Gifford Lectures, which I have taken the liberty to send to you. They are only preparatory, and occasionally, I am afraid, somewhat tedious. But that could not be helped. One has to make bricks before one can build an arch. With the fourth volume as the coping-stone, I hope the arch will prove safe and sound. . , . With many thanks for your Royal Highness's kind wishes for the New Year, which I heartily reciprocate, I have the honour to remain,
‘Your Royal Highness’s most faithful servant.'
To The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone.
Oxford, January 9, 1893.
‘I send you the paper on Bronze by Dr. Wibel. It has attracted very little attention, but it seems to me extremely valuable, and to remove all difficulties in the most natural way. It is founded, as you will see, on 230 chemical analyses of ancient bronze. It shows that here, as elsewhere, nature suggested the most important discoveries. It was not that people at first learnt to extract copper and tin, and then intentionally mixed the two to produce the harder metal bronze. They could not have done it, it seems, because the extra smelting of pure copper is more difficult than the promiscuous smelting of impure copper and tin ore which produced bronze. It seems to follow that this discovery of bronze could have been made nowhere but in England, where the two ores are found in close propinquity. There are a number of other hints in the paper which I feel sure will interest you, if you can really make time to read it.'
To His Son at Constantinople.
February 19, 1893.
'From what I saw of M. Waddington, his reasons for resigning seemed to me all far-fetched. Though here he is plus royaliste que le Roi [Google translate: more royalist than the King], in his heart there is some English feeling, at all events no anti-English feeling. Now my impression is that the French Government wants, by any means, to burst the Triple Alliance, and its entente with England. To throw the French upon the German army is a dangerous experiment, and a descent on Italy too would be risky. But to show the teeth to England, or bully it on one of its many vulnerable points, might trouble the waters and enable them to fish. They might then offer almost anything to Russia to excite her ambition, or they might hope to cajole England into a more friendly understanding with France, by offering Egypt or Madagascar, in fact anything that might seem tempting. Now this general policy Waddington as a sensible man would not approve, and would probably decline to have anything to do with it. I feel sure he does not go for the sake of his numismatic studies.'
