Showing 3 results

Claims that he does not understand what right Lightfoot can have 'to say that [they] shall all soon know.' Refers to 'Saturday's attack' on him [Seeley], and to Grote's paper, which he sends to him [not included]. Comments on Grote's criticisms of his work, in relation to moral history and the attribution to Christ of discoveries in morality. Refers to his attempt at 'a sketch of all philosophies of the [Stoic] kind.' Mentions the accusation of diffuseness made in the 'Quarterly'. Refers to Sidgwick's reference to Seneca, Epictetus and Amelius, and claims that these three 'are not in the strictest sense Stoics but original moralists thinking in a generally Stoical way'. Claims that desire must be controlled, 'but only in one way, by a stronger desire'.

Explains that he did not mean for Sidgwick to take his comments on Grote as he did. Claims that he was very glad to see the criticism, and claims that he learnt from it. Refers to Grote's arguments from moral history, and complains of him having called Seeley a humbug in relation to his method of investigation of the Gospels. Promises to write 'on the other subjects in a day or two, particularly on that distincion between moralist and legislator', in slighting which, he claims, Sidgwick quite missed the point of the book.

Announces that he has been working on an edition of the '1st Decade' [of Livy] for two years and hopes to have it published soon. Asks Sidgwick if he does not try getting up candidates of his own. Reports that he has heard from Hepworth Dixon 'that the author is [Walword] [or some such name] Secretary to the Civil Service Commission.' Does not think that Sidgwick makes out a case for Grote, and his criticisms of Seeley's work. Asks if there is no criticism 'but of the [Strauss] and [Renan] kind'. Comments that he found them dealing too much in conjecture; that they should 'let alone' the discrepancies of the Gospel, 'and stick to that in which they agree.' Announces that he is writing a preface, which he intends to send to Sidgwick for criticisms. Of the poems, observes that they were 'good in metre and showy in style, but crude in [theory] and nothing in imagination - as E[cce] H[omo] is in spite of [Seeley's] admirers.'