Skip to main content

Full text of "Correspondence"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


By the kindness of the editor and of my colleague, Pro- 
fessor Van Hook, I have been privileged to see, in proof, 
Professor Van Hook's paper in this issue, and to make some 
comment upon it. That comment shall be brief. 

In the third paragraph from the close of his paper Pro- 
fessor Van Hook says : " It is true that in the Antigone the 
motif occurs most frequently, now in one sense, now in another. 
But this is what one might expect in a play where there is 
contention and clashing of wills and purposes throughout : 
first, between Antigone and Ismene; secondly, between An- 
tigone and Creon ; thirdly, between Creon and Haemon ; and 
fourthly, between Creon and Teiresias ". I am impelled to 
ask, why, then, was it left for me (as I think it was) to call 
attention to the presence in the Antigone of this motif? I 
have read a good deal, in commentaries and elsewhere, on the 
play, but nowhere have I seen any hint of the recognition of 
the presence of this motif in the play. I showed clearly in 
my paper that, discerning as Jebb was, he was wholly blind to 
this important element of the play. 

Had, then, my colleague more clearly emphasized the im- 
portance, from this point of view, of my paper, I should have 
no ground whatever for taking issue with his article. To be 
the first to note — or at least adequately to emphasize — so im- 
portant a point in connection with the much studied Antigone, 
and to inspire so good a paper as Professor Van Hook's, is 
happiness enough for one who has never professed to be a 

I am not surprised that, on page 393, note 2, Professor Van 
Hook maintains that I have overemphasized the significance 
of certain passages. One is apt to find what he looks for ; I 
am, frankly, surprised that my colleague in so few instances 
questions my interpretations. 

I find myself able, also to agree with what he says of An- 
tigone, in note 2 to page 394. I see now that I was, perhaps, 
not as clear as I might have been in my paper. To my saying 
that to Sophocles Antigone was wholly in the right, Creon 
wholly in the wrong, I should have added a clear-cut state- 
ment to the effect that I limited the saying to the intellectual 
(and moral) issue that lay between them. I did not touch the 
matters that Professor Van Hook puts so well in the footnote 
under consideration. I was, in a sense, not concerned at all 


with those matters. Antigone was and is a tragic figure of 
the sort that life supplies often enough to our contemplation 
— the figure of one rationally and intellectually right, but 
wrong, most pitiably wrong, in the manner of defending the 
intellectually right. 

It appears, then, that, with the single exception that, per- 
haps, I overplayed my hand, my distinguished colleague and I 
are in hearty accord on an important and interesting point in 
connection with Greek tragedy. 

Charles Knapp. 

Barnard College, Columbia University. 

Kirby Flower Smith. 

December 6, 1862-December 6, 1918. 

As this number goes to press, word is received of the 
sudden death of one of our most valued contributors, Kirby 
Flower Smith, Professor of Latin in the Johns Hopkins 
University. His death is a grievous blow to the cause of 
classical learning. A host of friends and admirers mourn 
his loss. But, in the words of one of his favorite poets, 

Sunt aliquid Manes : letum non omnia finit. 

A more adequate tribute to his life and services is promised 
for a future issue of this Journal. 

C. W. E. Miller.