Relational and Algebraic Methods in

Computer Science 17th International

Conference RAMiCS 2018 Groningen
The Netherlands October 29 November
1 2018 Proceedings Jules Desharnais
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/relational-and-algebraic-methods-in-computer-scienc
e-17th-international-conference-ramics-2018-groningen-the-netherlands-october-29-n
ovember-1-2018-proceedings-jules-desharnais/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Relational and Algebraic Methods in Computer Science

14th International Conference RAMiCS 2014 Marienstatt
Germany April 28 May 1 2014 Proceedings 1st Edition
Peter Höfner
https://textbookfull.com/product/relational-and-algebraic-
methods-in-computer-science-14th-international-conference-
ramics-2014-marienstatt-germany-
april-28-may-1-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-peter-hofner/

Discovery Science 21st International Conference DS 2018

Limassol Cyprus October 29 31 2018 Proceedings Larisa
Soldatova

https://textbookfull.com/product/discovery-science-21st-
international-conference-ds-2018-limassol-cyprus-
october-29-31-2018-proceedings-larisa-soldatova/

Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management:

17th International Conference, CISIM 2018, Olomouc,
Czech Republic, September 27-29, 2018, Proceedings
Khalid Saeed
https://textbookfull.com/product/computer-information-systems-
and-industrial-management-17th-international-conference-
cisim-2018-olomouc-czech-republic-
september-27-29-2018-proceedings-khalid-saeed/

PRIMA 2018 Principles and Practice of Multi Agent

Systems 21st International Conference Tokyo Japan
October 29 November 2 2018 Proceedings Tim Miller

https://textbookfull.com/product/prima-2018-principles-and-
practice-of-multi-agent-systems-21st-international-conference-
tokyo-japan-october-29-november-2-2018-proceedings-tim-miller/
Swarm Intelligence 11th International Conference ANTS
2018 Rome Italy October 29 31 2018 Proceedings Marco
Dorigo

https://textbookfull.com/product/swarm-intelligence-11th-
international-conference-ants-2018-rome-italy-
october-29-31-2018-proceedings-marco-dorigo/

Network and Parallel Computing 15th IFIP WG 10 3

International Conference NPC 2018 Muroran Japan
November 29 December 1 2018 Proceedings Feng Zhang

https://textbookfull.com/product/network-and-parallel-
computing-15th-ifip-wg-10-3-international-conference-
npc-2018-muroran-japan-november-29-december-1-2018-proceedings-
feng-zhang/

Digital Heritage Progress in Cultural Heritage

Documentation Preservation and Protection 7th
International Conference EuroMed 2018 Nicosia Cyprus
October 29 November 3 2018 Proceedings Part II Marinos
Ioannides
https://textbookfull.com/product/digital-heritage-progress-in-
cultural-heritage-documentation-preservation-and-protection-7th-
international-conference-euromed-2018-nicosia-cyprus-
october-29-november-3-2018-proceedings-part-ii-marinos/

Graph Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science 44th

International Workshop WG 2018 Cottbus Germany June 27
29 2018 Proceedings Andreas Brandstädt

https://textbookfull.com/product/graph-theoretic-concepts-in-
computer-science-44th-international-workshop-wg-2018-cottbus-
germany-june-27-29-2018-proceedings-andreas-brandstadt/

Applied Informatics First International Conference ICAI

2018 Bogotá Colombia November 1 3 2018 Proceedings
Hector Florez

https://textbookfull.com/product/applied-informatics-first-
international-conference-icai-2018-bogota-colombia-
november-1-3-2018-proceedings-hector-florez/
 Jules Desharnais · Walter Guttmann
Stef Joosten (Eds.)

Relational and
LNCS 11194

Algebraic Methods
in Computer Science
17th International Conference, RAMiCS 2018
Groningen, The Netherlands, October 29 – November 1, 2018
Proceedings

123
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11194
Commenced Publication in 1973
Founding and Former Series Editors:
Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen

Editorial Board
David Hutchison
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Takeo Kanade
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Josef Kittler
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Jon M. Kleinberg
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Friedemann Mattern
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
John C. Mitchell
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Moni Naor
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
C. Pandu Rangan
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
Bernhard Steffen
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
Demetri Terzopoulos
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Doug Tygar
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Gerhard Weikum
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7407
Jules Desharnais Walter Guttmann
•

Stef Joosten (Eds.)

Relational and
Algebraic Methods
in Computer Science
17th International Conference, RAMiCS 2018
Groningen, The Netherlands, October 29 – November 1, 2018
Proceedings

123
Editors
Jules Desharnais Stef Joosten
Université Laval Open Universiteit
Québec, QC Heerlen
Canada The Netherlands
Walter Guttmann
University of Canterbury
Christchurch
New Zealand

ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
ISBN 978-3-030-02148-1 ISBN 978-3-030-02149-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02149-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015949476

LNCS Sublibrary: SL1 – Theoretical Computer Science and General Issues

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or
omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

This volume contains the proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Rela-
tional and Algebraic Methods in Computer Science (RAMiCS 2018), which was held
in Groningen, The Netherlands, from October 29 to November 1, 2018.
The plan to initiate this series of conferences was put in place during the 38th
Banach Semester on Algebraic Methods in Logic and Their Computer Science
Application in Warsaw, Poland, in September and October 1991. The first numbered
occurrence was a Dagstuhl seminar on Relational Methods in Computer Science
(RelMiCS 1), held in Germany in 1994. From then on and until 2009, at intervals of
about one year and a half, there was a RelMiCS conference. Starting in 2003, RelMiCS
conferences were held jointly with Applications of Kleene Algebras (AKA) confer-
ences. At RelMiCS 11/AKA 6 in Doha, Qatar, it was decided to use the current name
for the series, that is, Relational and Algebraic Methods in Computer Science
(RAMiCS).
Recurrent topics of RAMiCS conferences include semiring- and lattice-based
structures such as relation algebras and Kleene algebras, their connections with pro-
gram logics and other logics, their use in theories of computing, their formalization
with theorem provers, and their application to modeling and reasoning about com-
puting systems and processes.
In total, 30 papers were submitted to RAMiCS 2018 and the Program Committee
selected 21 of them for presentation at the conference. In these proceedings the selected
papers are grouped under three headings: “Theoretical Foundations,” “Reasoning
About Computations and Programs,” and “Applications and Tools.” Each submission
was evaluated by at least four independent reviewers, and further discussed electron-
ically during two weeks. The chairs are very grateful to all Program Committee
members and to the external reviewers for their time and expertise.
Roland Backhouse, Manuel Bodirsky, and Philippa Gardner kindly accepted our
invitation to present their research at the conference. The abstracts of Roland Backhouse’s
talk, “The Importance of Factorisation in Algorithm Design,” and Philippa Gardner’s talk,
“Scalable Reasoning About Concurrent Programs,” are included in the proceedings. So is
the full paper related to Manuel Bodirsky’s talk, “Finite Relation Algebras with Normal
Representations.” This conference featured a tutorial on motivating students for relation
algebra presented by one of us (Stef Joosten). The abstract of this tutorial is also included
in this volume. An experimental session of this conference was a meeting with software
engineers who work in practice, most of whom have little contact with the theories
discussed in our conference. This meeting was planned as a way to foster applications of
relational and algebraic methods in computer science.
We thank the RAMiCS Steering Committee for their support and the Open Univer-
siteit Nederland for organizing this conference. We gratefully acknowledge the financial
support of Ordina Nederland BV for their sponsorship and their help with organizing this
VI Preface

conference. We also thank the Groningen Congres Bureau and the Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen for the warm welcome we received in the Academiegebouw and the city itself.
A special thank you is due to Sebastiaan J. C. Joosten, author in previous editions and this
time a very active, talented publicity chair.
We also appreciate the excellent facilities offered by the EasyChair conference
administration system, and Alfred Hofmann and Anna Kramer’s help in publishing this
volume with Springer. Finally, we owe much to all authors and participants for their
support of this RAMiCS conference.

October 2018 Jules Desharnais

Walter Guttmann
Stef Joosten
 Organization

Organizing Committee
Conference Chair
Stef Joosten Open Universiteit, The Netherlands

PC Chairs
Jules Desharnais Université Laval, Canada
Walter Guttmann University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Publicity Chair
Sebastiaan Joosten Universiteit Twente, The Netherlands

Program Committee
Luca Aceto Reykjavík University, Iceland
Gran Sasso Science Institute, Italy
Rudolf Berghammer Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Germany
Jules Desharnais Université Laval, Canada
Uli Fahrenberg École Polytechnique, France
Hitoshi Furusawa Kagoshima University, Japan
Walter Guttmann University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Robin Hirsch University College London, UK
Peter Höfner Data61, CSIRO, Australia
Marcel Jackson La Trobe University, Australia
Jean-Baptiste Jeannin University of Michigan, USA
Peter Jipsen Chapman University, USA
Stef Joosten Open Universiteit, The Netherlands
Wolfram Kahl McMaster University, Canada
Barbara König Universität Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Dexter Kozen Cornell University, USA
Agi Kurucz King’s College London, UK
Tadeusz Litak Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg,
Germany
Roger Maddux Iowa State University, USA
Annabelle McIver Macquarie University, Australia
Szabolcs Mikulás Birkbeck, University of London, UK
Ali Mili New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Bernhard Möller Universität Augsburg, Germany
José N. Oliveira Universidade do Minho, Portugal
Alessandra Palmigiano Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands
VIII Organization

Damien Pous CNRS, France

Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh Queen Mary University of London, UK
John Stell University of Leeds, UK
Georg Struth University of Sheffield, UK
Michael Winter Brock University, Canada

Steering Committee
Rudolf Berghammer Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Germany
Jules Desharnais Université Laval, Canada
Ali Jaoua Qatar University, Qatar
Peter Jipsen Chapman University, USA
Bernhard Möller Universität Augsburg, Germany
José N. Oliveira Universidade do Minho, Portugal
Ewa Orłowska National Institute of Telecommunications, Poland
Gunther Schmidt Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany
Michael Winter (Chair) Brock University, Canada

Additional Reviewers

Musa Al-Hassy Roland Glück Koki Nishizawa

Benjamin Cabrera Giuseppe Greco Filip Sieczkowski
Christian Doczkal Lucy Ham Jorge Sousa Pinto
Jérémy Dubut Sebastiaan Joosten Norihiro Tsumagari
Sabine Frittella Fei Liang Thorsten Wißmann
Ilias Garnier Konstantinos Mamouras

Sponsors

Ordina Nederland BV (Main Sponsor)

Groningen Congres Bureau

Local Organizers
Chrisja Muris Open Universiteit
Heleen Bakker Open Universiteit
Hillebrand Meijer Ordina
Erick Koster Ordina
Astrid Patz Ordina
Margot Spee Groningen Congres Bureau
Kelly Scholtens Groningen Congres Bureau
Abstracts of Invited Talks
 Scalable Reasoning About Concurrent
Programs

Philippa Gardner

Imperial College London, UK

p.gardner@imperial.ac.uk

Scalable reasoning about complex concurrent programs interacting with shared

memory is a fundamental, open research problem. Developers manage the complexity
of concurrent software systems by designing software components that are composi-
tional and modular. With compositionality, a developer designs local subcomponents
with well-understood interfaces that connect to the rest of the system. With modularity,
a developer designs reusable subcomponents with abstract software interfaces that can
hide the complexity of the subcomponents from the rest of the system. The challenge is
to develop compositional, modular reasoning of concurrent programs, which follows
the intuitions of the developer in how to structure their software components with
precisely defined specifications of software interfaces. These specifications should not
leak implementation details and should be expressed at the level of abstraction of the
client.
I will describe the work done by my group and others on compositional and
modular reasoning about concurrent programs using modern concurrent separation
logics. I will present work on reasoning about safety properties, highlighting the CAP
logic [ECOOP’10] which introduced logical abstraction (the fiction of separation) to
concurrent separation logics and the TaDA logic [ECOOP’14] which introduced
abstract atomicity (the fiction of atomicity). I will also present new work on progress
properties, introducing the TaDA-Live logic for reasoning about the termination of
blocking programs. I will demonstrate the subtlety of the reasoning using a simple lock
module, and also compare this work with linearizability, contextual refinement and
other concurrent separation logics.

Papers to read:
O’Hearn, P.W.: Resources, concurrency, and local reasoning. Theor. Comput. Sci. 375
(1–3), 271–307 (2007)
http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/p.ohearn/papers/concurrency.pdf
Dinsdale-Young, T., da Rocha Pinto, P., Gardner, P.: A perspective on specifying and
verifying concurrent modules. J. Logical Algebraic Methods Program. 98, 1–25 (2018)
https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/*pg/publications/Dinsdale-Young2018perspective.pdf
 The Importance of Factorisation
in Algorithm Design

Roland Backhouse

School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham

rcb@cs.nott.ac.uk

In 1971, J.H. Conway [Con71] published a slim volume entitled “Regular Algebra and
Finite Machines” which was to have great influence on my own work (eg. [Bac06]).
I was particularly impressed by the chapter on factor theory and its subsequent
application in the construction of biregulators. Although some elements of Conway’s
book are now well cited, this part of the book still appears to be much less well known.
The goal of this talk is to explain why factor theory is important in the design of
algorithms.
We introduce Conway’s factor matrix and then show how the (unique)
reflexive-transitive-reduction of the factor matrix, dubbed the “factor graph” [Bac75],
is the basis of the well-known Knuth-Morris-Pratt pattern-matching algorithm
[KMP77, BL77]. This serves as an appetiser for a review of fixed-point theory and
Galois connections, focusing particularly on the relevance of the theory in the design of
algorithms.
We then return to factor theory and how it forms the basis of practical applications
in program analysis [SdML04]. We conclude with some speculation on how a greater
focus on factorisation might help us to better understand the complexity of algorithms.

References
[Bac75] Backhouse, R.C.: Closure algorithms and the star-height problem of regular lan-
guages. Ph.D. thesis, University of London (1975). Scanned-in copy of the chapters
on factor theory available from www.cs.nott.ac.uk/*psarb2/MPC/FactorGraphs.pdf
[Bac06] Backhouse, R.: Regular algebra applied to language problems. J. Log. Algebraic
Program. 66, 71–111 (2006)
[BL77] Backhouse, R.C., Lutz, R.K.: Factor graphs, failure functions and bi-trees. In:
Salomaa, A., Steinby, M. (eds.) ICALP 1977. LNCS, vol. 52, pp. 61–75. Springer,
Heidelberg (1977)
[Con71] Conway, J.H.: Regular Algebra and Finite Machines. Chapman and Hall, London
(1971)
[KMP77] Knuth, D.E., Morris, J.H., Pratt, V.R.: Fast pattern matching in strings.
SIAM J. Comput. 6, 325–350 (1977)
[SdML04] Sittampalam, G., de Moor, O., Larssen, K.F.: Incremental execution of transforma-
tion specifications. In: Proceedings of the 31st SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on
Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2004, vol. 39. ACM SIGPLAN
Notices, pp. 26–38, January 2004
 Tutorial: Relation Algebra in the Classroom
with Ampersand

Stef Joosten

Open University of the Netherlands

stef.joosten@ou.nl

This tutorial explores a way to motivate students for relation algebras by applying it in
software engineering. Participants will get hands-on experience with Ampersand [1],
which is a compiler that transforms a specification in relation algebra in working
software. They will be directed to the documentation site [2] for more precise infor-
mation about the language and tools.
This tutorial starts with a motivation: Why might working with Ampersand moti-
vate students for relation algebra? Then the participants will create an information
system online, just like students do in the course Rule Based Design [3]. For this
purpose we ask participants to bring their laptops. The presentation proceeds by
pointing out which learning points are relevant in the tutorial. It finalizes by giving an
overview in the available materials and tools. All materials are freely available in open
source, so participants can take it to their own classrooms.
Professors who want to use these materials are cordially invited to partake in the
further development.

Background

Ampersand was originally intended as a means to specify requirements [4] in

heterogeneous relation algebra [5]. The toolset evolved into a tool for students [6]. The
Ampersand toolset has been used since 2013 [7] at the Open University in two courses
and numerous research assignments.
The novel feature of Ampersand is that a theory in relation algebra is being used as
a database program. It specifies persistence (i.e. the database) and user interfaces. This
is achieved by using one interpretation of the algebra: a relation is interpreted as a finite
set of pairs.
The user gets a programming language that is declarative, strongly typed, and
easily subjected to proofs of correctness [8]. The benefits are fast development (because
the Ampersand compiler generates working software), maintainability (because soft-
ware is easily divided into independent chunks), and adaptability (because generating
an application and deploying it is automated).
XIV S. Joosten

References
1. Joosten, S.: RAP3 (2009–2018). rap.cs.ou.nl/RAP3
2. Joosten, S., Hageraats, E.: Documentation of Ampersand (2016–2018). ampersandtarski.
gitbook.io/documentation/
3. Rutledge, L., Wetering, R.v.d., Joosten, S.: Course IM0103 Rule Based Design for CS (2009–
2018). www.ou.nl/-/IM0403_Rule-Based-Design
4. Dijkman, R.M., Ferreira Pires, L., Joosten, S.M.M.: Calculating with concepts: a technique for
the development of business process support. In: Evans, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the UML
2001 Workshop on Practical UML-Based Rigorous Development Methods: Countering or
Integrating the eXstremists, Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 7. FIZ, Karlsruhe (2001)
5. van der Woude, J., Joosten, S.: Relational heterogeneity relaxed by subtyping. In: de Swart, H.
(ed.) RAMICS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6663, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
6. Michels, G., Joosten, S., van der Woude, J., Joosten, S.: Ampersand: applying relation algebra
in practice. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Relational and Algebraic Methods in
Computer Science RAMICS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6663, pp. 280–293. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
(2011)
7. Michels, G., Joosten, S.: Progressive development and teaching with RAP. In: Proceedings
of the 3rd Computer Science Education Research Conference on Computer Science Education
Research, CSERC 2013, pp. 3:33–3:43. Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands (2013)
8. Joosten, S.: Relation algebra as programming language using the ampersand compiler. J. Log.
Algebraic Methods Program. 100, 113–129 (2018)
 Contents

Invited Paper

Finite Relation Algebras with Normal Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Manuel Bodirsky

Theoretical Foundations

C-Dioids and l-Continuous Chomsky-Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Hans Leiß and Mark Hopkins

Coequalizers and Tensor Products for Continuous Idempotent Semirings . . . . 37

Mark Hopkins and Hans Leiß

Distances, Norms and Error Propagation in Idempotent Semirings. . . . . . . . . 53

Roland Glück

T-Norm Based Operations in Arrow Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Michael Winter

Decidability of Equational Theories for Subsignatures of Relation Algebra . . . 87

Robin Hirsch

Composition of Different-Type Relations via the Kleisli Category

for the Continuation Monad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Koki Nishizawa and Norihiro Tsumagari

Axiomatizing Discrete Spatial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Giulia Sindoni, Katsuhiko Sano, and John G. Stell

A Modal and Relevance Logic for Qualitative Spatial Reasoning . . . . . . . . . 131

Pranab Kumar Ghosh and Michael Winter

On the Structure of Generalized Effect Algebras and Separation Algebras . . . 148

Sarah Alexander, Peter Jipsen, and Nadiya Upegui

Counting Finite Linearly Ordered Involutive Bisemilattices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Stefano Bonzio, Michele Pra Baldi, and Diego Valota

MIX H-Autonomous Quantales and the Continuous Weak Order . . . . . . . . . 184

Maria João Gouveia and Luigi Santocanale
XVI Contents

Reasoning About Computations and Programs

Calculational Verification of Reactive Programs with Reactive Relations

and Kleene Algebra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Simon Foster, Kangfeng Ye, Ana Cavalcanti, and Jim Woodcock

Verifying Hybrid Systems with Modal Kleene Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Jonathan Julián Huerta y Munive and Georg Struth

Algebraic Derivation of Until Rules and Application to Timer Verification. . . 244

Jessica Ertel, Roland Glück, and Bernhard Möller

False Failure: Creating Failure Models for Separation Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Callum Bannister and Peter Höfner

Towards an Analysis of Dynamic Gossip in NetKAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Malvin Gattinger and Jana Wagemaker

Coalgebraic Tools for Randomness-Conserving Protocols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Dexter Kozen and Matvey Soloviev

Applications and Tools

Algebraic Solution of Weighted Minimax Single-Facility Constrained

Location Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Nikolai Krivulin

A Set Solver for Finite Set Relation Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

Maximiliano Cristiá and Gianfranco Rossi

On the Computational Complexity of Non-dictatorial Aggregation . . . . . . . . 350

Lefteris Kirousis, Phokion G. Kolaitis, and John Livieratos

Calculational Relation-Algebraic Proofs in the Teaching

Tool ........................................... 366
Wolfram Kahl

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

Invited Paper
 Finite Relation Algebras with Normal
Representations

Manuel Bodirsky(B)

Institut für Algebra, TU Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany

manuel.bodirsky@tu-dresden.de

Abstract. One of the traditional applications of relation algebras is

to provide a setting for infinite-domain constraint satisfaction problems.
Complexity classification for these computational problems has been one
of the major open research challenges of this application field. The past
decade has brought significant progress on the theory of constraint sat-
isfaction, both over finite and infinite domains. This progress has been
achieved independently from the relation algebra approach. The present
article translates the recent findings into the traditional relation algebra
setting, and points out a series of open problems at the interface between
model theory and the theory of relation algebras.

1 Introduction

One of the fundamental computational problems for a relation algebra A is

the network satisfaction problem for A, which is to determine for a given A-
network N whether it is satisfiable in some representation of A (for definitions,
see Sects. 2 and 3). Robin Hirsch named in 1995 the Really Big Complexity
Problem (RBCP) for relation algebras, which is to ‘clearly map out which (finite)
relation algebras are tractable and which are intractable’ [Hir96]. For example,
for the Point Algebra the network satisfaction problem is in P and for Allen’s
Interval Algebra it is NP-hard. One of the standard methods to show that the
network satisfaction problem for a finite relation algebra is in P is via establishing
local consistency. The question whether the network satisfaction problem for A
can be solved by local consistency methods is another question that has been
studied intensively for finite relation algebras A (see [BJ17] for a survey on the
second question).
If A has a fully universal square representation (we follow the terminology of
Hirsch [Hir96]) then the network satisfaction problem for A can be formulated
as a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) for a countably infinite structure.
The complexity of constraint satisfaction is a research direction that has seen
quite some progress in the past years. The dichotomy conjecture of Feder and

Manuel Bodirsky—The author has received funding from the European Research
Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme
(FP7/2007-2013 Grant Agreement no. 257039, CSP-Infinity).
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018
J. Desharnais et al. (Eds.): RAMiCS 2018, LNCS 11194, pp. 3–17, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02149-8_1
4 M. Bodirsky

Vardi from 1993 states that every CSP for a finite structure is in P or NP-
hard; the tractability conjecture [BKJ05] is a stronger conjecture that predicts
precisely which CSPs are in P and which are NP-hard. Two independent proofs
of these conjectures appeared in 2017 [Bul17,Zhu17], based on concepts and
tools from universal algebra. An earlier result of Barto and Kozik [BK09] gives
an exact characterisation of those finite-domain CSPs that can be solved by local
consistency methods.
Usually, the network satisfaction problem for a finite relation algebra A can-
not be formulated as a CSP for a finite structure. However, suprisingly often it
can be formulated as a CSP for a countably infinite ω-categorical structure B.
For an important subclass of ω-categorical structures we have a tractability con-
jecture, too. The condition that supposedly characterises containment in P can
be formulated in many non-trivially equivalent ways [BKO+17,BP16,BOP17]
and has been confirmed in numerous special cases, see for instance the arti-
cles [BK08,BMPP16,KP17,BJP17,BMM18,BM16] and the references therein.
In the light of the recent advances in constraint satisfaction, both over finite
and infinite domains, we revisit the RBCP and discuss the current state of the
art. In particular, we observe that if A has a normal representation (again, we
follow the terminology of Hirsch [Hir96]), then the network satisfaction problem
for A falls into the scope of the infinite-domain tractability conjecture. We also
show that there is an algorithm that decides for a given finite relation algebra A
with a fully universal square representation whether A has a normal representa-
tion. (In other words, there is an algorithm that decides for a given A whether
the class of atomic A-networks has the amalgamation property.) The scope of
the tractability conjecture is larger, though. We describe an example of a finite
relation algebra which has an ω-categorical fully universal square representation
(and a polynomial-time tractable network satisfaction problem) which is not
normal, but which does fall into the scope of the conjecture.
Whether the infinite-domain tractability conjecture might contribute to the
resolution of the RBCP in general remains open; we present several questions
in Sect. 7 whose answer would shed some light on this question. These questions
concern the existence of ω-categorical fully universal square representations and
are of independent interest, and in my view they are central to the theory of
representable finite relation algebras.

2 Relation Algebras
A proper relation algebra is a set B together with a set R of binary relations
over B such that
1. Id := {(x, x) | x ∈ B} ∈ R;
2. If R1and R2 are from R, then R1 ∨ R2 := R1 ∪ R2 ∈ R;
3. 1 := R∈R R ∈ R;
4. 0 := ∅ ∈ R;
5. If R ∈ R, then −R := 1 \ R ∈ R;
6. If R ∈ R, then R := {(x, y) | (y, x) ∈ R} ∈ R;
 Finite Relation Algebras with Normal Representations 5

7. If R1 and R2 are from R, then R1 ◦ R2 ∈ R; where

R1 ◦ R2 := {(x, z) | ∃y((x, y) ∈ R1 ∧ (y, z) ∈ R2 )} .

We want to point out that in this standard definition of proper relation alge-
bras it is not required that 1 denotes B 2 . However, in most examples, 1 indeed
denotes B 2 ; in this case we say that the proper relation algebra is square. The
inclusion-wise minimal non-empty elements of R are called the basic relations
of the proper relation algebra.
Example 1 (The Point Algebra). Let B = Q be the set of rational numbers, and
consider
R = {∅, =, <, >, ≤, ≥, =, Q2 } .
Those relations form a proper relation algebra (with the basic relations <, >, =,
and where 1 denotes Q2 ) which is known under the name point algebra.
The relation algebra associated to (B, R) is the algebra A with the domain
A := R and the signature τ := {∨, −, 0, 1, ◦, , Id} obtained from (B, R) in the
obvious way. An abstract relation algebra is a τ -algebra that satisfies some of
the laws that hold for the respective operators in a proper relation algebra. We
do not need the precise definition of an abstract relation algebra in this article
since we deal exclusively with representable relation algebras: a representation
of an abstract relation algebra A is a relational structure B whose signature
is A; that is, the elements of the relation algebra are the relation symbols of
B. Each relation symbol a ∈ A is associated to a binary relation aB over B
such that the set of relations of B induces a proper relation algebra, and the
map a → aB is an isomorphism with respect to the operations (and constants)
{∨, −, 0, 1, ◦, , Id}. In this case, we also say that A is the abstract relation
algebra of B. An abstract relation algebra that has a representation is called
representable. For x, y ∈ A, we write x ≤ y as a shortcut for the partial order
defined by x ∨ y = y. The minimal elements of A \ {0} with respect to ≤ are
called the atoms of A. In every representation of A, the atoms denote the basic
relations of the representation. We mention that there are abstract finite relation
algebras that are not representable [Lyn50], and that the question whether a
finite relation algebra is representable is undecidable [HH01].

Example 2. The (abstract) point algebra is a relation algebra with 8 elements

and 3 atoms, =, <, and >, and can be described as follows. The values of the
composition operator for the atoms of the point algebra are shown in the table
of Fig. 1. Note that this table determines the full composition table. The inverse
(<) of < is >, and Id denotes = which is its own inverse. This fully determines
the relation algebra. The proper relation algebra with domain Q presented in
Example 1 is a representation of the point algebra.
6 M. Bodirsky

◦ = < >
= = < >
< < < 1
> > 1 >

Fig. 1. The composition table for the basic relations in the point algebra.

3 The Network Satisfaction Problem

Let A be a finite relation algebra with domain A. An A-network N = (V ; f )
consists of a finite set of nodes V and a function f : V × V → A.
A network N is called
– atomic if the image of f only contains atoms of A and if
f (a, c) ≤ f (a, b) ◦ f (b, c) for all a, b, c ∈ V (1)
(here we follow again the definitions in [Hir96]);
– satisfiable in B, for a representation B of A, if there exists a map s : V → B
(where B denotes the domain of B) such that for all x, y ∈ V
(s(x), s(y)) ∈ f (x, y)B ;
– satisfiable if N is satisfiable in some representation B of A.
The (general) network satisfaction problem for a finite relation algebra A is
the computational problem to decide whether a given A-network is satisfiable.
There are finite relation algebras A where this problem is undecidable [Hir99].
A representation B of A is called
– fully universal if every atomic A-network is satisfiable in B;
– square if its relations form a proper relation algebra that is square.
The point algebra is an example of a relation algebra with a fully universal square
representation. Note that if A has a fully universal representation, then the
network satisfaction problem for A is decidable in NP: for a given network (V, f ),
simply select for each x ∈ V 2 an atom a ∈ A with a ≤ f (x), replace f (x) by a,
and then exhaustively check condition (1). Also note that a finite relation algebra
has a fully universal representation if and only if the so-called path-consistency
procedure decides satisfiability of atomic A-networks (see, e.g., [BJ17,HLR13]).
However, not all finite relation algebras have a fully universal representation.
An example of a relation algebra with 4 atoms which has a representation with
seven elements but where path consistency of atomic networks does not imply
consistency, called B9 , has been given in [LKRL08]. A representation of B9
with domain {0, 1, . . . , 6} is given by the basic relations {R0 , R1 , R2 , R3 } where
Ri = {(x, y) | x + y = i mod 7}, for i ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3}. In fact, every representation
of B9 is isomorphic to this representation. Let N be the network (V, f ) with V =
{a, b, c, d}, f (a, b) = f (c, d) = R3 , f (a, d) = f (b, c) = R2 , f (a, c) = f (b, d) = R1 ,
f (i, i) = R0 for all i ∈ V , and f (i, j) = f (j, i) for all i, j ∈ V . Then N is atomic
but not satisfiable.
 Finite Relation Algebras with Normal Representations 7

4 Constraint Satisfaction Problems

Let B be a structure with a (finite or infinite) domain B and a finite relational
signature ρ. Then the constraint satisfaction problem for B is the computational
problem of deciding whether a finite ρ-structure E homomorphically maps to B.
Note that if B is a square representation of A, then the input E can be viewed
as an A-network N . The nodes of N are the elements of E. To define f (x, y) for
variables x, y of the network, let a1 , . . . , ak be a list of all elements a ∈ A such
that (x, y) ∈ aE . Then define f (x, y) = (a1 ∧ · · · ∧ ak ); if k = 0, then f (x, y) = 1.
Observe that E has a homomorphism to B if and only if N is satisfiable in B
(here we use the assumption that B is a square representation).
Conversely, when N is an A-network, then we view N as the A-structure E
whose domain are the nodes of N , and where (x, y) ∈ rE if and only if r = f (x, y).
Again, E has a homomorphism to B if and only if N is satisfiable in B.
Proposition 1. Let B be a fully universal square representation of a finite rela-
tion algebra A. Then the network satisfaction problem for A equals the constraint
satisfaction problem for B (up to the translation between A-networks and finite
A-structures presented above).
Proof. We have to show that a network is satisfiable if and only if it has a homo-
morphism to B. Clearly, if N has a homomorphism to B then it is satisfiable in
B, and hence satisfiable. For the other direction, suppose that the A-network
N = (V, f ) is satisfiable in some representation of A. Then there exists for each
x ∈ V 2 an atomic a ∈ A such that a ≤ f (x) and such that the network N 
obtained from N by replacing f (x) by a satisfies (1); hence, N  is atomic and
satisfiable in B since B is fully universal. Hence, N is satisfiable in B, too.
For general infinite structures B a systematic understanding of the computa-
tional complexity of CSP(B) is a hopeless endeavour [BG08]. However, if B is a
first-order reduct of a finitely bounded homogeneous structure (the definitions can
be found below), then the universal-algebraic tractability conjecture for finite-
domain CSPs can be generalised. This condition is sufficiently general so that it
includes fully universal square representations of almost all the concrete finite
relation algebras studied in the literature, and the condition also captures the
class of finite-domain CSPs. As we will see, the concepts of finite boundedness
and homogeneity are conditions that have already been studied in the relation
algebra literature.

4.1 Finite Boundedness

Let ρ be a relational signature, and let F be a set of ρ-structures. Then Forb(F)
denotes the class of all finite ρ-structures A such that no structure in F embeds
into A. For a ρ-structure B we write Age(B) for the class of all finite ρ-structures
that embed into B. We say that B is finitely bounded if B has a finite relational
signature and there exists a finite set of finite τ -structures F such that Age(B) =
Forb(F). A simple example of a finitely bounded structure is (Q; <). It is easy
8 M. Bodirsky

to see that the constraint satisfaction problem of a finitely bounded structure B

is in NP.

Proposition 2. Let A be a finite relation algebra with a fully universal square

representation B. Then B is finitely bounded.

Proof (Proof sketch). Besides some bounds of size at most two that make sure
that the atomic relations partition B 2 , it suffices to include appropriate three-
element structures into F that can be read off from the composition table
of A.

4.2 Homogeneity
A relational structure B is homogeneous (or ultra-homogeneous [Hod97]) if every
isomorphism between finite substructures of B can be extended to an automor-
phism of B. A simple example of a homogeneous structure is (Q; <).
A representation of a finite relation algebra A is called normal if it is square,
fully universal, and homogeneous [Hir96]. The following is an immediate conse-
quence of Propositions 1 and 2.
Corollary 1. Let A be a finite relation algebra with a normal representation B.
Then the network satisfaction problem for A equals the constraint satisfaction
problem for a finitely bounded homogeneous structure.
A versatile tool to construct homogeneous structures from classes of finite
structures is amalgamation à la Fraı̈ssé. We present it for the special case of
relational structures; this is all that is needed here. An embedding of A into
B is an isomorphism between A and a substructure of B. An amalgamation
diagram is a pair (B1 , B2 ) where B1 , B2 are τ -structures such that there exists
a substructure A of both B1 and B2 such that all common elements of B1 and
B2 are elements of A. We say that (B1 , B2 ) is a 2-point amalgamation diagram
if |B1 \ A| = |B2 \ A| = 1. A τ -structure C is an amalgam of (B1 , B2 ) over A
if for i = 1, 2 there are embeddings fi of Bi to C such that f1 (a) = f2 (a) for
all a ∈ A. In the context of relation algebras A, the amalgamation property can
also be formulated with atomic A-networks, in which case it has been called the
patchwork property [HLR13]; we stick with the model-theoretic terminology here
since it is older and well-established.

Definition 1. An isomorphism-closed class C of τ -structures has the amalga-

mation property if every amalgamation diagram of structures in C has an amal-
gam in C. A class of finite τ -structures that contains at most countably many
non-isomorphic structures, has the amalgamation property, and is closed under
taking induced substructures and isomorphisms is called an amalgamation class.

Note that since we only look at relational structures here (and since we allow
structures to have an empty domain), the amalgamation property of C implies
the joint embedding property (JEP) for C, which says that for any two structures
B1 , B2 ∈ C there exists a structure C ∈ C that embeds both B1 and B2 .
 Finite Relation Algebras with Normal Representations 9

Theorem 1 (Fraı̈ssé [Fra54,Fra86]; see [Hod97]). Let C be an amalgamation

class. Then there is a homogeneous and at most countable τ -structure C whose
age equals C. The structure C is unique up to isomorphism, and called the Fraı̈ssé-
limit of C.

The following is a well-known example of a finite relation algebra which has

a fully universal square representation, but not a normal one.

Example 3. The left linear point algebra (see [Hir97,Dün05]) is a relation algebra
with four atoms, denoted by =, <, >, and |. Here we imagine that ‘x < y’ signifies
that x is earlier in time than y. The idea is that at every point in time the past
is linearly ordered; the future, however, is not yet determined and might branch
into different worlds; incomparability of time points x and y is denoted by x|y.
We might also think of x < y as x is to the left of y if we draw points in the
plane, and this motivates the name left linear point algebra. The composition
operator on those four basic relations is given in Fig. 2. The inverse (<) of <
is >, Id denotes =, and | is its own inverse, and the relation algebra is uniquely
given by this data. It is well known (for details, see [Bod04]) that the left linear
point algebra has a fully universal square representation. On the other hand, the
networks drawn in Fig. 3 show the failure of amalgamation.

◦ = < > |
= = < > |
< < < {<, >} {<, |}
> > 1 > |
| | | {>, |} 1

Fig. 2. The composition table for the basic relations in the left linear point algebra.

An algorithm to test whether a finite relation algebra has a normal represen-

tation can be found in Sect. 6.

4.3 The Infinite-Domain Dichotomy Conjecture

The infinite-domain dichotomy conjecture applies to a class which is larger than
the class of homogeneous finitely bounded structures. To introduce this class we
need the concept of first-order reducts.
Suppose that two relational structures A and B have the same domain, that
the signature of a structure A is a subset of the signature of B, and that RA =
RB for all common relation symbols R. Then we call A a reduct of B, and B
an expansion of A. In other words, A is obtained from B by dropping some
of the relations. A first-order reduct of B is a reduct of the expansion of B
by all relations that are first-order definable in B. The CSP for a first-order
reduct of a finitely bounded homogeneous structure is in NP (see [Bod12]).
An example of a structure which is not homogeneous, but a reduct of finitely
10 M. Bodirsky

x y z x y z

x y z

Fig. 3. Example showing that atomic networks for the left linear point algebra do not
have the amalgamation property. A directed edge from x to y signifies x < y, and a
dashed edge between x and y signifies x|y.

bounded homogeneous structure is the representation of the left-linear point

algebra (Example 3) given in [Bod04].
Conjecture 1 (Infinite-domain dichotomy conjecture). Let B be a first-order
reduct of a finitely bounded homogeneous structure. Then CSP(B) is either
in P or NP-complete.
Hence, the infinite-domain dichotomy conjecture implies the RBCP for finite
relation algebras with a normal representation. In Sect. 5 we will see a more
specific conjecture that characterises the NP-complete cases and the cases that
are in P.

5 The Infinite-Domain Tractability Conjecture

To state the infinite-domain tractability conjecture, we need a couple of concepts

that are most naturally introduced for the class of all ω-categorical structures. A
theory is called ω-categorical if all its countably infinite models are isomorphic.
A structure is called ω-categorical if its first-order theory is ω-categorical. Note
that finite structures are ω-categorical since their first-order theories do not
have countably infinite models. Homogeneous structures B with finite relational
signature are ω-categorical. This follows from a very useful characterisation of
ω-categoricity given by Engeler, Svenonius, and Ryll-Nardzewski (Theorem 2).
The set of all automorphisms of B is denoted by Aut(B). The orbit of a k-tuple
(t1 , . . . , tn ) under Aut(B) is the set {(a(t1 ), . . . , a(tn )) | a ∈ Aut(B)}. Orbits of
pairs (i.e., 2-tuples) are also called orbitals.

Theorem 2 (see [Hod97]). A countable structure B is ω-categorical if and only

if Aut(B) has only finitely many orbits of n-tuples, for all n ≥ 1.

The following is an easy consequence of Theorem 2.

Proposition 3. First-order reducts of ω-categorical structures are
ω-categorical.
 Finite Relation Algebras with Normal Representations 11

First-order reducts of homogeneous structures, on the other hand, need not

be homogeneous. An example of an ω-categorical structure which is not homo-
geneous is the ω-categorical representation of the left linear point algebra given
in [Bod04] (see Example 3). Note that every ω-categorical structure B, and more
generally every structure with finitely many orbitals, gives rise to a finite rela-
tion algebra, namely the relation algebra associated to the unions of orbitals of
B (see [BJ17]); we refer to this relation algebra as the orbital relation algebra
of B.
We first present a condition that implies that an ω-categorical structure has
an NP-hard constraint satisfaction problem (Sect. 5.1). The tractability conjec-
ture says that every reduct of a finitely bounded homogeneous structure that
does not satisfy this condition is NP-complete. We then present an equivalent
characterisation of the condition due to Barto and Pinsker (Sect. 5.2), and then
yet another condition due to Barto, Opršal, and Pinsker, which was later shown
to be equivalent (Sect. 5.3).

5.1 The Original Formulation of the Conjecture

Let B be an ω-categorical structure. Then B is called

– a core if all endomorphisms of B (i.e., homomorphisms from B to B) are

embeddings (i.e., are injective and also preserve the complement of each rela-
tion).
– model complete if all self-embeddings of B are elementary, i.e., preserve all
first-order formulas.

Clearly, if B is a representation of a finite relation algebra A, then B is a core.

However, not all representations of finite relation algebras are model complete.
A simple example is the orbital relation algebra of the structure (Q+ 0 ; <) where
Q+0 denotes the non-negative rationals: its representation with domain Q0 has
+

self-embeddings that do not preserve the orbital {(0, 0)}.

Let τ be a relational signature. A τ -formula is called primitive positive if
it is of the form ∃x1 , . . . , xn (ψ1 ∧ · · · ∧ ψm ) where ψi is of the form y1 = y2
or of the form R(y1 , . . . , yk ) for R ∈ τ of arity k. The variables y1 , . . . , yk can
be free or from x1 , . . . , xn . Clearly, primitive positive formulas are preserved by
homomorphisms.
Theorem 3 ([Bod07,BHM10]). Every ω-categorical structure is homomorphi-
cally equivalent to a model-complete core C, which is unique up to isomorphism,
and again ω-categorical. All orbits of k-tuples are primitive positive definable
in C.
Let B and A be structures, let D ⊆ B n , and let I : D → A be a surjection.
Then I is called a primitive positive interpretation if the pre-image under I of
A, of the equality relation =A on A, and of all relations of A is primitive positive
definable in A. In this case we also say that B interprets A primitively positively.
The complete graph with three vertices (but without loops) is denoted by K3 .
12 M. Bodirsky

Theorem 4 ([Bod08]). Let B be an ω-categorical structure. If the model-

complete core of B has an expansion by finitely many constants so that the
resulting structure interprets K3 primitively positively, then CSP(B) is NP-hard.

We can now state the infinite-domain tractability conjecture.

Conjecture 2. Let B be a first-order reduct of a finitely bounded homogeneous
structure. If B does not satisfy the condition from Theorem 4 then CSP(B) is
in P.
This conjecture has been verified in numerous special cases (see, for instance,
the articles [BK08,BMPP16,KP17,BJP17,BMM18,BM16]), including the class
of finite-structures [Bul17,Zhu17].

5.2 The Theorem of Barto and Pinsker

The tractability conjecture has a fundamentally different, but equivalent for-

mulation: instead of the non-existence of a hardness-condition, we require the
existence of a polymorphism satisfying a certain identity; the concept of poly-
morphisms is fundamental to the resolution of the Feder-Vardi conjecture in
both [Bul17] and [Zhu17].

Definition 2. A polymorphism of a structure B is a homomorphism from Bk

to B, for some k ∈ N. We write Pol(B) for the set of all polymorphisms of B.

An operation f : B 6 → B is called
– Siggers if it satisfies

f (x, y, x, z, y, z) = f (z, z, y, y, x, x)

for all x, y, z ∈ B;
– pseudo-Siggers modulo e1 , e2 : B → B if

e1 (f (x, y, x, z, y, z)) = e2 (f (z, z, y, y, x, x))

for all x, y, z ∈ B.

Theorem 5 ([BP16]). Let B be an ω-categorical model-complete core. Then

either

– B can be expanded by finitely many constants so that the resulting structure

interprets K3 primitively positively, or
– B has a pseudo-Siggers polymorphism modulo endomorphisms of B.
 Finite Relation Algebras with Normal Representations 13

5.3 The Wonderland Conjecture

A weaker condition that implies that an ω-categorical structure has an NP-hard
CSP has been presented in [BOP17]. For reducts of homogeneous structures
with finite signature, however, the two conditions are equivalent [BKO+17].
Hence, we obtain another different but equivalent formulation of the tractability
conjecture. The advantage of the new formulation is that it does not require that
the structure is a model-complete core.
Let B be a countable structure. A map μ : Pol(B) → Pol(A) is called minor-
preserving if for every f ∈ Pol(B) of arity k and all k-ary projections π1 , . . . , πk
we have μ(f ) ◦ (π1 , . . . , πk ) = μ(f ◦ (π1 , . . . , πk )) where ◦ denotes composition
of functions. The set Pol(B) is equipped with a natural complete ultrametric
d (see, e.g., [BS16]). To define d, suppose that B = N. For f, g ∈ Pol(B) we
define d(f, g) = 1 if f and g have different arity; otherwise, if both f, g have
arity k ∈ N, then
k
d(f, g) := 2− min{n∈N|∃s∈{1,...,n} :f (s)=g(s)}
.

Theorem 6 (of [BOP17]). Let B be ω-categorical. Suppose that Pol(B) has a

uniformly continuous minor-preserving map to Pol(K3 ). Then CSP(B) is NP-
complete.

We mention that there are ω-categorical structures where the condition from
Theorem 6 applies, but not the condition from Theorem 4.

Theorem 7 (of [BKO+17]). If B is a reduct of a homogeneous structure with

finite relational signature, then the conditions given in Theorem 4 and in Theo-
rem 6 are equivalent.

6 Testing the Existence of Normal Representations

In this section we present an algorithm that tests whether a given finite relation
algebra has a normal representation. This follows from a model-theoretic result
that seems to be folklore, namely that testing the amalgamation property for a
class of structures that has the JEP and a signature of maximal arity two which
is given by a finite set of forbidden substructures is decidable. We are not aware
of a proof of this in the literature.
Theorem 8. There is an algorithm that decides for a given finite relation alge-
bra A which has a fully universal square representation whether A also has a
normal representation.

Proof. First observe that the class C of all atomic A-networks, viewed as A-
structures, has the JEP: if N1 and N2 are atomic networks, then they are satis-
fiable in B since B is fully universal, and hence embed into B when viewed as
structures. Since B is square the substructure of B induced by the union of the
images of N1 and N2 is an atomic network, too, and it embeds N1 and N2 .
14 M. Bodirsky

Let k be the number of atoms of A. It clearly suffices to show the following

claim, since the condition given there can be effectively checked exhaustively.
Claim. C has the AP if and only if all 2-point amalgamation diagrams of
size at most k + 2 amalgamate.
So suppose that D = (B1 , B2 ) is an amalgamation diagram without amal-
gam. Let B1 be a maximal substructure of B1 that contains B1 ∩ B2 such that
(B1 , B2 ) has an amalgam. Let B2 be a maximal substructure of B2 that con-
tains B1 ∩ B2 such that (B1 , B2 ) has an amalgam. Then Bi = Bi for some
i ∈ {1, 2}; let C1 be a substructure of Bi that extends Bi by one element, and
let C2 := B3−i . Then (C1 , C2 ) is a 2-point amalgamation diagram without an
amalgam. Let C0 := C1 ∩ C2 . Let C1 \ C0 = {p} and C2 \ C0 = {q}. For each
a ∈ A there exists an element ra ∈ C0 such that the network ({r, p, q}, f ) with
f (p, q) = a, f (p, r) = f B1 (p, r), f (r, q) = f B2 (r, q) fails the atomicity prop-
erty (1). Let C1 be the substructure of C1 induced by {p} ∪ {ra | a ∈ A} and A1
be the substructure of C2 induced by {q} ∪ {ra | a ∈ A}. Then the amalgamation
diagram (C1 , C2 ) has no amalgam, and has size at most k + 2.

A: Finite relation algebras with

a normal representation

B: Finite relation algebras with (2) (1)

a fully universal square representation
which is a reduct of

C: Finite relation algebras with

an -categorical fully universal square representation

D: Finite relation algebras with

a fully universal square representation

E: Finite representable relation algebras

Fig. 4. Subclasses of finite representable relation algebras. Membership of relation

algebras from D to the innermost box A is decidable (Theorem 8). Example 3 separates
Box A and Box B. The finite relation algebra from [Hir99] separates Box D and E.
Box B falls into the scope of the infinite-domain tractability conjecture. Boxes C and
D might also fall into the scope of this conjecture (see Problem (1) and Problem (2)).

7 Conclusion and Open Problems

Hirsch’s Really Big Complexity Problem (RBCP) for finite relation algebras
remains really big. However, the network satisfaction problem of every finite
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
prolonged absence in town seemed futile, his daughter wrote, still to
the care of “Old Betty’s,” informing him that she could no longer bear
the suspense, and that she had written to Kemble to say that she
was coming to town immediately, and would drive at once to his
house, where, “if he cannot see me then, I have requested him to
leave word when and where he will see me.”
The matter was evidently settled and the play arranged to be
produced at Drury Lane Theatre on Saturday, October 11. Writing
this information to Sir William Elford a week or so before the
production, Miss Mitford said: “Mr. Young plays the hero, and has
been studying the part during the whole vacation; and a new
actress[24] makes her first appearance in the part of the heroine. This
is a very bold and hazardous experiment, no new actress having
come out in a new play within the memory of man; but she is young,
pretty, unaffected, pleasant-voiced, with great sensibility, and a
singularly pure intonation—a qualification which no actress has
possessed since Mrs. Siddons. Stanfield[25] is painting the new
scenes, one of which is an accurate representation of Rienzi’s
house. This building still exists in Rome, and is shown there as a
curious relique of the domestic architecture of the Middle Ages. They
have got a sketch which they sent for on purpose, and they are
hunting up costumes with equal care; so that it will be very splendidly
brought out, and I shall have little to fear, except from the emptiness
of London so early in the season. If you know any one likely to be in
that great desert so early in the year, I know that you will be so good
as to mention me and my tragedy. I do not yet know where I shall be.
I think of going to town in about a fortnight, and, if the play succeeds,
shall remain there about the same time.”
Mrs. S. C. Hall, in her Memories, gives us a delightful picture of
the flurry and bustle which preceded the Rienzi production, a bustle
which was accentuated by an alteration of the date to one week
earlier. Miss Mitford was up in town superintending the
arrangements, lodging meanwhile at the house of her friend, Mrs.
Hofland, in Newman Street. “Mrs. Hofland invited us to meet her
there one morning. All the world was talking about the expected play,
and all the world was paying court to its author.
 “‘Mary,’ said Mrs. Hofland to her visitors, ‘is a little grand and
stilted just now. There is no doubt the tragedy will be a great
success; they all say so in the green-room; and Macready told me it
was a wonderful tragedy—an extraordinary tragedy “for a woman to
have written.” The men always make that reservation, my dear; they
cramp us, my dear, and then reproach us with our lameness; but
Mary did not hear it, and I did not tell her. She is supremely happy
just now, and so is her father, the doctor. Yes, it is no wonder that
she should be a little stilted—such grand people coming to call and
invite them to dinner, and all the folk at the theatre down-upon-knee
to her—it is such a contrast to her life at Three Mile Cross.’
“‘But,’ I said, ‘she deserves all the homage that can be rendered
her—her talents are so varied. Those stories of Our Village have
been fanned by the pure breezes of “sunny Berkshire,” and are
inimitable as pictures of English rural life; and she has also achieved
the highest walk in tragedy——’
“‘For a woman,’ put in dear Mrs. Hofland. She had not forgiven our
great tragedian—then in the zenith of his popularity—for his
ungallant reserve.”
It is pleasant to read that Macready could praise this tragedy,
although we cannot forget that spiteful entry in his Diary, under date
November 24, 1836—“I have no faith in her power of writing a play.”
Stilted or not, Miss Mitford was contented to appear in a garb
which spoke, all too plainly, of the country cottage and country
fashion.
“I certainly was disappointed,” continues Mrs. Hall, “when a stout
little lady, tightened up in a shawl, rolled into the parlour in Newman
Street, and Mrs. Hofland announced her as Miss Mitford; her short
petticoats showing wonderfully stout leather boots, her shawl
bundled on, and a little black coal-scuttle bonnet—when bonnets
were expanding—added to the effect of her natural shortness and
rotundity; but her manner was that of a cordial country gentlewoman;
the pressure of her fat little hands (for she extended both) was warm;
her eyes, both soft and bright, looked kindly and frankly into mine;
and her pretty, rosy mouth, dimpled with smiles that were always
sweet and friendly. At first I did not think her at all ‘grand or stilted,’
though she declared she had been quite spoilt—quite ruined since
she came to London, with all the fine compliments she had received;
but the trial was yet to come. ‘Suppose—suppose Rienzi should be
——,’ and she shook her head. Of course, in full chorus, we declared
that could not be. ‘No! she would not spend an evening with us until
after the first night; if the play went ill, or even coldly, she would run
away, and never be again seen or heard of; if it succeeded——’ She
drew her rotund person to its full height, and endeavoured to stretch
her neck, and the expression of her face assumed an air of
unmistakable triumph. She was always pleasant to look at, and had
her face not been cast in so broad—so ‘outspread’—a mould, she
would have been handsome; even with that disadvantage, if her
figure had been tall enough to carry her head with dignity, she would
have been so, but she was most vexatiously ‘dumpy’; but when Miss
Mitford spoke, the awkward effect vanished—her pleasant voice, her
beaming eyes and smiles, made you forget the wide expanse of
face; and the roly-poly figure, when seated, did not appear really
short.”
On October 4 Rienzi was played—played to crowded houses, with
audiences so rapt that a pin might have been heard had one
dropped in the house. The author, fearful of failure, dare not witness
the first production, but remained near at hand, praying for success
from her inmost soul, “for on it hangs the comfort of those far dearer
to me than myself.” It was Haydon who was the first to bring her the
news of success, and it was a message the bearer of which she
never forgot.
On October 20 she wrote informing Sir William Elford that “the
triumph has been most complete and decisive—the houses crowded
—and the attention such as has not been since Mrs. Siddons. How
long the run may continue I cannot say, for London is absolutely
empty; but even if the play were to stop to-night, I should be
extremely thankful—more thankful than I have words to tell; the
impression has been so deep and so general. You should have been
in London, or seen the newspapers as a whole, to judge of the
exceedingly strong sensation that has been produced.”
 “The reception of this tragedy,” wrote George Daniel, the famous
critic and Editor of Cumberland’s British Theatre, “is a proof that,
though the public have been wont to feed on garbage, they have no
disinclination to wholesome food.... If in the character of Rienzi, Miss
Mitford has shown that she can write with masculine energy, let
Claudia bear witness that her wonted dominion over the heart is still
in full force; that, with the power of agitating the soul by the fierce
conflict of contending passions, a fine sensibility, a true pathos, a
bewitching tenderness, are still her own, to relieve and illumine the
dark shadows that veil the mysterious grandeur of the tragic muse.
“The sentiments are just and noble; the language is vigorous,
picturesque and poetical.
“It was to be expected that the actor who plays Macbeth and
Hamlet with such skill and effect as Mr. Young should be highly
successful in Rienzi. His performance was a fine specimen of the
Kemble school—chaste, vigorous and grand. Miss Phillips proved
herself fully equal to sustain the character of the gentle Claudia. Her
excellence lies in the expression of tenderness.”
Congratulations poured in upon the author from all quarters, and
these, with countless invitations to festivities in her honour, nearly
turned her head. Fulfilling a promise made at the Hofland’s house to
Mrs. Hall, she went to dinner one evening during the run of Rienzi,
and was, unconsciously, the cause of much merriment, fortunately
suppressed. Mrs. Hall describes her as not appearing to advantage
that evening; “her manner was constrained, and even haughty. She
got up tragedy looks, which did not harmonize with her naturally
playful expression. She seated herself in a high chair, and was
indignant at the offer of a footstool, though her feet barely touched
the ground; she received those who wished to be introduced to her
en reine; but such was her popularity just then, that all were gratified.
She was most unbecomingly dressed in a striped satin something,
neither high nor low, with very short sleeves, for her arms were white
and finely formed; she wore a large yellow turban, which added
considerably to the size of her head. She had evidently bought the
hideous thing en route, and put it on, in the carriage, as she drove to
our house, for pinned at the back was a somewhat large card, on
which were written in large letters, ‘very chaste—only 5s. 3d.’ I
had observed several of our party passing behind the chair,
whispering and tittering, and soon ascertained the cause. Under
pretence of settling her turban, I removed the obnoxious notice; and,
of course, she never knew that so many wags had been merry at her
cost.”
All very amusing; and yet, a picture which cannot fail to evoke our
sympathy for the little woman so anxious to enjoy to the full her
wonderful hour of success.
The play ran for fifty nights and enjoyed a truly remarkable sale in
book form. In view of the popularity of Rienzi and, possibly, because
she feared it might affect the run in some way, Miss Mitford now
begged Kemble to postpone the production of Inez de Castro until
some future date, to which he, of course, agreed.
Meanwhile, and in the November of the same year—that is, while
Rienzi was still running—she made preparations towards the writing
of a new play, founded on a German story, and to be called Otto of
Wittelsbach.
Upon her return to Three Mile Cross she was again inundated with
congratulations, both personal and written, and this, of course,
proved a serious delay to her work, and, incidentally, led to a
temporary break in her correspondence with her old friend, Sir
William Elford. Conscience-stricken, she sent him a pretty letter—an
amusing blend of contrition and excuse—on her birthday.
“Thinking over those whom I love and those who have been kind
to me, as one does on these annual occasions, it occurred to me, my
dear friend, that I had most unkindly checked your warmhearted
interest in my doings. I was very busy—not quite well—and
overwhelmed, beyond anything that can be conceived, by letters and
visits of congratulation. I am now quite well again; and though still
with much to do—much that I ought to have done to make up—yet,
having fairly stemmed the tide of formal compliments, I steal a
moment to tell you and your dear circle that Rienzi continues
prosperous. It has passed the twentieth night, which, you know,
insures the payment of four hundred pounds from the theatre (the
largest price that any play can gain); and the sale of the tragedy has
been so extraordinary, that I am told the fourth edition is nearly
exhausted—which, as the publisher told me each edition would
consist of at least two thousand, makes a circulation of eight
thousand copies in two months.... Heaven grant I may ever do as
well again! I shall have hard work to write up to my own reputation,
for certainly I am at present greatly overrated.”
Among the many tributes of praise received by Rienzi’s author
none gave greater delight than the one embodied in Lord Lytton’s
Preface to his novel, Rienzi, which first appeared in 1835. “I cannot
conclude,” it runs, “without rendering the tribute of my praise and
homage to the versatile and gifted Author of the beautiful Tragedy of
Rienzi. Considering that our hero be the same—considering that we
had the same materials from which to choose our several stories—I
trust I shall be found to have little, if at all, trespassed upon ground
previously occupied. With the single exception of a love-intrigue
between a relative of Rienzi and one of the antagonist party, which
makes the plot of Miss Mitford’s Tragedy, and is little more than an
episode in my Romance, having slight effect on the conduct and
none on the fate of the hero, I am not aware of any resemblance
between the two works; and even this coincidence I could easily
have removed, had I deemed it the least advisable; but it would be
almost discreditable if I had nothing that resembled a performance
so much it were an honour to imitate.”

FOOTNOTES:
[24] Louisa Anne Phillips; she was only sixteen when she made
her début.
[25] W. Clarkson Stanfield—the famous marine-painter.
 CHAPTER XXI

A GREAT SORROW

Prominent among the many and varied characteristics of Miss

Mitford’s life is the remarkable and unfailing interest she ever
displayed towards struggling genius. Nothing gave her more
pleasure than news of some individual who, possibly humbly born,
was making a strenuous fight for fame; while to be brought into
personal relationship with the struggler was a circumstance which
seemed at once to quicken her mothering instinct, and it would not
be long before she became a self-constituted champion, using her
influence to secure the interest and support of all who were likely to
be of service to her protégé.
For Haydon she had an unfailing regard and would fight his battles
with any who dared to disparage him or his work in her hearing. Of
Talfourd’s achievements she was never tired of talking and writing,
even after he had forfeited any claim to her interest by his stupid
jealousy. Lough, the sculptor, son of a small farmer in
Northumberland, excited her admiration when, barely two years after
he had left his father’s cornfields, he achieved fame with his Statue
of Milo. And now, following her own success with Rienzi, we find her
interesting herself in young Lucas, the painter, of whom she wrote to
Harness: “He is only twenty-one, was bound to Reynolds, the
engraver, and practised the art which he was resolved to pursue,
secretly, in his own room, in hours stolen from sleep and needful
exercise, and minutes from necessary food. Last July he became his
own master, and since then he has regularly painted. Everybody
almost that sees his pictures desires to sit, and he is already torn to
pieces with business. In short, I expect great things of him. But what
I especially like is his character. I have seen nothing in all my life
more extraordinary than his union of patience and temper and
rationality, with a high and ardent enthusiasm.” That was written in
the January of 1828. In the following November she wrote to
Haydon: “I am now going to tell you something which I earnestly
hope will neither vex nor displease you; if it do, I shall grieve most
heartily—but I do not think it will. The patron of a young artist of great
merit (Mr. Lucas) has made a most earnest request that I will sit to
him. He comes here to paint it—and there is a double view; first to
get two or three people hereabout to sit to him; next to do him good
in London, by having in the Exhibition the portrait of a person whose
name will probably induce people to look at it, and bring the painting
into notice. The manner in which this was pressed upon me by a
friend to whom I owe great gratitude was such as I really could not
refuse—especially as it can by no accident be injurious to your
splendid reputation, that an ugly face which you happen to have
taken, should be copied by another. There is a project of having the
portrait engraved, which would increase the benefit that they
anticipate to Mr. Lucas, and would be so far satisfactory to us as it
would supersede a villainous print out of some magazine, from a
drawing of Miss Drummond’s, which is now selling in the shops.” To
this Haydon good-naturedly replied that he would not be offended
and that he should be glad to be of use to Mr. Lucas, or of any
service to the print; but, as a matter of fact, he was not at all pleased
and was really jealous of the young painter for a while.
Meanwhile the sittings for the Lucas portrait took place, and by
January of 1829 the picture was advanced enough for its original to
bestow her praise. Sir William Elford was, of course, among the
earliest to learn the particulars. “The portrait is said by everybody to
be a work of art. It certainly is a most graceful and elegant picture—a
very fine piece of colour, and, they say, a very strong likeness. It was
difficult, in painting me, to steer between the Scylla and Charybdis of
making me dowdy, like one of my own rustic heroines, or dressed
out like a tragedy queen. He has managed the matter with infinite
taste, and given to the whole figure the look of a quiet gentlewoman.
I never saw a more lady-like picture. The dress is a black velvet hat,
with a long, drooping black feather; a claret-coloured high gown; and
a superb open cloak of gentianella blue, the silvery fur and white
satin lining of which are most exquisitely painted and form one of the
most beautiful pieces of drapery that can be conceived. The face is
thoughtful and placid, with the eyes looking away—a peculiarity
which, they say, belongs to my expression.”
Assuming that these millinery and drapery details were
understandable to Sir William, the catalogue must have given him
something of a shock, for he would assuredly wonder what had
come over his little friend, in the first place, to have become
possessed of such a heap of finery and, in the second place, to have
submitted to being decked out in it.
The truth is that Lady Madelina Palmer—wife of the Reading
Member, Fyshe Palmer—had taken a leading part in the
arrangement for this portrait and, determined that the author of
Rienzi should make a brave show, had dressed up the homely figure
in some of her own society garments. The effect was worse than that
of a parlour-maid masquerading as the mistress, for Miss Mitford had
neither the figure nor the artificiality which could set off the
bedizenments of a duke’s daughter. Poor Lucas—“the sweet young
boy,” Miss Mitford afterwards called him—fumed inwardly when he
saw what he had to portray, daring not to criticize lest he offend the
owner of the clothes, who was near by. He stuck manfully to his task,
fretting at the bad taste of the whole thing, only to cancel the picture
in the end. Fortunately an engraving of the picture has been
preserved, of which we are able to present a copy in these pages.
As a picture it is undoubtedly graceful and admirably proportioned,
but as regards the tout ensemble it must be regarded as a failure.
 Mary Russell Mitford.
(From a painting by John Lucas, 1829.)
During the sitting Miss Mitford composed some graceful lines to
the painter, which are worthy of quotation here, because apart from
their intrinsic value as a poetical tribute, they also contain a piece of
self-portraiture most deftly interwoven:—
“To Mr. Lucas
(Written whilst sitting to him for my Portrait, December, 1828).

“Oh, young and richly gifted! born to claim

No vulgar place amidst the sons of fame;
 With shapes of beauty haunting thee like dreams,
And skill to realize Art’s loftiest themes:
How wearisome to thee the task must be
To copy these coarse features painfully;
Faded by time and paled by care, to trace
The dim complexion of this homely face;
And lend to a bent brow and anxious eye
Thy patient toil, thine Art’s high mastery.
Yet by that Art, almost methinks Divine,
By touch and colour, and the skilful line
Which at a stroke can strengthen and refine,
And mostly by the invisible influence
Of thine own spirit, gleams of thought and sense
Shoot o’er the careworn forehead, and illume
The heavy eye, and break the leaden gloom:
Even as the sunbeams on the rudest ground
Fling their illusive glories wide around,
And make the dullest scene of Nature bright
By the reflexion of their own pure light.”

During the year Dr. Mitford developed a most curious and

inexplicable dislike to his daughter’s friends and acquaintances.
Possibly he was growing tired of the congratulatory callers, but even
so, he must surely have recognized that this sort of thing was the
penalty exacted of popularity. “My father,” she wrote to William
Harness, “very kind to me in many respects, very attentive if I’m ill,
very solicitous that my garden should be nicely kept, that I should go
out with him, and be amused—is yet, so far as art, literature, and the
drama are concerned, of a temper infinitely difficult to deal with. He
hates and despises them, and all their professors—looks on them
with hatred and with scorn; and is constantly taunting me with my
‘friends’ and my ‘people’ (as he calls them), reproaching me if I hold
the slightest intercourse with author, editor, artist, or actor, and
treating with frank contempt every one not of a station in the county. I
am entirely convinced that he would consider Sir Thomas Lawrence,
Sir Walter Scott, and Mrs. Siddons as his inferiors. Always this is
very painful—strangely painful.
 “Since I have known Mr. Cathcart I can say with truth that he has
never spoken to me or looked at me without ill-humour; sometimes
taunting and scornful—sometimes more harsh than you could fancy.
Now, he ought to remember that it is not for my own pleasure, but
from a sense of duty, that I have been thrown in the way of these
persons; and he should allow for the natural sympathy of similar
pursuits and the natural wish to do the little that one so powerless
and poor can do to bring merit (and that of a very high order) into
notice. It is one of the few alleviations of a destiny that is wearing
down my health and mind and spirits and strength—a life spent in
efforts above my powers, and which will end in the workhouse, or in
a Bedlam, as the body or the mind shall sink first. He ought to feel
this; but he does not. I beg your pardon for vexing you with this
detail. I do not often indulge in such repining.”
It is difficult to read such a letter without experiencing a feeling of
intensest indignation against the almost inhuman selfishness of Dr.
Mitford, who, content to batten on the fruits of his daughter’s
industry, would yet make her path more difficult by his unreasonable
and capricious jealousy. The incident can only be likened to that of a
brute creature biting the hand that feeds him. And what, after all, was
the cause of this cruel conduct? Nothing other than that his daughter
was interesting herself in a young actor whose welfare she hoped to
promote.
Contrast this episode with one of a few months later, which Miss
Mitford was delighted to relate—it showed such admirable traits in
the “dear papa’s” character, and could not go unrecorded. “Dash has
nearly been killed to-day, poor fellow! He got into a rabbit burrow so
far that he could neither move backward nor forward; and my father,
two men and a boy, were all busy digging for upwards of two hours,
in a heavy rain, to get him out. They had to penetrate through a high
bank, with nothing to guide them but the poor dog’s moans. You
never saw any one so full of gratitude, or so sensible of what his
master has done for him, as he is.... My father was wet to the skin;
but I am sure he would have dug till this time rather than any living
creature, much less his own favourite dog, should have perished so
miserably.”
 In the tragedy of Rienzi there are some fine lines embodied in
Rienzi’s injunction to his daughter, which we cannot refrain from
quoting at this point:—

“Claudia, in these bad days,

When men must tread perforce the flinty path
Of duty, hard and rugged; fail not thou
Duly at night and morning to give thanks
To the all-gracious Power, that smoothed the way
For woman’s tenderer feet. She but looks on,
And waits and prays for the good cause, whilst man
Fights, struggles, triumphs, dies!”

Did we not know that Miss Mitford was incapable of a harsh

thought towards her father, we should be inclined to read a satire
into these lines. Who smoothed the way for her? What time had she
wherein to wait and pray? Her days she spent in treading the flinty
path of duty, made more rugged and hard by that one who, had he
done his duty, would have exerted himself rather in smoothing the
way.
Writing to Haydon late in the year to congratulate him on a
success, she said:—“Be quite assured that my sympathy with you
and with art is as strong as ever, albeit the demonstration have lost
its youthfulness and its enthusiasm, just as I myself have done. The
fact is that I am much changed, much saddened—am older in mind
than in years—have entirely lost that greatest gift of nature, animal
spirits, and am become as nervous and good-for-nothing a person
as you can imagine. Conversation excites me sometimes, but only, I
think, to fall back with a deader weight. Whether there be any
physical cause for this, I cannot tell. I hope so, for then perhaps it
may pass away; but I rather fear that it is the overburthen, the sense
that more is expected of me than I can perform, which weighs me
down and prevents me doing anything. I am ashamed to say that a
play bespoken last year at Drury Lane, and wanted by them beyond
measure, is not yet nearly finished. I do not even know whether it will
be completed in time to be produced this season. I try to write it and
cry over my lamentable inability, but I do not get on. Women were
not meant to earn the bread of a family—I am sure of that—there is a
want of strength.... God bless you and yours! Do not judge of the
sincerity of an old friendship, or the warmth of an old friend, by the
unfrequency or dulness of her letters.”
Added to all this weight of work and the forbearance exacted of
her by her father, there was the worry consequent upon Mrs.
Mitford’s failing health. Judging by the letters of the period it is
evident that the mother’s condition was growing serious. Her mind
was often a blank and, as the winter drew on, there was a
recurrence of the asthma which sapped the little strength remaining
to her. “My mother, whom few things touch now, is particularly
pleased,” wrote Miss Mitford to William Harness à propos of a visit
he had promised to pay them, and concerning which she added:
—“You don’t know how often I have longed to press you to come to
us, but have always been afraid; you are used to things so much
better, and I thought you would find it dull.”
On Boxing-Day, 1829, Mrs. Mitford’s condition was very grave, for
she was seized with apoplexy, and had to be put to bed. There she
lingered hovering between life and death until the morning of
January 2, 1830, when she passed away, in the eightieth year of her
age. The account of her last illness and death is amongst the most
touching things ever penned by her daughter—to whom
sentimentality was abhorrent. It is too long for extensive quotation,
but we cannot forbear making a brief extract describing the last sad
moments.
“She was gone. I had kissed her dear hand and her dear face just
before. She looked sweet, and calm, and peaceful: there was even a
smile on her dear face. I thought my heart would have broken, and
my dear father’s too.
“On Saturday I did not see her; I tried, but on opening the door I
found her covered by a sheet, and had not courage to take it down....
On Thursday I saw her for the last time, in the coffin, with the dear
face covered, and gathered for her all the flowers I could get—
chrysanthemums (now a hallowed flower), white, yellow and purple
—laurustinus, one early common primrose, a white Chinese
primrose, bay and myrtle from a tree she liked, verbena, and lemon-
grass also. I put some of these in the coffin, with rosemary, and my
dear father put some.
“We kissed her cold hand, and then we followed her to her grave
in Shinfield Church, near the door, very deep and in a fine soil, with
room above it for her own dear husband and her own dear child.
God grant we may tread in her steps!... No human being was ever so
devoted to her duties—so just, so pious, so charitable, so true, so
feminine, so industrious, so generous, so disinterested, so lady-like
—never thinking of herself, always of others—the best mother, the
most devoted wife, the most faithful friend.... Oh, that I could but
again feel the touch of that dear hand! God forgive me my many
faults to her, blessed angel, and grant that I may humbly follow in her
track!... She told Harriet Palmer (of whom she was fond) that she
meant to get a guinea, and have her father’s old Bible—the little
black Bible which she read every day—beautifully bound, with her
initials on it, and give it to me. She told me, when Otto should be
performed, she wanted a guinea—but not why—and would not take
it before. It shall be done, blessed saint!”
 CHAPTER XXII

“THE WORKHOUSE—A FAR PREFERABLE

DESTINY”

“For my own part I have plenty that must be done; much connected
painfully with my terrible grief; much that is calculated to force me
into exertion, by the necessity of getting money to meet the
inevitable expenses. Whether it were inability or inertness I cannot
tell, but Otto is still but little advanced. I lament this of all things now;
I grieve over it as a fault as well as a misfortune.”
So wrote Miss Mitford to William Harness on January 9, 1830, the
day following her mother’s funeral. And truly there was plenty to be
done and she would need all her woman’s courage, for now “the
weight which Dr. Mitford had divided between two forbearing women
had to be borne by one.”
A new volume—the fourth—of Our Village was now almost ready
for publication, for which Whittaker agreed to give £150, and during
the month an agent from a publisher had called at Three Mile Cross
with a view to arranging for a work to be entitled Stories of American
Life by American Writers, which were to be selected and edited, with
prefaces by Miss Mitford. The suggested publisher was Colburn.
This, of course, necessitated a great deal of labour, in the midst of
which the negotiations for the American book nearly fell through by
reason of a quarrel between the publisher and his agent.
It was a most trying period, for Dr. Mitford grew more exacting day
by day, demanding more and more attention from his daughter,
whom he expected—nay, forced—to play cribbage with him until he
fell asleep, when, being released, she read and worked far into the
night. Then, to make matters worse, the Doctor began to imbibe
more wine than was good for him—it will be noticed that his creature
comforts did not diminish—and, whilst returning alone from a dinner-
party in the neighbourhood, was thrown out of the chaise and the
horse and vehicle arrived empty at the cottage in the dead of night.
His daughter, who had been waiting for him, made the discovery that
he was missing and, rousing the man and servants, they all set off
along the road to Shinfield, finding him lying stunned by the roadside
a mile away, “Only think,” wrote his daughter, “what an agony of
suspense it was! Thank Heaven, however, he escaped uninjured,
except being stiff from the jar; and I am recovering my nervousness
better than I could have expected.”
 Very truly yours
M. R. Mitford
THE AUTHOR OF OUR VILLAGE
Miss Mitford “attended by a printer’s devil to whom she is
delivering ‘copy.’” (From a sketch in Fraser’s Magazine,
May, 1831.)
The success of Rienzi in America, and the previous re-publication
in that country of a small volume of the Narrative Poems on the
Female Character, had brought Miss Mitford’s name prominently
before the American people, and towards the end of 1830 she was
gratified by the receipt of a long letter of congratulation from Miss
Catharine Maria Sedgwick,[26] an American author of some repute in
her day, who had, that year, published a novel entitled Hope Leslie.
The letter mentioned the despatch of an author’s copy of one of the
writer’s books and asked for particulars of the village and home-life
of Miss Mitford, whose volumes on Our Village were being read with
avidity across the Atlantic. It drew a long and characteristic reply.
“I rejoice,” wrote Miss Mitford, “to find that your book is not merely
reprinted but published in England, and will contribute, together with
the splendid novels of Mr. Cooper, to make the literature and
manners of a country so nearly connected with us in language and
ways of thinking, known and valued here. I think that every day
contributes to that great end. Cooper is certainly, next to Scott, the
most popular novel writer of the age. Washington Irving enjoys a
high and fast reputation; the eloquence of Dr. Channing, if less
widely, is perhaps more deeply felt; and a lady, whom I need not
name, takes her place amongst these great men, as Miss Edgeworth
does among our Scotts and Chalmerses. I have contributed, or
rather, am about to contribute, my mite to this most desirable
interchange of mind with mind, having selected and edited three
volumes of tales, taken from the great mass of your periodical
literature, and called Stories of American Life by American Authors.
They are not yet published, but have been printed some time; and I
shall desire Mr. Colburn to send you a copy, to which, indeed, you
have every way a right, since I owe to you some of the best stories in
the collection.” Then followed a short description of the events which
led up to the removal from Bertram House to the cottage at Three
Mile Cross. “There was, however, no loss of character amongst our
other losses; and it is to the credit of human nature to say, that our
change of circumstances has been attended with no other change
amongst our neighbours and friends than that of increased attentions
and kindness. Indeed I can never be sufficiently thankful for the very
great goodness which I have experienced all through life, from
almost every one with whom I have been connected. My dear
mother I had the misfortune to lose last winter. My dear father still
lives, a beautiful and cheerful old man, whom I should of all things
like you to know, and if ever you do come to our little England, you
must come and see us. We should never forgive you if you did not.
Our family losses made me an authoress ... and I should have
abstained from all literary offence for the future had not poverty
driven me against my will to writing tragic verse and comic prose;
thrice happy to have been able, by so doing, to be of some use to
my dear family.”
In response to the invitation contained in this letter Miss Sedgwick
did call at the cottage when, some years later, she paid a visit to this
country. It was a visit ostensibly undertaken to see the sights and
meet the lions—particularly the literary lions. The record of the trip
was embodied in two small volumes published in 1841 by Moxon, in
London, and entitled Letters from Abroad to Kindred at Home. Miss
Sedgwick possessed a telling style, picturesque to a degree, and
there can be no shadow of doubt that her “kindred at home” were
delighted to have her spicy epistles, but they shocked Miss Mitford.
“If you have a mind,” the latter wrote to a friend, “to read the coarsest
Americanism ever put forth, read the Literary Gazette of this last
week. I remember, my dear love, how much and how justly you were
shocked at Miss Sedgwick’s way of speaking of poor Miss Landon’s
death; but when you remember that her brother and nephew had
spent twice ten days at our poor cottage—that she had been
received as their kinswoman, and therefore as a friend, you may
judge how unexpected this coarse detail has been. The Athenæum
will give you no notion of the original passage nor the book itself—for
John Kenyon, meeting with it at Moxon’s, cancelled the passage—
but too late for the journals, except the Athenæum. Of course its
chief annoyance to me is the finding the aunt of a dear friend so
excessively vulgar. Do get the Literary Gazette—for really it must be
seen to be believed.”
We quote the extract from the Literary Gazette of July 10, 1841.
“Our coachman (who, after telling him we were Americans, had
complimented us on our speaking English, ‘and very good English,
too’) professed an acquaintance of some twenty years standing with
Miss M., and assured us that she was one of the ‘cleverest women in