The Historiography of Philosophy: With

a Postface by Jonathan Barnes Michael

Frede
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-historiography-of-philosophy-with-a-postface-by-j
onathan-barnes-michael-frede/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

An Introduction to Political Philosophy Jonathan Wolff

https://ebookmass.com/product/an-introduction-to-political-
philosophy-jonathan-wolff/

Crisis, Collapse, Militarism and Civil War: The History

and Historiography of 18th Century Iran Michael
Axworthy (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/crisis-collapse-militarism-and-
civil-war-the-history-and-historiography-of-18th-century-iran-
michael-axworthy-editor/

Experimenting with Religion: The New Science of Belief

Jonathan Jong

https://ebookmass.com/product/experimenting-with-religion-the-
new-science-of-belief-jonathan-jong/

Herder’s Philosophy Michael N. Forster

https://ebookmass.com/product/herders-philosophy-michael-n-
forster/
Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind 2nd edition
Edition Jonathan Cohen

https://ebookmass.com/product/contemporary-debates-in-philosophy-
of-mind-2nd-edition-edition-jonathan-cohen/

Health Problems: Philosophical Puzzles about the Nature

of Health Elizabeth Barnes

https://ebookmass.com/product/health-problems-philosophical-
puzzles-about-the-nature-of-health-elizabeth-barnes/

(eBook PDF) Fundamentals of Corporate Finance 5th

Edition by Jonathan Berk

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-fundamentals-of-
corporate-finance-5th-edition-by-jonathan-berk/

(eTextbook PDF) for Fundamentals of Corporate Finance

4th by Jonathan Berk

https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-pdf-for-fundamentals-of-
corporate-finance-4th-by-jonathan-berk/

A Dictionary of Law Jonathan Law

https://ebookmass.com/product/a-dictionary-of-law-jonathan-law/
The Historiography of Philosophy
The Historiography
of Philosophy
M IC HA E L F R E D E

Edited by
K AT E R I NA I E R O D IA KO N OU

With a Postface by
J O NAT HA N BA R N E S

1
 1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Katerina Ierodiakonou 2022
Preface © Katerina Ierodiakonou 2022
Except Postface © Jonathan Barnes 2022
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2022
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021942903
ISBN 978–0–19–884072–5
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198840725.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
 Preface
Katerina Ierodiakonou*

1. The Nellie Wallace Lectures: The Manuscript

and Its History

In the autumn term of the academic year 1989–1990 in Oxford, Michael

Frede delivered the Nellie Wallace Lectures under the general title The
Historiography of Philosophy. After returning to Princeton, NJ, he
entrusted his manuscript to the secretary of the Philosophy Department,
either Ann Getson or Bunny Romano; one or other of them usually
typed his work for publication, since he himself never used a computer.
It is this typed version of Frede’s lectures that we still have, for when he
moved to Oxford in 1991, Frede threw away the manuscript, but at least
kept safe, in a folder with a hard black cover, the only copy of the typed
version of his lectures. In 2005, he brought this folder to Athens, along
with the rest of his papers and books; unfortunately, he never found the
time to read through this typescript and make the necessary corrections
before his death in 2007.
Although in general the secretary in Princeton did a careful job, there
is no doubt that it would have been better to have Frede’s own manu-
script. For the secretary left gaps at some places in the text and added a
number of question marks, where she could not decipher his handwrit-
ing or could not understand the German terms he used. Moreover, she
seems to have skipped parts of Frede’s sentences, which often are delib-
erately repetitive. Indeed, while copying the typed version of the lectures
onto my computer in Word format, I was at times reminded of just how
tricky the copyist’s job is. For I had to be particularly vigilant not to leave

* I would like to thank Charles Brittain, Benjamin Morison, and Wolfgang Mann for their
helpful comments on an earlier version of this preface.
viii Preface

out whole sections of Frede’s text, in which the same words and phrases
occur again and again. On the other hand, his repetitive style proved of
great help to me in deciding how to fill in some of the gaps the secretary
had left.
Although I sometimes needed to modify the typed version of the
Nellie Wallace Lectures, such changes were kept to a bare minimum, in
order to preserve Frede’s rather idiosyncratic style. For he famously
wrote the way he talked, so that anyone who reads these lectures and
who had the chance to meet him in person will easily be able to hear his
voice. Thus, I decided to retain the long sentences and distinctive syn-
tax, but to introduce changes in the punctuation and separation of para-
graphs in order to make the text more readable. To facilitate such
decisions, I also sought the advice of Frede’s students and colleagues. In
a two-­day workshop at the European Cultural Centre of Delphi in June
2017, James Allen, Chloe Balla, Charles Brittain, Damian Caluori, John
Cooper, Paul Kalligas, Vaso Kindi, Richard McKirahan, Benjamin
Morison, Spyros Rangos, and Voula Tsouna met to discuss the difficul-
ties in editing The Historiography of Philosophy. I would like to thank
them all from my heart for their constructive suggestions. I would like
also to thank Wolfgang Mann and Stephen Menn, who kindly sent me
constructive comments on Frede’s text. Finally, thanks are due to
François Nolle, who compiled the notes with a view to providing biblio-
graphical references for those readers who may be interested in explor-
ing more thoroughly the issues that Frede raises.
The notes refer, in addition, to a set of lectures Frede had given at the
University of California, Riverside in January 1986, which differ on sev-
eral points from the Nellie Wallace Lectures, but mostly overlap with
them. On account of this overlap, I decided not to publish the earlier
lectures. On the other hand, Frede’s three published articles on the his­
tori­og­raphy of philosophy are included in this volume for the sake of
those who want to study and understand the development of Frede’s
views: ‘The Study of Ancient Philosophy’ dates from 1987 and its scope,
as the title indicates, is restricted, whereas the scope of the Nellie Wallace
Lectures is broader. ‘The History of Philosophy as a Discipline’, from
1988, can be read as a summary or epitome of the salient claims of the
Nellie Wallace Lectures. ‘Doxographical, Philosophical, and Historical
 Preface ix

Forms of the History of Philosophy’, from 1992, is a postlude, which, in

certain parts, supplements the Nellie Wallace Lectures. (For complete-
ness, I should also note Frede’s short review of J. J. E. Gracia’s book,
Philosophy and Its History: Issues in Philosophical Historiography in
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (1994), 233–6; it touches
upon similar issues, but not in sufficient detail to justify its inclusion in
this volume.)
Given that we have Frede’s published articles on the historiography of
philosophy, one could argue that I should have let the Nellie Wallace
Lectures fall into oblivion. In addition, there can be absolutely no doubt
that he himself would not have published them in their present form. In
fact, he would have rewritten them again and again from beginning to
end, as he always did with his work, also taking into consideration the
discussions that followed his lectures. But the Nellie Wallace Lectures
contain Frede’s most detailed and most systematic thoughts on the topic
of the historiography of philosophy, a topic that was dear to him and
occupied him for a long time. It would, therefore, have been a pity not to
make them available to anyone interested in them. It is, of course, true
that many relevant articles and books have been published since the
time of the lectures and perhaps some of Frede’s central notions and
assumptions have, by now, been superseded. To my mind, however, the
Nellie Wallace Lectures have not lost their explanatory power and
Frede’s proposal for a historical history of philosophy retains its value; it
should thus be easily accessible, carefully studied, and critically assessed.

2. The Historical History of Philosophy

Right from the beginning, Frede distinguishes the history of philosophy

(i.e. the account of what philosophers have done) from the his­tori­og­
raphy of philosophy (i.e. the account of what historians of philosophy
do); and he makes clear that what he is interested in is to study how his­
tor­ians of philosophy ‘proceed the way they do’ and to make sense ‘of
the actual practice of historiography in terms of the principles, presup-
positions, assumptions which would justify it’ (p. 4). The aim of his lec-
tures, he asserts, is normative: ‘what I am interested in here is not the
x Preface

factual question why historians of philosophy do what they do, but the
theoretical question, the question how we ought to conceive of and
explain what they are doing’ (p. 4). For he believes that:

(i) ‘reflections on the history of philosophy and its study may throw
considerable light on history in general and its study’;
(ii) ‘It may also benefit one’s understanding of what philosophy is, of
how one should think about philosophical problems, whether
and in what sense they are real problems’; and
(iii) ‘this kind of reflection might help one to get clearer about the
relation between philosophical activity, for instance, what phil­
oso­phers do nowadays, on the one hand, and the history of phil­
oso­phy and its study, on the other’ (p. 5).

According to Frede, there are three systematic approaches to the history of

philosophy, of which the first two are philosophical and the third his­tor­
ic­al. They all fall under the same heading, ‘history of philosophy’, and deal
with the same material, but they are distinct enterprises. In presenting
these three approaches, Frede also outlines their historical development:

I. Philosophical doxography: ‘a very old philosophical enterprise of

looking towards the history of philosophy for views and positions
of continued philosophical interest’ (p. 14). The doxographer dis-
regards the fact that the philosophical views of the past are of the
past and treats them ‘as if they were contemporary, perhaps even as
views which might be defended nowadays’ (p. 26). Hence, the dox-
ographer does not attempt to trace the development of phil­oso­phy
from its beginnings and does not follow a chronological order. The
prime example of a doxographer in antiquity is Diogenes Laertius,
but among other ancient writers who share the same approach
with him are Ps. Plutarch, Nicolaus of Damascus, and Arius
Didymus; next, around the middle of the fourteenth century until
the end of the eighteenth century, we have a renewed tradition of
philosophical doxography in the works of Walter Burleigh, Thomas
Stanley, Georg Horn, and Jacob Brucker; and finally, in the first
 Preface xi

half of the nineteenth century, a new kind of doxography arises,

whose famous exponent is Friedrich Trendelenburg but also,
later on, figures like Bertrand Russell and Bernard Williams.
II. Philosophical history of philosophy: ‘a much more recent his­tor­
ic­al enterprise which tries to reconstruct the actual, historical
evolution of these views and positions’ (p. 14). The philosophical
historian regards the philosophical views of the past ‘as essen-
tially of the past, overcome, replaced by more recent and more
advanced views’ (p. 26). In fact, the philosophical historian
adopts the viewpoint of a particular philosophical position and
interprets the history of philosophy as an advance leading up to
this particular privileged position. Christoph Meiners’ history of
1786, Grundriss der Geschichte der Weltweisheit, initiates this
tradition and, in the last decade of the eighteenth century, the
histories of Dietrich Tiedemann, Johann Buhle, and Wilhelm
Tennemann follow his paradigm. Also, Frede stresses, ‘it will be
in this spirit that Hegel will give lectures on the history of phil­
oso­phy in 1818–1819 in Berlin’ (p. 39).
III. Historical history of philosophy: the historian adopting this
approach is interested in the philosophical views of the past ‘as
historical views, i.e. as views that were maintained by a particu-
lar individual in a particular historical context’ (p. 26). This par-
ticular kind of history of philosophy is not a philosophical, but a
his­tor­
ic­
al discipline, which focuses on trying to understand
‘how phil­oso­phy as a matter of historical fact got started and
how it in fact evolved in the way it did up to the present day’
(p. 10). The his­tor­ic­al history of philosophy emerges as a dis­cip­
line with Eduard Zeller’s magisterial work Die Philosophie der
Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, in which he tries
to reconstruct the development of philosophy by employing
throughout the tools of the historian.

Frede regards all three enterprises as perfectly legitimate, which means

that neither the philosopher nor the historian should attempt to mend
their ways:
xii Preface

Philosophers quite rightly often object to historians that philosophers

of the past need to be taken seriously as philosophers, that it requires a
good amount of philosophical sense and philosophical competence to
do justice to philosophers even of the more distant past. Historians
equally object to philosophers who often seem to have little sense of
what is involved in treating philosophers of the past in a way which
historically is adequate and sometimes do not even seem to care about
historical adequacy. It sometimes seems to be assumed that this con-
troversy can be laid to rest and the interests of both sides will be satis-
fied if we begin to write history of philosophy in a way which is both
philosophically and historically adequate. But this seems to me to be
fundamentally mistaken. The interests of the historian and of the phil­
oso­pher are fundamentally at odds. The historian is interested in the
history of philosophy as history, the philosopher is interested in this
history not as history, but insofar as it continues to have something to
offer which is of philosophical interest. Hence we need at least two
forms of the study of the history of philosophy. (p. 18)

Frede’s own preference, though, is clearly with the historical history of

philosophy, to which he gives:

a privileged status, a certain kind of priority in that the other forms of

study of the history of philosophy ultimately have to rely on its findings.
For it is the historical discipline which determines, as well as we can
determine, which position a philosopher of the past, as a matter of his-
torical fact, took and for which reasons he did, in fact, take it. (p. 10)

‘Once we have such a historical study’, Frede claims in his article ‘The
history of philosophy as a discipline’, ‘we are in a much better position
to judge whether philosophical positions of the past continue to be of
philosophical interest or not’ (p. 669).
But it is interesting to note that, in his Riverside Lectures, Frede
employs somewhat different terminology when presenting the different
approaches to the history of philosophy; in particular, he there calls
‘philosophical history of philosophy’ what the Nellie Wallace Lectures
refer to as ‘historical history of philosophy’. This may at first seem
 Preface xiii

confusing, since in his more recent lectures, Frede clearly differentiates

the historical history of philosophy from the philosophical history of
phil­oso­phy by stressing the historical character of the former and the
philosophical character of the latter. It seems, however, that the Riverside
Lectures aim to establish a somewhat different distinction between the
different approaches to writing the history of philosophy—more spe­cif­
ic­al­ly, between the philosophical one and what he calls ‘the cultural his-
tory approach’. The philosophical history of philosophy is presented, in
these lectures, as:

an internal history of philosophy, that is, an account of the history of

philosophy, as far as possible in terms of the philosophical con­sid­er­
ations which led philosophers to abandon one view and adopt another,
drop one line of reasoning and replace it by another one etc., a phil­
oso­pher’s history of philosophy, as it were. (p. 4)
The cultural history of philosophy, by contrast, ‘conceives of itself as
properly historical. It aims at the historical views. It proceeds on the
assumption that philosophy is an integral part of the culture of a time,
that philosophical views are another expression of the spirit or style of
the culture of the time and hence have to be understood as such. If we
want to understand Plato, we have to learn as much as we can about
Athenian culture and history of the fifth and fourth centuries, and
only then will we be able to identify and to fully understand Plato’s
philosophical views. This approach, which I will call ‘the cultural his-
tory approach’, is quite common in Europe and among classicists and
historians. Properly understood, it seems to me to be perfectly le­git­im­
ate. But it tends to be combined with further assumptions, which seem
to me to be objectionable. There is a tendency to assume some kind of
cultural holism such that the neglect of philosophical arguments
which characterizes this approach now finds a theoretical justification
in the assumption that it is not really for these philosophical reasons
that a philosopher adopted a certain philosophical view. There is also a
tendency to think that philosophical views are so much tied to their
historical context that they, almost by definition, can be of no philo-
sophical interest to later times. (p. 11)
xiv Preface

So, this is the reason why Frede says in the Riverside Lectures, ‘I do want
to advocate a philosophical history of philosophy’ (p. 4), and why there
is no discrepancy between this account and his more developed views in
the Nellie Wallace Lectures.
Furthermore, again in the Riverside Lectures, Frede makes clear that
there are many other enterprises that may be called ‘history of phil­oso­
phy’, but that involve yet further different perspectives; for instance,
what he calls ‘the psychological history of philosophy’:

if one thinks that there are a limited number of basic philosophical

positions which just get repeated in various forms and disguises over
and over again, one may think that it is a matter of human psychology
that we, or at least philosophers, have to think in one of these ways. On
this approach to the history of philosophy we try to reduce the bewil-
dering variety of philosophical positions to a limited number of, as it
were, natural kinds and try to explain those as arising out of the
human mind. It is for this reason that I call this kind of approach ‘psy-
chological’. But this form of the psychological approach has also been
called ‘classificatory’, because according to it the history of philosophy
primarily offers a vast sample of philosophical positions to be classi-
fied appropriately. This approach is exemplified by Victor Cousin and
by Charles Renouvier, and in a way, already earlier, by De Gerando in
his Histoire comparée des systèmes de philosophie (Paris 1804). Here the
term ‘history of philosophy’ seems to have yet another sense, analo-
gous to that of ‘natural history’. The aim is not to give a history of phil­
oso­phy, but to present, under appropriate headings, an exhaustive
collection of philosophical views. (p. 14)

In the Nellie Wallace Lectures, though, Frede aims to focus on the his­
tor­ic­al history of philosophy, in order to present a thorough account of
how he conceives of his preferred enterprise. More specifically, in chap-
ters 1–4, he shows how the historical history of philosophy differs from
philosophical doxography, as well as from the philosophical history of
philosophy; in chapters 5–11, he considers the historical history of phil­
oso­phy in detail; and in chapters 12–13, he looks at some consequences
of the practice of the historian of philosophy. But I will leave Frede’s text
 Preface xv

to speak by itself; in the rest of this preface, I would like simply to sketch
the historical background to Frede’s Nellie Wallace Lectures and to trace
some of their influence.

3. Michael Frede’s Lectures in Context

Frede’s Nellie Wallace Lectures are clearly an attempt to vindicate

Eduard Zeller’s approach to the history of philosophy and to criticize the
one that was dominant in analytic philosophy at the time when these
lectures were given. It is telling that, in his article ‘Doxographical,
Philosophical, and Historical Forms of the History of Philosophy’, Frede
openly contrasts his views with those adhered to by the ‘new form of
doxography, whose most impressive representative was perhaps
G. E. L. Owen’ (p. 324). For Frede objects to the fact that:

(1) the new doxography is selective; it is concerned by its nature only

with rather exceptional philosophers, whose thought seems to have
retained a genuinely philosophical interest; (2) in this new doxogra-
phy, the aim is to reconstruct, using all the resources of contemporary
philosophy, including modern logic, the arguments which were or
could have been advanced in favor of a position from the past—and it
does so with a subtlety which is sometimes very impressive. (p. 324)

In the Nellie Wallace Lectures, though, he does not explicitly refer to

Owen or to other scholars who, in spite of their different personalities
and styles, advocated an approach to the history of philosophy similar to
Owen’s; for instance, J. L. Ackrill or G. Vlastos.1 In these lectures, Frede
criticizes strongly Werner Jaeger’s psychological explanations of the
inconsistencies in the Aristotelian corpus. For, according to him, it is

1 For more information about the different ways analytic philosophers dealt with the his-
tory of ancient philosophy before and during Frede’s academic career, see J. Barnes, ‘Aristote
dans la philosophie anglo-­ saxonne’, Revue Philosophique de Louvain 26 (1977), 204–18;
C. Rapp, ‘The liaison between analytic and ancient philosophy and its consequences’, in M. van
Ackeren (ed.), Philosophy and the Historical Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press
2018, 120–39.
xvi Preface

not Aristotle’s biography that can provide us with the reasons behind his
change of mind, but rather philosophical considerations that only the
historian is capable of pointing out in an unbiased way (pp. 81–2).
No doubt, at the time of the Nellie Wallace Lectures, Frede was not
alone in trying to reassess the way the history of philosophy should be
written. In fact, right at the start of his Riverside Lectures, he recounts
some of the background that explains his interest in the subject:

There has been a renewed interest in the history of philosophy. But

there recently also have been signs of a renewed interest in the nature
of the history of philosophy, the historical character of philosophical
activity, and the way one studies this history. In 1965 John Passmore
edited a series of articles under the title The Historiography of the
History of Philosophy in the series History and Theory (Beiheft 5,
’s-­Gravenhage: Mouton). In 1969 the Monist had an issue on the topic
of Philosophy of the History of Philosophy with an introductory article
by L. W. Beck. And most recently, Richard Rorty, J. B. Schneewind,
and Quentin Skinner have published a volume of papers entitled
Philosophy in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984).
Beck, in the paper mentioned above, has a long list of earlier articles
and books on the history and the historiography of philosophy. But he
also points out that these earlier discussions for the most part are not
particularly useful and that the topic would deserve more attention.
Given the renewed interest, I thought it might be useful if a practising
historian of philosophy tried to specify his view of the enterprise of the
historian of philosophy. (p. 1)

In particular, Rorty’s contribution in the volume Philosophy in History,

‘The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres’ (pp. 49–75), also pro-
poses a distinction between different attitudes toward the history of
philosophy, but Frede seems to have disagreed with it and did not adopt
it. For Rorty claimed:

I have distinguished four genres and suggested that one of them be

allowed to wither away [i.e. doxography]. The remaining three are
indispensable and do not compete with one another. Rational
 Preface xvii

reconstructions are necessary to help us present-­day philosophers

think through our problems. Historical reconstructions are needed to
remind us that these problems are historical products, by demonstrat-
ing that they were invisible to our ancestors. Geistesgeschichte is needed
to justify our belief that we are better off than those ancestors by virtue
of having become aware of those problems. Any given book in the his-
tory of philosophy will, of course, be a mixture of these three genres.
But usually one or another motive dominates, since there are three
distinct tasks to be performed. (pp. 67–8)

And there were other books and articles at that time dealing with simi-
lar issues. Some of them discussed the character of the history of phil­
oso­phy by raising both the question of whether it should be thought of
as philosophy or as history and the related question of whether a his­tor­
ian or a philosopher is better suited to writing the history of phil­oso­phy.
Others focused more on the question concerning the relation between
philosophy and its history, that is, whether or not the history of phil­oso­
phy can be of some help to contemporary philosophical debates.2
But have Frede’s views on the historiography of philosophy been
rebutted, superseded, or taken on board by working historians of phil­
oso­phy? There are historians of philosophy who praise his approach and
claim to follow his lead, and there are others who criticize his recon-
struction of the historiography of philosophy.3 It is important to note,

2 See, e.g. the articles in the volumes Philosophy and Its Past (ed. J. Rée, M. Ayers, and
A. Westoby, Brighton: Harvester 1978) and Doing Philosophy Historically (ed. P. H. Hare,
Buffalo N.Y.: Prometheus Books 1988).
3 C. Normore, ‘Doxology and the history of philosophy’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy,
suppl. 16 (1990), 203–26; C. Normore, ‘The methodology of the history of philosophy’, in
H. Cappelen, T. Szabó Gendler, and J. Hawthorne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical
Methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016, 27–48; W.-R. Mann, ‘The origins of the
modern his­tori­og­raphy of ancient philosophy’, History and Theory 35 (1996), 165–95; A. Laks,
‘Histoire critique et doxographie. Pour une histoire de l’historiographie de la philosophie’, Les
Études Philosophiques 4 (1999), 465–77; A. Kenny, ‘The philosopher’s history and the history of
phil­oso­phy’, in T. Sorell and G. A. Rogers (eds), Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy,
Oxford: Clarendon Press 2005, 13–24; H.-J. Glock, ‘Analytic philosophy and history: A mis-
match?’, Mind 117 (2008), 867–97; L. Catana, ‘Philosophical problems in the history of phil­
oso­phy: What are they?’, in M. Laerke, J. E. H. Smith, and E. Schliesser (eds), Philosophy and Its
History: Aims and Methods in the Study of Early Modern Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University
Press 2013, 115–33; L. Catana, ‘Doxographical or philosophical history: On Michael Frede’s
precepts for writing the history of philosophy’, History of European Ideas 42 (2014), 170–7;
K. Saporiti, ‘Wozu überhaupt Geschichte der Philosophie?’, in L. Cesalli, P. Emamzadah, and
xviii Preface

though, that all of his followers and critics base their judgements pri-
marily on the reading of his published articles, since the Nellie Wallace
Lectures have not been available. Frede’s more systematic proposal for a
historical history of philosophy, therefore, still needs to be carefully
studied, both in its historical and in its normative aspect, before we can
assess his overall contribution to the relevant more recent discussions.
To mention just a few details, it is clear that certain points stressed in
the Nellie Wallace Lectures are now regarded as generally agreed upon,
at least in secular histories of philosophy, and thus as rather obvious,
and even trite:

What I do want to reject is a delineation of the history of philosophy

from the point of view of a contemporary philosophical conception of
philosophy which reflects a certain contemporary philosophical pos­
ition. This obviously would make for biased partisan history only
acceptable to the followers of this position. It would make the enter-
prise unhistorical, since the choice of this position could not be justi-
fied on historical grounds. And it would, of course, mean that the
history constantly would have to be rewritten as philosophical pos­
itions change. (p. 75)

On the other hand, there are other points that are highly debatable; for
instance, his conviction that the person best qualified to write the his-
tory of philosophy is the historian:

I want to insist right from the beginning that the historical history of
philosophy truly is a historian’s enterprise and not some joint
venture in which one has to watch for the proper balance between
history and philosophy. I want this enterprise to be as independent
as possible from philosophy and not just an ancilla to philosophy . . .

H. Taieb (eds), La philosophie et son histoire—un débat actuel, Studia Philosophica 76 (2017),
115–36; W. Kühn, ‘Ein Plädozer für rationale Rekonstruktion’, in L. Cesalli, P. Emamzadah, and
H. Taieb (eds), La philosophie et son histoire—un débat actuel, Studia Philosophica 76 (2017),
171–86; M. van Ackeren, ‘On interpreting historical texts and contributing to current phil­oso­
phy’, in M. van Ackeren (ed.), Philosophy and the Historical Perspective, Oxford: Oxford
University Press 2018, 69–87.
 Preface xix

So I want to insist that the historical historian of philosophy genu-

inely is a his­tor­ian, though he needs to have a good amount of philo-
sophical competence. (pp. 60–1)

In addition, Frede’s rehabilitation of doxography and his attempt to free

it from all pejorative connotations, as well as his seemingly outright
exclusion of Indian and Chinese philosophy from the history of phil­oso­
phy (p. 70), would likely raise eyebrows nowadays.
In the time since the Nellie Wallace Lectures were originally de­livered,
quite a number of publications on the historiography of phil­oso­phy have
appeared and, I think, Frede’s subtle and nuanced position in favour of a
historical history of philosophy should find its place among those cur-
rently being discussed.4 There is, moreover, a renewed interest in

4 See, e.g. H. J. Sandkühler (ed.), Geschichtlichkeit der Philosophie. Theorie, Methodologie

und Methode der Historiographie der Philosophie, Franfurt am Main: Peter Lang 1991;
G. Santinello (ed.), Models of the History of Philosophy: From Its Origins in the Renaissance to
the ‘Historia Philosophica’, Vol. 1, trans. C. Blackwell and P. Weller, Dordrecht: Kluwer 1993;
G. Boss (ed.), La philosophie et son histoire, Zurich: GMB Éditions du Grand Midi 1994;
R. A. Watson, ‘What is the history of philosophy and why is it important?’, Journal of the
History of Philosophy 40 (2002), 525–8; M. Osler, ‘The history of philosophy and the history of
philosophy: A plea for textual history in context’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 40 (2002),
529–33; A. Martinich, ‘Philosophical history of philosophy’, Journal of the History of Philosophy
41 (2003), 405–7; T. Sorell and G. A. Rogers (eds), Analytic Philosophy and History of
Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press 2005; L. Catana, ‘The concept “system of philosophy”:
The case of Jacob Brucker’s historiography of philosophy’, History and Theory 44 (2005), 72–90;
L. Catana, The Historiographical Concept ‘System of Philosophy’, Leiden: Brill 2008; L. Catana,
‘Lovejoy’s readings of Bruno: Or how nineteenth-­century history of philosophy was “trans-
formed” into the history of ideas’, Journal of the History of Ideas 71 (2010), 91–112; L. Catana,
‘Tannery and Duhem on the concept of a system in the history of philosophy and history of
science’, Intellectual History Review 21 (2011), 493–509; L. Catana, ‘Intellectual history and the
history of phil­oso­phy: The genesis and current relationship’, in R. Whatmore and B. Young
(eds), A Companion to Intellectual History, Hoboken N.J.: John Wiley & Sons 2016, 129–40;
S. Knuuttila, ‘Hintikka’s view of the history of philosophy’, in R. E. Auxier and L. E. Hahn (eds),
The Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka, La Salle: Open Court 2006, 87–105; I. Hunter, ‘The history
of philosophy and the persona of the philosopher’, Modern Intellectual History 4 (2007), 571–600;
K. Vermeir, ‘Philosophy and genealogy: Ways of writing history of philosophy’, in M. Laerke,
J. E. H. Smith, and E. Schliesser (eds), Philosophy and Its History: Aims and Methods in the Study
of Early Modern Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013, 50–70; M. Kremer, ‘What is
the good of philosophical history’, in E. H. Reck (ed.), The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy,
New York: Palgrave 2013, 294–326; S. Hutton, ‘Intellectual history and the history of phil­oso­phy’,
History of European Ideas 40 (2014), 925–37; M. R. Antognazza, ‘The benefit to phil­oso­phy of the
study of its history’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23 (2015), 161–84; L. Cesalli,
P. Emamzadah, and H. Taieb (eds), ‘La philosophie et son histoire—un débat actuel’, Studia
Philosophica 76 (2017); M. van Ackeren (ed.), Philosophy and the Historical Perspective, Oxford:
Oxford University Press 2018; M. Della Rocca, The Parmenidean Ascent, Oxford: Oxford
University Press 2020, ch. 7; L. Catana and M. Laerke (eds), ‘Historiographies of Philosophy
1800–1950’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28:3 (2020), 431–41.
xx Preface

doxography, as well as in Zeller’s academic achievements,5 which could

help us to assess Frede’s perspective and the principles underlying it in a
more informed way. We may thus be in a better position to understand
more fully why he insisted on referring to himself as a ‘historian’6 and
why he was so proud of it.

5 See, e.g. A. Laks, ‘Qu’est-­ce que la doxographie?’, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 97

(1992), 307–9; J. Mansfeld and D. T. Runia (eds), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context
of a Doxographer. Vol. I: The Sources, Leiden: Brill 1997; Vol. II: The Compendium, Leiden: Brill
2009; Vol. III: Studies in the Doxographical Traditions of Ancient Philosophy, Leiden: Brill 2010;
Aëtiana IV. Papers of the Melbourne Colloquium on Ancient Doxography, Leiden: Brill 2018;
L. Steindler, ‘Les principes d’Eduard Zeller concernant l’histoire de la philosophie’, Revue de la
Métaphysique et de Morale 97 (1992), 401–16; G. Hartung (ed.), Eduard Zeller: Philosophie-
und Wissenschaftsgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert, Berlin: De Gruyter 2009.
6 See M. Frede, ‘Review of J. J. E. Gracia’s Philosophy and Its History: Issues in Philosophical
Historiography’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (1994), 234.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Was forst to seeke my lifes deare patronesse:
Much dearer be the things, which come through hard distresse.

Yet all those sights, and all that else I saw, xxix
Might not my steps withhold, but that forthright
Vnto that purposd place I did me draw,
Where as my loue was lodged day and night:
The temple of great Venus, that is hight
The Queene of beautie, and of loue the mother,
There worshipped of euery liuing wight;
Whose goodly workmanship farre past all other
That euer were on earth, all were they set together.

Not that same famous Temple of Diane, xxx

Whose hight all Ephesus did ouersee,
And which all Asia sought with vowes prophane,
One of the worlds seuen wonders sayd to bee,
Might match with this by many a degree:
Nor that, which that wise King of Iurie framed,
With endlesse cost, to be th’Almighties see;
Nor all that else through all the world is named
To all the heathen Gods, might like to this be clamed.

I much admyring that so goodly frame, xxxi

Vnto the porch approcht, which open stood;
But therein sate an amiable Dame,
That seem’d to be of very sober mood,
And in her semblant shewed great womanhood:
Strange was her tyre; for on her head a crowne
She wore much like vnto a Danisk hood,
Poudred with pearle and stone, and all her gowne
Enwouen was with gold, that raught full low a downe[186].

On either side of her, two young men stood, xxxii

Both strongly arm’d, as fearing one another;
Yet were they brethren both of halfe the blood,
Begotten by two fathers of one mother,
 Though of contrarie natures each to other:
The one of them hight Loue, the other Hate,
Hate was the elder, Loue the younger brother;
Yet was the younger stronger in his state
Then th’elder, and him maystred still in all debate.

Nathlesse that Dame so well them tempred both, xxxiii

That she them forced hand to ioyne in hand,
Albe that Hatred was thereto full loth,
And turn’d his face away, as he did stand,
Vnwilling to behold that louely band.
Yet she was of such grace and vertuous might,
That her commaundment he could not withstand,
But bit his lip for felonous despight,
And gnasht his yron tuskes at that displeasing sight.

Concord she cleeped was in common reed, xxxiv

Mother of blessed Peace, and Friendship trew;
They both her twins, both borne of heauenly seed,
And she her selfe likewise diuinely grew;
The which right well her workes diuine did shew:
For strength, and wealth, and happinesse she lends,
And strife, and warre, and anger does subdew:
Of litle much, of foes she maketh frends,
And to afflicted minds sweet rest and quiet sends.

By her the heauen is in his course contained, xxxv

And all the world in state vnmoued stands,
As their Almightie maker first ordained,
And bound them with inuiolable bands;
Else would the waters ouerflow the lands,
And fire deuoure the ayre, and hell[187] them quight,
But that she holds them with her blessed hands.
She is the nourse of pleasure and delight,
And vnto Venus grace the gate doth open right.

By her I entring halfe dismayed was, xxxvi

 But she in gentle wise me entertayned,
And twixt her selfe and Loue[188] did let me pas;
But Hatred would my entrance haue restrayned,
And with his club me threatned to haue brayned,
Had not the Ladie with her powrefull speach
Him from his wicked will vneath refrayned;
And th’other eke his malice did empeach,
Till I was throughly past the perill of his reach.

Into the inmost Temple thus I came, xxxvii

Which fuming all with frankensence I found,
And odours rising from the altars flame.
Vpon an hundred marble pillors round
The roofe vp high was reared from the ground,
All deckt with crownes, and chaynes, and girlands gay,
And thousand pretious gifts worth many a pound,
The which sad louers for their vowes did pay;
And all the ground was strow’d with flowres, as fresh as May[189].

An hundred Altars round about were set, xxxviii

All flaming with their sacrifices fire,
That with the steme thereof the Temple swet,
Which rould in clouds to heauen did aspire,
And in them bore true louers vowes entire:
And eke an hundred brasen caudrons bright,
To bath[190] in ioy and amorous desire,
Euery of which was to a damzell hight;
For all the Priests were damzels, in soft linnen dight.

Right in the midst the Goddesse selfe did stand xxxix

Vpon an altar of some costly masse,
Whose substance was vneath to vnderstand:
For neither pretious stone, nor durefull brasse,
Nor shining gold, nor mouldring clay it was;
But much more rare and pretious to esteeme,
Pure in aspect, and like to christall glasse,
Yet glasse was not, if one did rightly deeme,
But being faire and brickle, likest glasse did seeme.

But it in shape and beautie did excell xl

All other Idoles, which the heathen adore,
Farre passing that, which by surpassing skill
Phidias did make in Paphos Isle of yore,
With which that wretched Greeke, that life forlore,[191]
Did fall in loue: yet this much fairer shined,
But couered with a slender veile afore;
And both her feete and legs together twyned
Were with a snake, whose head and tail were fast combyned.

The cause why she was couered with a vele, xli

Was hard to know, for that her Priests the same
From peoples knowledge labour’d to concele.
But sooth it was not sure for womanish shame,
Nor any blemish, which the worke mote blame;
But for, they say, she hath both kinds in one,
Both male and female, both vnder one name:
She syre and mother is her selfe alone,
Begets and eke conceiues, ne needeth other none.

And all about her necke and shoulders flew xlii

A flocke of litle loues, and sports, and ioyes,
With nimble wings of gold and purple hew;
Whose shapes seem’d not like to terrestriall boyes,
But like to Angels playing heauenly toyes;
The whilest their eldest[192] brother was away,
Cupid their eldest brother; he enioyes
The wide kingdome of loue with Lordly sway,
And to his law compels all creatures to obay.

And all about her altar scattered lay xliii

Great sorts of louers piteously complayning,
Some of their losse, some of their loues delay,
Some of their pride, some paragons disdayning,
Some fearing fraud, some fraudulently fayning,
 As euery one had cause of good or ill.
Amongst the rest some one through loues constrayning,
Tormented sore, could not containe it still,
But thus brake forth, that all the temple it did fill.

Great Venus, Queene of beautie and of grace, xliv

The ioy of Gods and men, that vnder skie
Doest fayrest shine, and most adorne thy place,
That with thy smyling looke doest pacifie
The raging seas, and makst the stormes to flie;
Thee goddesse, thee the winds, the clouds doe feare,
And when thou spredst thy mantle forth on hie,
The waters play and pleasant lands appeare,
And heauens laugh, and al the world shews ioyous cheare.

Then doth the dædale earth throw forth to thee xlv

Out of her fruitfull lap aboundant flowres,
And then all liuing wights, soone as they see
The spring breake forth out of his lusty bowres,
They all doe learne to play the Paramours;
First doe the merry birds, thy prety pages
Priuily pricked with thy lustfull powres,
Chirpe loud to thee out of their leauy cages,
And thee their mother call to coole their kindly rages.

Then doe the saluage beasts begin to play xlvi

Their pleasant friskes, and loath their wonted food;
The Lyons rore, the Tygres loudly bray,
The raging Buls rebellow through the wood,
And breaking forth, dare tempt the deepest flood,
To come where thou doest draw them with desire:
So all things else, that nourish vitall blood,
Soone as with fury thou doest them inspire,
In generation seeke to quench their inward fire.

So all the world by thee at first was made, xlvii

And dayly yet thou doest the same repayre:
Ne ought on earth that merry is and glad,
 Ne ought on earth that louely is and fayre,
But thou the same for pleasure didst prepayre.
Thou art the root of all that ioyous is,
Great God of men and women, queene of th’ayre,
Mother of laughter, and welspring of blisse,
O graunt that of my loue at last I may not misse.

So did he say: but I with murmure soft, xlviii

That none might heare the sorrow of my hart,
Yet inly groning deepe and sighing oft,
Besought her to graunt ease vnto my smart,
And to my wound her gratious help impart.
Whilest thus I spake, behold with happy eye
I spyde, where at the Idoles feet apart
A beuie of fayre damzels close did lye,
Wayting when as the Antheme should be sung on hye.

The first of them did seeme of ryper yeares, xlix

And grauer countenance then all the rest;
Yet all the rest were eke her equall peares,
Yet vnto her obayed all the best.
Her name was Womanhood, that she exprest
By her sad semblant and demeanure wyse:
For stedfast still her eyes did fixed rest,
Ne rov’d at randon after gazers guyse,
Whose luring baytes oftimes doe heedlesse harts entyse.

And next to her sate goodly Shamefastnesse, l

Ne euer durst her eyes from ground vpreare,
Ne euer once did looke vp from her desse,
As if some blame of euill she did feare,
That in her cheekes made roses oft appeare:
And her against sweet Cherefulnesse was placed,
Whose eyes like twinkling stars in euening cleare,
Were deckt with smyles, that all sad humors chaced,
And darted forth delights, the which her goodly graced.

And next to her sate sober Modestie, li

 Holding her hand vpon her gentle hart;
And her against sate comely Curtesie,
That vnto euery person knew her part;
And her before was seated ouerthwart
Soft Silence, and submisse Obedience,
Both linckt together neuer to dispart,
Both gifts of God not gotten but from thence,
Both girlonds[193] of his Saints against their foes offence.

Thus sate they all a round in seemely rate: lii

And in the midst of them a goodly mayd,
Euen in the lap of Womanhood there sate,
The which was all in lilly white arayd,
With siluer streames amongst the linnen stray’d;
Like to the Morne, when first her shyning face
Hath to the gloomy world it selfe bewray’d,
That same was fayrest Amoret in place,
Shyning with beauties light, and heauenly vertues grace.

Whom soone as I beheld, my hart gan throb, liii

And wade in doubt, what best were to be donne:
For sacrilege me seem’d the Church to rob,
And folly seem’d to leaue the thing vndonne,
Which with so strong attempt I had begonne.
Tho shaking off all doubt and shamefast feare,
Which Ladies loue I heard had neuer wonne
Mongst men of worth, I to her stepped neare,
And by the lilly hand her labour’d vp to reare.

Thereat that formost matrone me did blame, liv

And sharpe rebuke, for being ouer bold;
Saying it was to Knight vnseemely shame,
Vpon a recluse Virgin to lay hold,
That vnto Venus seruices was sold.
To whom I thus, Nay but it fitteth best,
For Cupids man with Venus mayd to hold,
For ill your goddesse seruices are drest
By virgins, and her sacrifices let to rest.

With that my shield I forth to her did show, lv

Which all that while I closely had conceld[194];
On which when Cupid with his killing bow
And cruell shafts emblazond she beheld,
At sight thereof she was with terror queld,
And said no more: but I which all that while
The pledge of faith, her hand engaged held,
Like warie[195] Hynd within the weedie soyle,
For no intreatie would forgoe so glorious spoyle.

And euermore vpon the Goddesse face lvi

Mine eye was fixt, for feare of her offence,
Whom when I saw with amiable grace
To laugh at[196] me, and fauour my pretence,
I was emboldned with more confidence,
And nought for nicenesse nor for enuy sparing,
In presence of them all forth led her thence,
All looking on, and like astonisht staring,
Yet to lay hand on her, not one of all them daring.

She often prayd, and often me besought, lvii

Sometime with tender teares to let her goe,
Sometime with witching smyles: but yet for nought,
That euer she to me could say or doe,
Could she her wished freedome fro me wooe;
But forth I led her through the Temple gate,
By which I hardly past with much adoe:
But that same Ladie which me friended late
In entrance, did me also friend in my retrate.

No lesse did Daunger[197] threaten me with dread, lviii

When as he saw me, maugre all his powre,
That glorious spoyle of beautie with me lead,
Then Cerberus, when Orpheus did recoure
His Leman from the Stygian Princes boure.
 But euermore my shield did me defend,
Against the storme of euery dreadfull stoure:
Thus safely with my loue I thence did wend.
So ended he his tale, where I this Canto end.

FOOTNOTES:
[169] Arg. 1 conqust 1596
[170] ii 8 Since] Sith 1609
[171] vii 8 nanner 1596
[172] 9 maintaine, 1596
[173] ancients 1596
[174] ix 1 yearne 1609 passim
[175] xvii 5 award 1609
[176] xix 1 meanest] nearest 1596
[177] 2 disdeigning 1609
[178] xxiii 2 ghesse] bee 1596 (Malone 616), 1609
[179] 8 bee] ghesse 1596 (Malone 616), 1609
[180] xxv 1 all eyes 1596
[181] dight, 1596, 1609
[182] xxvi 9 aspire] inspire 1611
[183] xxvii 1 Hyllus 1596: Hylus 1609. Cf. III xii 7, l. 9
[184] 7 tyde, 1596, 1609
[185] 8 friendship 1596
[186] xxxi 9 adowne 1609
[187] xxxv 6 hell] hele or mell conj. edd.
[188] xxxvi 3 loue 1596: Loue 1609
[189] xxxvii 9 may 1596
[190] xxxviii 7 bathe 1609
[191] xl 5 forlore 1596
[192] xlii 6 elder 1609
[193] li 9 girlonds] gardians conj. Church: guerdons conj. Collier
[194] lv 2 conceald 1609
[195] 8 warie] wearie conj. Upton
[196] lvi 4 at] on 1609
[197] lviii 1 daunger 1596: danger 1609
 Cant. XI.

Marinells former wound is heald,

he comes to Proteus hall,
Where Thames doth the Medway wedd,
and feasts the Sea-gods all.

Bvt ah for pittie that I haue thus long i

Left a fayre Ladie languishing in payne:
Now well away[198], that I haue doen such wrong,
To let faire Florimell in bands remayne,
In bands of loue, and in sad thraldomes chayne;
From which vnlesse some heauenly powre her free
By miracle, not yet appearing playne,
She lenger yet is like captiu’d to bee:
That euen to thinke thereof, it inly pitties mee.

Here neede you to remember, how erewhile ii

Vnlouely Proteus, missing to his mind
That Virgins loue to win by wit or wile,
Her threw into a dongeon[199] deepe and blind,
And there in chaynes her cruelly did bind,
In hope thereby her to his bent to draw:
For when as neither gifts nor graces kind
 Her constant mind could moue at all he saw,
He thought her to compell by crueltie and awe.

Deepe in the bottome of an huge great rocke iii

The dongeon was, in which her bound he left,
That neither yron barres, nor brasen locke
Did neede to gard from force, or secret theft
Of all her louers, which would her haue reft.
For wall’d it was with waues, which rag’d and ror’d
As they the cliffe in peeces would haue cleft;
Besides ten thousand monsters foule abhor’d
Did waite about it, gaping griesly all begor’d.

And in the midst thereof did horror dwell, iv

And darkenesse dredd, that neuer viewed day,
Like to the balefull house of lowest hell,
In which old Styx her aged bones alway,
Old Styx the Grandame[200] of the Gods, doth lay.
There did this lucklesse mayd seuen[201] months abide,
Ne euer euening saw, ne mornings ray,
Ne euer from the day the night descride,
But thought it all one night, that did no houres diuide.

And all this was for loue of Marinell, v

Who her despysd (ah who would her despyse?)
And wemens loue did from his hart expell,
And all those ioyes that weake mankind entyse.
Nathlesse his pride full dearely he did pryse;
For of a womans hand it was ywroke,
That of the wound he yet in languor lyes,
Ne can be cured of that cruell stroke
Which Britomart him gaue, when he did her prouoke.

Yet farre and neare the Nymph his mother sought, vi

And many salues did to his sore applie,
And many herbes did vse. But when as nought
She saw could ease his rankling maladie,
 At last to Tryphon she for helpe did hie,
(This Tryphon is the seagods surgeon hight)
Whom she besought to find some remedie:
And for his paines a whistle him behight
That of a fishes shell was wrought with rare delight.

So well that Leach did hearke[202] to her request, vii

And did so well employ his carefull paine,
That in short space his hurts he had redrest,
And him restor’d to healthfull state againe:
In which he long time after did remaine
There with the Nymph his mother, like her thrall;
Who sore against his will did him retaine,
For feare of perill, which to him mote fall,
Through his too ventrous prowesse proued ouer all.

It fortun’d then, a solemne feast was there viii

To all the Sea-gods and their fruitfull seede,
In honour of the spousalls, which then were
Betwixt the Medway and the Thames agreed.
Long had the Thames (as we in records reed)
Before that day her wooed to his bed;
But the proud Nymph would for no worldly meed,
Nor no entreatie to his loue be led;
Till now at last relenting, she to him was wed.

So both agreed, that this their bridale feast ix

Should for the Gods in Proteus house be made;
To which they all repayr’d, both most and least,
Aswell which in the mightie Ocean trade,
As that in riuers swim, or brookes doe wade.
All which not if an hundred tongues to tell,
And hundred mouthes, and voice of brasse I had,
And endlesse memorie, that mote excell,
In order as they came, could I recount them well.

Helpe therefore, O thou sacred imp of Ioue, x

 The noursling of Dame Memorie his deare,
To whom those rolles, layd vp in heauen aboue,
And records of antiquitie appeare,
To which no wit of man may comen neare;
Helpe me to tell the names of all those floods,
And all those Nymphes, which then assembled were
To that great banquet of the watry Gods,
And all their sundry kinds, and all their hid abodes.

First came great Neptune with his threeforkt mace, xi

That rules the Seas, and makes them rise or fall;
His dewy lockes did drop with brine apace,
Vnder his Diademe imperiall:
And by his side his Queene with coronall,
Faire Amphitrite, most diuinely faire,
Whose yuorie shoulders weren couered all,
As with a robe, with her owne siluer haire,
And deckt with pearles, which th’Indian seas for her prepaire.

These marched farre afore the other crew; xii

And all the way before them as they went,
Triton his trompet[203] shrill before them blew,
For goodly triumph and great iollyment,
That made the rockes to roare, as they were rent.
And after them the royall issue came,
Which of them sprung by lineall descent:
First the Sea-gods, which to themselues doe clame
The powre to rule the billowes, and the waues to tame.

Phorcys, the father of that fatall brood, xiii

By whom those old Heroes wonne such fame;
And Glaucus, that wise southsayes[204] vnderstood;
And tragicke Inoes sonne, the which became
A God of seas through his mad mothers blame,
Now hight Palemon, and is saylers frend;
Great Brontes, and Astræus, that did shame
Himselfe with incest of his kin vnkend;
And huge Orion, that doth tempests still portend.

The rich Cteatus, and Eurytus long; xiv

Neleus and Pelias louely brethren both;
Mightie Chrysaor, and Caïcus strong;
Eurypulus, that calmes the waters wroth;
And faire Euphœmus, that vpon them goth
As on the ground, without dismay or dread:
Fierce Eryx, and Alebius that know’th
The waters depth, and doth their bottome tread;
And sad Asopus, comely with his hoarie head.

There also some most famous founders were xv

Of puissant Nations, which the world possest;
Yet sonnes of Neptune, now assembled here:
Ancient Ogyges, euen th’auncientest,
And Inachus renowmd aboue the rest;
Phœnix, and Aon, and Pelasgus old,
Great Belus, Phœax, and Agenor best;
And mightie Albion, father of the bold
And warlike people, which the Britaine Islands hold.

For Albion the sonne of Neptune was, xvi

Who for the proofe of his great puissance,
Out of his Albion did on dry-foot pas
Into old Gall, that now is cleeped France,
To fight with Hercules, that did aduance
To vanquish all the world with matchlesse might,
And there his mortall part by great mischance
Was slaine: but that which is th’immortall spright
Liues still: and to this feast with Neptunes seed was dight.

But what doe I their names seeke to reherse, xvii

Which all the world haue with their issue fild?
How can they all in this so narrow verse
Contayned be, and in small compasse hild?
Let them record them, that are better skild,
 And know the moniments of passed times[205]:
Onely what needeth, shall be here fulfild,
T’expresse some part of that great equipage,
Which from great Neptune do deriue their parentage.

Next came the aged Ocean, and his Dame, xviii

Old Tethys, th’oldest two of all the rest,
For all the rest of those two parents came,
Which afterward both sea and land possest:
Of all which Nereus th’eldest, and the best,
Did first proceed, then which none more vpright,
Ne more sincere in word and deed profest;
Most voide of guile, most free from fowle despight,
Doing him selfe, and teaching others to doe right.

Thereto he was expert in prophecies, xix

And could the ledden of the Gods vnfold,
Through which, when Paris brought his famous prise
The faire Tindarid lasse, he him fortold,
That her all Greece with many a champion bold
Should fetch againe, and finally destroy
Proud Priams towne. So wise is Nereus old,
And so well skild; nathlesse he takes great ioy
Oft-times amongst the wanton Nymphs to sport and toy.

And after him the famous riuers came, xx

Which doe the earth enrich and beautifie:
The fertile Nile, which creatures new doth frame;
Long Rhodanus, whose sourse springs from the skie;
Faire Ister, flowing from the mountaines hie;
Diuine Scamander, purpled yet with blood
Of Greekes and Troians, which therein did die;
Pactolus glistring with his golden flood,
And Tygris fierce, whose streames of none may be withstood.

Great Ganges, and immortall Euphrates, xxi

Deepe Indus, and Mæander intricate,
 Slow Peneus, and tempestuous Phasides,
Swift Rhene, and Alpheus still immaculate:
Ooraxes,[206] feared for great Cyrus fate;
Tybris, renowmed for the Romaines fame,
Rich Oranochy, though but knowen late;
And that huge Riuer, which doth beare his name
Of warlike Amazons, which doe possesse the same.

Ioy on those warlike women, which so long xxii

Can from all men so rich a kingdome hold;
And shame on you, O men, which boast your strong
And valiant hearts, in thoughts lesse hard and bold,
Yet quaile in conquest of that land of gold.
But this to you, O Britons, most pertaines,
To whom the right hereof it selfe hath sold;
The which for sparing litle cost or paines,
Loose so immortall glory, and so endlesse gaines.

Then was there heard a most celestiall sound, xxiii

Of dainty musicke, which did next ensew
Before the spouse: that was Arion crownd;
Who playing on his harpe, vnto him drew
The eares and hearts of all that goodly crew,
That euen yet the Dolphin, which him bore
Through the Ægæan[207] seas from Pirates vew,
Stood still by him astonisht at his lore,
And all the raging seas for ioy forgot to rore.

So went he playing on the watery plaine, xxiv

Soone after whom the louely Bridegroome came,
The noble Thamis, with all his goodly traine,
But him before there went, as best became,[208]
His auncient parents, namely th’auncient Thame.
But much more aged was his wife then he,
The Ouze, whom men doe Isis rightly name;
Full weake and crooked creature seemed shee,
And almost blind through eld, that scarce her way could see.
Therefore on either side she was sustained xxv
Of two smal grooms, which by their names were hight
The Churne, and Charwell, two small streames, which pained
Them selues her footing to direct aright,
Which fayled oft through faint and feeble plight:
But Thame was stronger, and of better stay;
Yet seem’d full aged by his outward sight,
With head all hoary, and his beard all gray,
Deawed with siluer drops, that trickled downe alway.

And eke he somewhat seem’d to stoupe afore xxvi

With bowed backe, by reason of the lode,
And auncient heauy burden, which he bore
Of that faire City, wherein make abode[209]
So many learned impes, that shoote abrode,
And with their braunches spred all Britany,
No lesse then do her elder sisters broode.
Ioy to you both, ye double noursery[210]
Of Arts, but Oxford thine doth Thame most glorify.

But he their sonne full fresh and iolly was, xxvii

All decked in a robe of watchet hew,
On which the waues, glittering like Christall glas,
So cunningly enwouen were, that few
Could weenen, whether they were false or trew.
And on his head like to a Coronet
He wore, that seemed strange to common vew,
In which were many towres and castels set,
That it encompast round as with a golden fret.

Like as the mother of the Gods, they say, xxviii

In her great iron charet wonts to ride,
When to Ioues pallace she doth take her way:
Old Cybele, arayd with pompous pride,
Wearing a Diademe embattild wide
With hundred turrets, like a Turribant.
With such an one was Thamis beautifide;
 That was to weet the famous Troynouant,
In which her kingdomes throne is chiefly resiant.

And round about him many a pretty Page xxix

Attended duely, ready to obay;
All little Riuers, which owe vassallage
To him, as to their Lord, and tribute pay:
The chaulky Kenet, and the Thetis gray,
The morish Cole, and the soft sliding Breane,
The wanton Lee, that oft doth loose his way,
And the still Darent, in whose waters cleane
Ten thousand fishes play, and decke his pleasant streame.

Then came his neighbour flouds, which nigh him dwell, xxx
And water all the English soile throughout;
They all on him this day attended well;
And with meet seruice waited him about;
Ne none[211] disdained low to him to lout:
No not the stately Seuerne grudg’d at all,
Ne storming Humber, though he looked stout;
But both him honor’d as their principall,
And let their swelling waters low before him fall.

There was the speedy Tamar, which deuides xxxi

The Cornish and the Deuonish confines;
Through both whose borders swiftly downe it glides,
And meeting Plim, to Plimmouth thence declines:
And Dart, nigh chockt[212] with sands of tinny mines.
But Auon marched in more stately path,
Proud of his Adamants, with which he shines
And glisters wide, as als’ of wondrous Bath,
And Bristow faire, which on his waues he builded hath.

And there came Stoure with terrible aspect, xxxii

Bearing his sixe deformed heads on hye,
That doth his course through Blandford plains direct,
And washeth Winborne meades in season drye.
 Next him went Wylibourne with passage slye,
That of his wylinesse his name doth take,
And of him selfe doth name the shire thereby:
And Mole, that like a nousling Mole doth make
His way still vnder ground, till Thamis he ouertake.

Then came the Rother, decked all with woods xxxiii

Like a wood God, and flowing fast to Rhy:
And Sture, that parteth with his pleasant floods
The Easterne Saxons from the Southerne ny,
And Clare, and Harwitch both doth beautify:
Him follow’d Yar, soft washing Norwitch wall,
And with him brought a present ioyfully
Of his owne fish vnto their festiuall,
Whose like none else could shew, the which they Ruffins call.

Next these the plenteous Ouse came far from land, xxxiv
By many a city, and by many a towne,
And many riuers taking vnder hand
Into his waters, as he passeth downe,
The Cle, the Were, the Grant[213], the Sture, the Rowne.
Thence doth by Huntingdon and Cambridge flit,
My mother Cambridge, whom as with a Crowne
He doth adorne, and is adorn’d of it
With many a gentle Muse, and many a learned wit.

And after him the fatall Welland went, xxxv

That if old sawes proue true (which God forbid)
Shall drowne all Holland with his excrement,
And shall see Stamford, though now homely hid,
Then shine in learning, more then euer did
Cambridge or Oxford, Englands goodly beames.
And next to him the Nene[214] downe softly slid;
And bounteous Trent, that in him selfe enseames
Both thirty sorts of fish, and thirty sundry streames.

Next these came Tyne, along whose stony bancke xxxvi