in the vacation to some quiet healthy place. Like William Sewell [q. v.] of Exeter, he became a student of Plato, and it was greatly due to him that Plato was included in the list of books which could be offered in the schools (Life, i. 132). This incursion into a new field of philosophy he balanced by lectures on political economy. His tours abroad became more rare as the years passed on, but in April 1848 he visited Paris in the days of the revolution with Stanley, Francis Turner Palgrave [q. v. Suppl.], and [Sir] Robert Burnett Morier [q. v.] (see Stanley, Life, i. 390).
Yet theology was the chief study of these days. For some years past Jowett had been on terms of intimate friendship with Stanley, and finally the two friends planned an edition of St. Paul's epistles. Jowett undertook the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans; Stanley the Corinthians. From these labours they were drawn away for a time by the movement for reform which now swept over Oxford. Stanley and Jowett had already begun a joint work on university reform, when in 1850 a commission was appointed to take evidence on the subject. Of this commission Stanley was the secretary. From the evidence which Jowett gave before it we see that he wished to retain the college system, but was in favour of increasing the number of professors. That he had in view at this time any extension of university privileges to non-collegiate students there is no proof. But he was clearly on the side of the poor student, and did not wish to see the university possessed by the 'gentleman heresy' (Life, i. 183). He was a public examiner in 1849, 1850, 1851, and 1853.
Jowett was now known beyond Oxford. He was consulted by Sir C.Trevelyan in regard to examinations for the Indian civil service, and eventually became a member of Lord Macaulay's committee, which reported in 1854. To the end of his life he retained a lively interest in this subject, and indeed in everything connected with India (see letters to Lord Lansdowne in Letters, 1899).
When Dr. Richard Jenkyns [q.v.] died in 1854, Jowett was put forward is a candidate for the mastership, but the election fell on Robert Scott (1811-1887) [q. v.] This repulse made a deep impression on Jowett's sensitive nature; it was, in fact, the beginning of a somewhat distressful period of his life, during which he felt himself in little sympathy with his college and Oxford. The first effect of it was to send him back with renewed energy to his unfinished work on St. Paul. In the next summer, on the same day with Stanley's edition of the Corinthians, his edition of the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans appeared. The publication of this book formed an epoch in Jowett's life.
To the stricter school of philologists the commentary seemed to be vitiated by the view which Jowett took of St. Paul's use of language. His ablest critic, [Bishop] Lightfoot, strongly protested against the charge of vagueness which Jowett brought against the Greek of the New Testament period; and of St. Paul especially he maintained that his antecedents were such that he could hardly fail to speak or write Greek with accuracy, while Jowett was inclined to look on the apostle as one whose thoughts outran his power of expression, so that his meaning must be gathered from the context rather than by a strictly grammatical treatment of the words (see Journal of Sacred and Classical Philology, iii. p. 104, ff. 1856). The essays, which were generally acknowledged to be the most important part of the work, were partly condemned as heretical, especially the essay on the atonement, and were also thought to be wanting in definite conclusions, though no one could deny that deep and suggestive thoughts were contained in them. 'Those who look only for positive results will be greatly disappointed with Mr. Jowett's essays. On the other hand, those who are satisfied with being made to think instead of being thought for, and are willing to follow out for themselves important lines of reflexion, when suggested to them, will find no lack of interest or instruction in these volumes. The value of Mr. Jowett's labours is far from consisting solely in the definite results attained, which are poorer than might have been looked for. The reconstructive process bears no proportion to the destructive. But, after every abatement which has to be made on this score, these volumes will still hold their position in the foremost ranks of recent literature for depth and range of thought' (Lightfoot, l. c.). The book could not fail to attract, attention, even beyond theological readers. Bagehot said that Jowett had shown by 'chance expressions' that he had exhausted impending controversies years before they arrived, and had perceived more or less the conclusion at which the disputants would arrive long before the public issue was joined' (Physics and Politics, 8th ed. pp. 116, 117). In 1859 a second edition was published, in which the essay on the atonement was rewritten, not with any view of retracting the views put forward in the first, but to explain them more clearly and meet some of the misconceptions which had arisen.
In the same summer (1855) Jowett was
