to every American and Australian. . . . It was not enough for arnsheriff or other judge to take refuge behind an Act of the WestminsterrnParhament if that Parhament itself had its powers restrictedrnby an Act of two Parliaments, namely the terms ofrnunion, an international treaty, between Scotland and England.rnThe English have been accustoming themselves to the dogmarnof the omnipotence of Parliament, but such a dogma is untenablernin relation to Scotland, whose Parliament was never omnipotent,rnand is incompatible with the Treaty of Union whichrnconstituted the British Parliament to begin with.”rnDouglas saw the importance of Scottish nationalism for arnfederalist Europe. “Things are never settled until they are settledrnjustly, and there will be no just or satisfactory internationalrnorder in Europe till each nation of Europe has its due, equalityrnof rights in its own affairs… . On this view my litigation aboutrnthe Treaty of Union may be seen as a slight contribution to arnrationally united Europe.” Douglas foresaw a European parliamentrnand, eventually, a world parliament, answerable to thernworld’s national parliaments. In such a world, Scotland wouldrnneed its own voice, that is, its own parliament.rnHe did not predict the formation of the current EuropeanrnUnion, modeled on the omnipotent parliaments and bureaucraciesrnof France and England. “The insular English, with theirrnpeculiar dogma that one is better without any rational constitutionrnand that a legislature should be allowed to please itselfrnand govern at discretion” are now entangled in a EuropeanrnUnion ruled by a European parliament and a Brussels bureaucracyrnfree to impose laws on their helpless subjects, just asrnWestminster and Whitehall rule Scotland. Jacques Delors, inrna speech to the European Parliament on July 6,1988, predictedrnthat 80 percent of all laws on economic, social, and fiscal affairsrnwould originate in Brussels. It is no coincidence that amongrnthose who have said “no” to the European Union arc the peoplesrnof Norway and Serbia, chosen by Douglas as Scotland’srnpeers in 1942.rnThe years that followed the war were filled with success andrnfrustration. The unpopular Churchill government fell in arnGeneral Election in 1945. In 1948, the SNP, up to then openrnto members of all parties or none, insisted that members ofrnother parties resign. Hugh MacDiarmid, a Communist, andrnDouglas, a Labourite, resigned, although they had sat on thernHigh Council.rnDouglas devoted himself to poetry and scholarship. I lis originalrnpoems in “Lallans,” a name for the Scots dialect he tookrnfrom Burns, led to an active role in the international writers’rnorganization PEN, of which he was Scottish President (1957-rn1961). His translations of “The Twenty-Third Psalm of KingrnDavid” and Valery’s “Cimetiere Marin” were widely acclaimed,rnand his theatrical versions of Aristophanes’ Frogs and Birdsrn(“Puddocks” and “Burdies”) were performed at the EdinburghrnDrama Festival.rnAs a scholar, he made important contributions to the studyrnof Greek manuscripts (codicology). His critical edition ofrnTheognis in the prestigious Teubner series (1961) is still inrnprint and remains of value because of his personal examinationrnof the manuscripts and his notes on many passages. In Chasingrnan Ancient Greek (1950), a book about his trip to examinernGreek manuscripts and visit the PEN congress in Venice inrn1949, he explained why Theognis is worth reading. “Theognisrnhad a mind of his own and spoke it, on matters of general asrnwell as of personal interest. As such a spokesman he is a socialrnand historical ‘document’ of the first importance, all the morernso that he is the most substantial relic of personal literaturernfrom the aristocratic particularist age, before Athenian nationalrnsocialism and Macedonian dynastic imperialism.” Douglasrnis describing himself. During the last decade of his life, hernworked on the text and manuscripts of the Greek tragedianrnAeschylus. For many scholars, Aeschylus is the engaged artist ofrnthe radical Athenian democracy, but not for Douglas. “Aeschylusrnwas clearly a constitutionalist of the ‘strict constructioir’rnschool, who wished the supreme court to have the generalrnguardianship of the democratic constitution so as to repressrnalike any tendencies to despotism or to anarchy.”rnEach time he applied for a Professorship in Scotland, he wasrnturned down, despite impressive letters of recommendation.rnThe great scholar of Greek religion, H.J. Rose, called himrn”without exception or doubt the most brilliant student I havernever taught.” (In America, when confronted by obstreperousrnstudents, he would listen to their comments and then say, “H.J.rnRose always said the best students disagree with their teachers.”)rnIn 1946, the chair at Glasgow went to A.W. Gomme, arnsenior scholar engaged in writing an important commentary onrnThucydides. (He died before completing it.) Douglas taughtrnLatin at University College, Dundee, but when in 1953 itsrnI^atin department was swallowed up by St. Andrews, he transferredrnto the Greek department of his old university. When hernapplied for the Greek chair there, he was passed over in favor ofrnK.J. Dover, a young Englishman of much promise, whose mostrnimportant scholarship, which included helping to finishrnGomme’s commentary, began appearing in the late 60’s.rnDover liked St. Andrews, and a few years later turned down thernoffer of the Regius Professorship of Greek at Oxford to stayrnthere.rnIf Douglas was unhappy about a Sassanach occupying arnScottish chair, no change in his cheerful disposition everrnbetrayed it. Dover is a fine scholar, but he docs not suffer peersrngladly. In his recent autobiography, Marginal Comment, hernplays down Douglas’s contributions to Classical Studies andrnharps on their scholarly differences, which were based on principle.rn(On the next page he defends a nonthreatening friendrnfor mistranslating Latin.) He attributes to himself the growingrnpopularity of Greek studies at St. Andrews iir the late 50’s andrnsays the program had problems in the 70’s because “I was beginningrnto lose my grip as a teacher.” He does not note the correlationrnof the program’s ups and downs to Douglas’s presence.rnI and many others can attest that Douglas was a born teacher.rnThe most striking failures in Dover’s career of almost unbrokenrnsuccess were his two chances to reach wider audiences, hisrnSather Lectures at Berkeley (1967) and his BBC show. ThernGreeks (1980). Dover gloats over Eduard Fraenkcl’s refusal torncome to a reception if Douglas were invited, but omits the detailsrnof their relationship. He breathed a sigh of relief whenrnDouglas left. Having done his best work at St. Andrews, Doverrnreturned to Oxford in 1976 as President of Corpus Christi College,rnwhere, by his own account, he seems to have spent muchrntime fantasizing about the suicide of a difficult colleague.rnAfter he was turned down for the Greek chair at Aberdeen inrn1965, Douglas began to take seriously offers from America,rnfinally accepting a position at McMaster University in Canadarnin 1968. The next year, he was appointed Paddison Professorrnof Greek at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Hernwas as active and cheerful as ever, with no sign of resentmentrnthat he had become one of Ammianus MarccUinus’s Scoff; perrn30/CHRONICLESrnrnrn