That sounds just wonderful (what I just wrote), but I don't believe it any more. For in the meantime I've read the minutes we took of the 1962–63 tutorial and suspect that the spirit of the first year — the year before — also had something to do with my omitting names. In contrast to that of the second year's, that spirit was that of innocent, docile, sweet children: the second year there was a strong component of obstreperousness, truculence, hostility, even on my part occasionally. Yes, the names of the first year's students would add nothing but indeed detract from the spirit of the enterprise, but still it is not, as I said, only Initiators' that I would wish to identify. For instance, among the second year's students, there are one or two who have since published things, and there might be some interest in identifying them. I am also thinking of the graduate seminar I ran at York in 1971 (35 and 38 below) — I quoted from a paper written for it and named the author;¹ and I now feel more inclined to identify participants in it and in other graduate seminars, though not so much in discussions as in case I quote from their papers. Why is this? It may have to do with recognizing the author of a work. Which means that I didn't or don't consider the papers written by the first "tutees,' at least, "work' — but what? Exercise, practice, trial, experiment? Which alone counted, rather than what work elements they contained? I suppose that by "initiators' I meant something a bit broader: authors of works.