The Complete Yes Minister

‘Yes,’ agreed Sir Humphrey, ‘and you could be General Galtieri.’

August 15th

When I arrived in my office today I found the most curious memo from Bernard sitting on my desk.

Aug. 12th

CONFIDENTIAL, FOR THE MINISTER’S EYES ONLY

With reference to your comment at today’s meeting with the Permanent Secretary at which you enquired, in connection with looking the Integrated Transport Policy gift horse in the mouth, whether, if the gift horse were a Trojan Horse (as suggested by the Permanent Secretary that so it might prove to be) it would be full of Trojans.

May I respectfully draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, if he had looked the Trojan Horse in the mouth, he would have found Greeks inside.

The reason, of course, is that it was the Greeks who gave the Trojan Horse to the Trojans. Therefore, technically it was not a Trojan Horse at all. In fact, it was a Greek Horse. Hence the tag ‘Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes’, which, as the Minister will recall, is usually and somewhat inaccurately translated as Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts, or doubtless the Minister would recall had he not attended the LSE.

B.W.

I dictated a reply to Bernard, in which I said that Greek tags are all very interesting in their way, especially to classicists no doubt, but that they were not exactly central to government business.

I added that presumably the modern EEC version of that tag would be Beware of Greeks Bearing An Olive Oil Surplus.

(Rather good that. I must remember to use it next time I have to make an anti-EEC speech.)

To my astonishment, I found yet another memo from Bernard in my red boxes tonight, shortly before writing this entry in my diary. He really is tireless in his pursuit of pointless pedantry.

Aug. 15th

With reference to your memorandum in reply to my memorandum on the subject of classical tags, your description of the tag Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts as a Greek tag is, of course, erroneous.

Just as the Trojan Horse was Greek, the tag which you described as Greek was, in fact, Latin. In fact, this is obvious if you consider that the Greeks would hardly suggest bewaring of themselves – if one can use such a participle: bewaring, that is – and the tag can clearly be seen to be Latin rather than Greek not because ‘timeo’ ends in ‘o’ (because the Greek first person also ends in ‘o’) – actually, if I may digress, there is a Greek word ‘timao’ meaning ‘I honour’ – but because the ‘os’ ending is a nominative singular termination of the second declension in Greek and an accusative plural in Latin.

Incidentally, as a fine point of interest, Danaos is not only the Greek for Greek but also the Latin for Greek.

B.W.

I shall preserve Bernard’s memos for posterity. They give a clear indication of how academic brilliance can mislead those who recruit administrative trainees into the Civil Service.

[A few days later Hacker, Appleby and Bernard Woolley were present at the promised meeting with three Department of Transport Under-Secretaries – Ed.]

August 17th

We have had a most extraordinary meeting today, the one that Humphrey had promised to arrange with the Under-Secretaries from the Department of Transport.

I can’t remember all their names, but each one was from a different division – one from Air, one from Road and one from Rail. It was extraordinarily acrimonious. The one thing that they were all agreed on was that, somehow, my proposals were deeply misguided.

The man from Road Transport, Graham something or other, suggested that it should be government policy to designate road haulage as its own principal means of freight transport. He was promptly interrupted by Richard somebody with a rather irritable thin tired-looking creased face – not surprising when you consider he’s been trying to modernise the railways and battle with BR, the NUR and ASLEF for most of his career.

‘With the greatest possible respect, Minister, I think that such a policy would be, not to put too fine a point on it, unacceptably short-sighted. It is rail transport that must surely be the favoured carrier under any sane national policy.’

Piers, a smooth fellow from Air, interrupted so fast that he scarcely gave himself time to utter his usual courteous but meaningless preamble. ‘If-I-might-crave-your-indulgence-for-a-moment-Minister, I have to say that both those proposals are formulae for disaster. Long-term considerations absolutely mandate the expansion of air freight to meet rising demand.’

Graham (Roads) put down his pencil, with a sharp click as it hit my mahogany reproduction conference table. ‘Of course,’ he snapped, ‘if the Minister is prepared for a massive budget increase . . .’

‘If the Minister will accept a long and unbelievably bitter rail strike . . .’ interrupted Richard (Rail).

And Piers butted in: ‘If the public can tolerate a massive rise in public discontent . . .’

I interrupted them by holding up my hand. They then confined themselves to staring at each other with intense mutual hostility.

‘Hold on, hold on,’ I said. ‘We’re the government, aren’t we?’

‘Indeed you are, Minister,’ Sir Humphrey corrected me.