Sir,—It seems that in reducing Mr. Read's letter to the 100 word limit you may have made it even more incoherent than it originally was. However, it remains that if Mr. Read had written some worth-while articles for "Salient" it would be unnecessary to fill up your space with requests for contributions.

Sir,—Re "Passers By"—Go, get him, girls!

Sir,—After reading Mr. J. G. Reed's letter I am anxious to know what colour political shirt a Communist-propagating Fascist bouncer wears. Could you, as one, enlighten me

[Take it as Read.—Ed.]

Dear Sir,—Are the universities of Britain semi-canonised? Is enthusiasm lacking at Oxford and Cambridge? In your July 2nd issue these provoking statements are attributed to Count Wodzicki, and I beg your leave to be provoked.

Let me not be misunderstood. I am not a Chauvinist; I am sure we have much to learn from Cracow and Warsaw. I do not defend my own university by disparaging others, as "The Count" does. But I am concerned to correct the totally false impression he gives of the universities of Britain, and in particular of Oxford.

If, as "The Count' suggests, full-timing makes a university; if heated discussions till three or four in the morning (with or without the inspiration that prolongs the sessions of the Haeremia Club) on philosophy, art, religion or politics make a university; if well-organised clubs make a university, then I declare, Madame Editor, that Oxford is a university. Surely a no more amazing range of student activity can be found than exists (or existed before the war, and will again) at Oxford.

Lack of enthusiasm? Has "The Count" heard Harry Pollitt speak at the Labour Club? Has he attended Professor Price's philosophy seminars? Has he watched the boat race? Has he seen the original productions of the Experimental Theatre Club? Has he punted up to the Cherwell Arms on a summer evening?

My pen runs away with me. Finally, I ask Victoria students to remember the statements and manifestoes of the University Labour Federation of Great Britain, which "Salient" has itself reprinted. Do they show a semi-canonised or apathetic spirit?

With best wishes to "Salient's" continued health and high spirits.

Sir,—Would you publish the circulation figures of "Salient"? It has been getting better every issue this year, and every student at Victoria should read it thoroughly, but I fear there are many who do not. I believe there are between 600 and 700 taking lectures up here at present, and if you publish the circulation figures it will show what proportion of students take "Salient." Such a paper can well be the focus of student life.

[275 copies of the last issue of "Salient" were sold. The 1941 annual general meeting of V.U.C. Students' Association adopted a resolution that half a crown a year be added to the Student Association fee, and that the money so gained be used to finance "Salient," which would then be distributed free to every student, but the College Council held the resolution unconstitutional and quashed it.—Ed.]

The recent correspondence in regard to the History Syllabus has been very interesting, and reveals quite a paucity of thought on the subject on history as a whole. The first correspondent after three years of University history can only sum up that "history is a series of facts" taught "for very vague reasons," for "facts they gave us in plenty, but not understanding." The second writer states, "In an attempt to provide a history curriculum of some use, should not the whole business be dealt with generally?"

As a non-history student I find it difficult to reconcile these two views, for I have no way of determining whether the correspondents are coming radical historians or just two dissatisfied students forced to take history for their degree.

Now, I am quite aware that men such as Alex Carrel have written disparagingly of history as "the conjectural science," and that Freeman has said, "In history every step in advance has also been a step backwards." Nevertheless, I feel that had all history students of the past really taken their course seriously we would have been spared the rapid growth of the fascists and the present world conflict. I think history attempts to give an account of the origin and development of human institutions and ideas, and from this data endeavours to give to the world general principles of conduct and policy so that we in the present may profit by the mistakes and successes of the past.

It is true that in the early stages of teaching history it was regarded merely as a branch of general literature, and that a pleasing mode of expression was encouraged to the prejudice of historical accuracy. But have we not swung too far in the opposite direction, for to-day the emphasis is placed on the correctness of the facts and the soundness of the understanding of the particular period in review? And this has led to the fallacious idea that "history repeats itself."

Croce has written, "We must dissipate the illusions of the repetitiveness of history and of the rigid persistence of its products, generated by the understanding of classifactory concepts. We must, on the contrary, be fully aware that in history everything lasts only in so far as everything changes." Now, Croce was not advocating a drastic withdrawal of all dates and similar material from our history books, but merely a plea to see things in their right proportion and correct relation to the affairs of other parts of the world. When this is achieved, it is then necessary to eradicate the false appearance of all history as just a [unclear: ontinuous] reiteration. Has not our method of affixing descriptive labels to different historical events destroyed their essential characteristics and rendered them mere abstractions and pegs on which to stake our political theories?

To sum up, not only does history not repeat itself, but its events are not preserved inviolate down the ages. If the two history students had really thought about their subject, I am sure that they would not have rushed into print with just an attack on the number of facts taught and a plea for the treating of all history as a valid part of the sum total of our knowledge of the human race.