Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Spike: or, Victoria University College Review, October 1916

Editorial

Editorial.

"In governing men and in serving Heaven there is nothing like Moderation."

Talleyrand.

devil hammering nail though mortarboard
The President,
Victoria University College Students' Association, Wellington.

Dear Sir,—

I have to inform you that at a meeting of the Executive of the V.U.C. Christian Union last week a resolution was passed that the attention of the Students' Association be drawn to a "Sonnet" appearing at page 66 of the current issue of the "Spike," the official journal of the V.U.C. Students' Association.

We think it will need no demonstration that this poem is not only in bad taste, but is a direct insult to the beliefs of the majority of our students. It may be said that the poem was inserted merely because of its literary qualities, without any regard to its subject matter. Even page 10 assuming that its literary merit is unquestionable, we still think that other consideratons besides that of literary merit should govern the censorship of "Spike" contributions. We venture to suggest, for example, that were a poem submitted for publication which in any way ridiculed or belittled the action of those of our students who have given their lives in defence of Empire, no amount of literary merit would justify its inclusion. Yet this poem strikes at something more fundamental and more sacred than the feeling of patriotism which would be offended by such a poem as we have mentioned.

So offensive is the general thought and expression of the poem not only to persons subscribing to the Christian faith, but also to those who, while not accepting the tenets of Christianity, still realise what Christianity has meant to our nation and to civilization in general, that the Union feels that in protesting against the insertion of this poem, it has the support of large numbers of students who take no part in Christian Union activities. Surprise has, in fact, been expressed by a number of students outside the Christian Union that such a poem should have been inserted.

Realising as we do that all phases of College thought should, as far as possible, be allowed expression in a College Review, we feel great reluctance in objecting to anything contained therein merely on the ground that it differs from our point of view—and if this were all the poem did we should probably raise no objection—but against a poem offending, as we feel sure this one does, the conviction of at least ninety per cent of College Students, we feel it our bounden duty to enter a most emphatic protest, and we would ask that some steps be taken by the Students' Association to show its disapproval of the insertion of this poem.

Yours faithfully,

Maurice A. Tremewan,

President, V.U.C.C.U.

The foregoing letter has been forwarded to us for our information, and for that of future editors.

The question raised by the Christian Union is of such page 11 importance as to justify our giving our reply to it this prominent place. The first point to be noted is that the Christian Union is very angry. In no other way can we account for the intolerant and unchristian attitude, which it has adopted. Mr. H. G. Wells spoke of some of Mr. Shaw's writings as "the ravings of an idiot child." Such an expression seems unduly complimentary when applied to the Christian Union's letter. With a view to showing the Christian Union the unchristlike intolerance of its attitude, and incidentally, with a view to justifying our own attitude to "A Sonnet," we propose to discuss the letter in detail.

In the first place, let us make the point clear that the letter from the Christian Union constitutes most simply, and from whatever point it be viewed, a direct attack upon what we, at least, have always considered one of the great, sacred privileges of civilized peoples to-day—the privilege of freedom of thought. In the Sonnet, to which the Christian Union objects, and which we shall later quote in full, the author gives expression to an opinion, which is very widely received to-day. In point of fact it is almost as old as Christianity itself. The passionate heart-searchings that beset one in attempting to reconcile the sufferings and hideous death of Christ with an all-loving God, the realization of Christ's meek submission beneath "the bludgeonings of chance," the quick revolt against such an apparently nerveless surrender to fate, the fierce renunciation of the God, who could ordain it, and the Christ, who could undergo it, and the inevitable demand for a new religious conception, wherein

"human thoughts might kneel alone,
Each before the judgment-throne
Of its own aweless soul, or of the Power unknown"

such thoughts and such a conclusion as these have flashed with blinding force upon the minds of imaginative men the world over, when in the full vigour of their splendid youth. We have the example of Shelley. We have the example of Swinburne. We shall return to these two later. The point, for which we are at present contending seems to be sufficiently clear—the view, which is expressed by R. in his Sonnet, is and has been for many page 12 years, of common occurrence, it is typical of a stage of transition in the religious development of the individual. Personally we do not agree with the view, but we do believe that it represents the honest conviction of the writer, and as such, and as a contribution to the sum of human knowledge, we gladly have given it such publicity as these pages can afford. Its expression may seem anti-Christian: in the ears of the well-tamed and docile Christian it may sound blasphemous. But, and this is the point, to forbid the public expression of such a view is to strike a dagger deep into the bosom of liberty. Were a public newspaper to refuse to publish such a Sonnet on the ground that it was blasphemous, we should deem such a refusal an unrighteous restriction upon freedom of thought: but to suggest that such a Sonnet should be denied expression in a University College in the twentieth century is monstrous and intolerable. Yet that is precisely what the pundits of the Christian Union suggest.

The next point to call for consideration is this: has the Christian Union behaved like a Christian, or rather, Christlike Union, in adopting the attitude that it has taken up in regard to "A Sonnet"? As we understand it, the best Christian thought in all ages has endeavoured to harmonize its beliefs with the state of contemporary knowledge. In doing so it has acted upon the simple Pauline exhortation—"Test all things." The man who accepts without consideration all that is offered him by his spiritual directors, and who rejects as anathema everything lacking the hall-mark of ecclesiastical approval, not only prostitutes his intellect, but he is in the best sense of the word—unchristian, a belated representative of that Puritanical intolerance which for many years lay as a blight upon the fair tree of progress: he is in Milton's fine phrase, a "heretic in the truth." We cannot resist the temptation to quote Milton's remarks in full— "A man may be a heretic in the truth, and if he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy." We urge the "heretics in the truth" of the Christian Union to lose no time in securing a copy of the "Areopagitica." They have much to learn. The "Areo page 13 pagitica" will open unto them a new and strange horizon. If there be any lesson, if there be a supreme lesson to be learnt from those few facts, which we know, concerning Christ, that lesson is one of love, a love pervading the world, a love which teaches patience beneath injustice and suffering, which never fails, but which, sure of itself, ever comforts, strengthens, sustains—"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." "Charity," says St. Paul, "suffereth long, and is kind......is not easily proviked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." If that be so, wherefore the "Christian" Union?

Let us conclude our preliminary observations by two quotations from Professor J. B. Bury's "History of Freedom of Thought"—"All the great poets of the nineteenth century were more or less unorthodox. Wordsworth in the years of his highest inspiration was a pantheist; and the greatest of all, Shelley, was a declared atheist. In fearless utterance, in unfaltering zeal against the tyranny of Gods and Governments Swinburne was like Shelley. His "Poems and Ballads" expressed the spirit of a pagan, who flouted all the prejudices and sanctities of the Christian world." The same writer states his justification of freedom of opinion in the following terms. "To advance knowledge and correct errors, unrestricted freedom of discussion is required. History shows that knowledge grew when speculation was perfectly free in Greece, and that in modern times, since restrictions on enquiry have been entirely removed, it has advanced with a velocity which would seem diabolical to the slaves of the medieval church. Then, it is obvious that in order to readjust social customs, institutions and methods to new needs and circumstances, there must be unlimited freedom of canvassing and criticizing them, of expressing the most unpopular opinions, no matter how offensive to prevailing sentiment they may be. If the history of civilization has any lesson to teach it is this: there is one supreme condition of mental and moral progress which it is completely within the power of man himself to secure, and that is perfect liberty of thought and discussion. The establishment of this liberty may be considered the most valuable achievement of modern civilization, and as a page 14 condition of social progress it should be deemed fundamental." Apparently the Christian Union considers otherwise.

Let us turn to the letter. In the second paragraph the Union alleges that "A Sonnet" is "not only in bad taste, but is a direct insult to the beliefs of the majority of our students." As regards the allegation that "A Sonnet" is in bad taste, we are at a loss to understand what the Unionists mean. If they mean that R. is a vulgar hireling to expreses beliefs so utterly at variance with theirs, we can understand though we cannot agree with them; but if they mean to suggest that "A Sonnet" in itself is not in good taste, we can only tender these "heretics in the truth" the advice tendered by Lord Charles Beresford to Mr. Winston Churchill—let them consult a mental specialist. The trouble with these Pecksniffs seems to be that they are utterly lacking in a sense of humour. Thus the assertion that the expression of an opinion in conflict with theirs is "in bad taste and a direct insult" would be utterly contemptible, were it not so hugely amusing, even if only for its naive unconsciousness, its ponderous conceit.

The next point is this: "A Sonnet" was accepted for publication partly because of its literary quality, partly because it expressed a definite conviction, and as such was entitled to our respect. As for the suggestion that a poem, which ridiculed the actions of those students, who are now fighting for civilization, ought not to be accepted for publication, we can only say (though we think the example given, a foolish one) that here again we entirely disagree with the Unionists. We should promptly insert such a poem (provided it possessed the requisite literary quality) knowing that the immediate and universal condemnation, which it would arouse, would afford the surest judgment upon the author and the poem—a judgment far more weightly by reason of the fact that it represented the opinion of many, and not of one, bureaucratic editor.

The Union asserts that the poem "strikes at something more fundamental and more sacred than the feeling of patriotism." Again we agree that the sonnet expresses a view very much opposed to that of page 15 the average orthodox Christian, but to suggest for that reason, that the sonnet "strikes at something more sacred and more fundamental than the feeling of patriotism" is simply ridiculous nonsense. The sum of the matter is that R.'s reading and thought upon the subject of religion have led him to a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the orthodox Christian, and we hold that he is just as much entitled to express his views in the pages of a University Review (or any other journal, for that matter) as is the Union.

The third paragraph of the letter contains a very bold statement—that the poem is offensive to those, who do not believe in Christianity. Upon this point we do not hesitate to give the Union the lie direct. We do more than that: we challenge the Union to produce one such person, who has felt offended by "A Sonnet." If it can do so, we will recant all that we have said, don sackcloth and ashes, and spend the remainder of our days as humble Christian Unionists. The Christian Union will surely admit that we cannot make a fairer offer than that. For our part we cannot conceive of voluntarily offering to undergo a greater humiliation.

We do not doubt for one minute that the Christian Union feels that it has in its protest the support of large numbers of students. Neither do we doubt that Torquemada and other leaders in the Inquisition, similarly felt that they had behind them the support of large numbers of the populace.

As regards the last paragraph of the letter—we are afraid that we must decline to take this statement seriously: "we feel great reluctance in objecting to anything merely on the ground that it differs from our point of view—and if this were all the peom did, we should probably raise no objection." It is such a statement as that, which makes us feel we are on perfectly safe ground in accusing the Christian Unionists of being Pecksniffs. There is a barefaced hypocrisy about the statement, which makes one's gorge rise.

We wish to add only one thing further—if the Christian Union were right in its protest, and if our view were wrong, then the "Spike" would have to close its pages to some of the finest treasures of English poetry. Shelley page 16 and Swinburne at least would be forbidden a place in our Review. We are unwilling to go into this point at length, because to emphasize it unduly would draw attention from the broad principles concerned, and would lead consideration of the whole question into a narrow groove. Nevertheless in order to show quite clearly the results that would follow from a literal interpretation of the Christian Union's letter, and in order to enable the unbiassed reader to obtain a view of "A Sonnet" in true perspective, we conclude by reprinting "A Sonnet" and by placing in contrast with it the last six lines of Swinburne's "Hymn to Man"—

A Sonnet.

Nay! Christ! I seek no pity at Thy Throne!
Nor do I kneel and make a moan, and show
My heart, with all its heritage of woe
To Thee, whose passion scarce exceeds my own.
Nay! Christ! For now I am a man full-grown,
And take my stand, and hold Thy God my foe
Thy foe and mine, for on Thy Cross I know
Desert'd by Thy God Thou diedst, alone—

So now against the sky I hold my face—
No mercy do I ask, no homage give—
But lift my voice, and cry thro' endless space
I have my right to die—my right to live—
And triumphing—to spurn Him at the end,
Who proved at last to Thee so false a friend.

—R.

"They cry out, thine elect, thine aspirants to heavenwards, whose faith is as flame;

O thou the Lord God of our tyrants, they call thee, their God, by thy name.

By thy name that in hell-fire was written, and burned at the point of thy sword,

Thou art smitten, thou God, thou art smitten; thy death is upon thee, O Lord.

And the love song of earth as thou diest, resounds through the wind of her wings—

Glory to Man in the highest! for Man is the Master of things."

page break
Athol Hudson

Athol Hudson

Killed in Action France, 1916.