Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

SMAD. An Organ of Student Opinion. 1931. Volume 2. Number 6.

Letters to the Editor

page 9

Letters to the Editor

Dear Sir,—Your correspondent A.B.C. in the last number of "Smad" attributed the dissatisfaction of large numbers of students with the existing English courses to a desire for "easy options requiring no special equipment and no intensive study." It is of course a very debatable point as to whether a wide abstract subject like Psychology or Economics requires less intensive study than, say, English Philology. Also from other of A.B.C.'s remarks, I suspect him of reasoning that because most things that are worth doing are difficult, anything that is difficult is worth doing. That is the point of the remarks about the study of the language of the Popocatapeths having educational value, and about true education ever being indirect. Similarly I have heard it argued that the violin must be a better instrument than the piano, because it is far harder to learn to play the violin. Anybody who has seen American talking news-reels must have been impressed by the number of senseless things stunters perform to take money from people who admire the difficulty of the feat without stopping to consider whether it is worth doing. Jumping off an aeroplane on to a haystack is admittedly difficult and dangerous—but that is hardly an excuse for it. I think it might be as well to abandon our ideas about "indirect education" and "mental discipline" (the mind can work no better In fetters than the body), and get back to the old principle of putting first things first.

Any plea for English philology must surely be based on its own intrinsic value as against that of any of the hundred and one other subjects which we stumble through life without knowing anything about. We are told by A.B.C. that it is not feasible to divorce "linguistic and literary studies." But why can't we enjoy and appreciate the great English authors without delving into the somewhat discreditable antecedents of the English language? Even if we must study origins, Latin probably brought far more influence to bear on the language than the barbarian tongue of our Anglo-Saxon semi-demi-forefathers. The great English prose-writers took far more from Latin and Greek than they ever did from the stumbling, halting, creaking, faltering, rambling, shambling, God-knows-what-it's-all-about break-down of an Anglo-Saxon sentence. Admittedly some of the charters and histories and primitive poetry are Interesting from an historical point of view, but they would be just as useful translated into modern English. And Chaucer? Wouldn't a modern prose version give us all the humour and character-drawing and pathos for which we value Chaucer? But no translation can give us in full the Greek dramatists, or Virgil, or Horace.

It is this sense of having found his way into one of the back-waters of culture, instead of holding to the main streams that prevents some of us from any enthusiasm over English philology. Admittedly it may have some value, but life is too short to spend our time threshing out the wheat from the chaff. Until English language is separated from English literature, the student commencing on an English course at V.U.C. is forced to say that he has been set down "in the midst of the valley which was full of bones: and behold there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry."— I am, etc.,

Umlaut.

: : :

(The Editor, "Smad")

Dear Sir.—In your meanderings round this old pile, have you ever noticed the unseemly amount of limb displayed by some of the women members of the student body In common room and cafeteria, in hall and lecture room, even in the studious depths of the library, does one see that unsightly garment known as the gym, frock.

It is a theory of a friend of mine that the length of the skirt of same is in inverse ratio to the shapeliness of the legs so revealed, and these certainly do seem some grounds for this belief. But I defy any woman to look like anything but an over-robust schoolgirl in one. Efficient they may be, but beautiful never.

I may add that rarely does one see the familiar green of the 'Varsity sports rig, so perhaps the offenders are members of other clubs, but I would ask them, if they have no sense of the dignity of themselves or of the 'Varsity, to at least be kind to the aesthetic and dress sense of other students, and wear some more appropriate outfit.—I am, etc.,

Sports And General.

: : :

(The Editor, "Smad")

Dear Sir,—"Pro-Neronian" has issued a vigorous polemic on the publicity methods of the S.C.M. It seems to me that side by side with the growing power of the S.C.M. there has taken place a rapid decay in another institution, one which was supposed to provide an antidote to the attacks of orthodoxy. Some years ago, people would refer to the Heretics' Club [now baptised as the Free Discussions] with bated breath; and periodically clergymen would write letters to the papers asking whether it wasn't possible for things like this to be stopped; and fond mothers speaking to their offspring, about to enter the University, would say with awe in their voice, "And now, John (or Jane), I must tell you that though you may join any of the hundred-and-one

At the Cricket and Swimming Clubs' Dance

page 10

clubs at the University, into the hundred-and-oneth you may not go"; and it was generally understood that the pursuit of Truth "witherso'er she may lead," was enlivened considerably by the fact that that estimable lady frequented some most peculiar resorts; and timid students gathered at the key-hole could hear an angry snarling and scuffling as the Heretics tore to pieces Marriage or Religion or Capitalism. Now what do you see? An informative and well-written lecture which usually lasts between an hour and an hour and a half, and is followed by a little bit of apologetic discussion at the end. After a bashful pause at the conclusion of the lecture, the dozen people who comprise the Debating -Society, rise and make their little set speeches on the subject, and then the Chairman murmurs, "I wish to move a vote of thanks to Mr. So-and-So for his most informative address."

It is usually said of such criticism as I have offered that it contains nothing constructive, accordingly I append some suggestions as to how the V.U.C. Hellfire and Brimstone Association might be reinvigorated:—
(1)All lecturers and professors admitted should be bound to enter into the discussion and not merely sit at the back and look cynical.
(2)No paper should last more than half an hour. Plenty of controversial matter should be included in it, and it should deal with some subject everyone knows something about.
(3)A greater license of speech should be allowed. Interjections, direct contradictions, crosstalk. and freedom of expression should be permitted and encouraged.

It seems to this correspondent that were measures like this introduced, the Society for the Promotion of Vice might be a live force in the College, instead of a modest violet, hiding its loveliness beneath the latest tome on Sociology, and might become more able to withstand the Americanised method of your muscular Christians. Meanwhile oh! heretics, may the Life-Force preserve you!—I am, etc.,

Pro-Torquemada.

(The Editor, "Smad")

Dear Sir,—May I point out two faults frequently made by V.U.C. debaters? Most of them forget that, although their remarks are directed at the audience, they should be formally addressed to the Chairman; and very few of them conclude a speech with an affirmation of the proposition supported. A debater is justified in the use of the words "Ladies and Gentlemen" once only—at the beginning of a speech. After that he should insert his commas or spar for wind by saying "Sir" or "Mr. Chairman." As for the curt little "I thank you," with which some debaters close their speeches, this sounds like a gasp of relief, and amounts to a confession that the speaker cannot round off his remarks. The proper way to finish is to summarise the points of the speech and say something like, "Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have much pleasure in supporting the motion that . . . ."—I am, etc.,

S. Tappertit.

(The Editor, "Smad")

Dear Sir,—I agree with your correspondent A.B.C. when he evidently means that a true education consists in being accurately and well informed on subjects other than those essential to some specialised course, and that a broad foundation is desirable. It is, of course, equally true that an intelligent citizen may be magnificently educated without attending a University. The University, however, has unfortunately been given almost absolute control of professional courses, and with its usual antediluvian touch has cluttered them up with unnecessary subjects or parts thereof.

To say that an ability to read Chaucer or realise the philological peculiarities of Shakespeare is essential to a lawyer, is merely to bolster up that pedantic portion of law which modern practitioners are agreed is already overdue for its last long sleep. Modern legal phraseology tends and should tend towards clarity and conciseness, especially in its commercial application, and to foster the archaic is hardly in accordance with this desirable achievement. History should not be both background and foreground, and a catholic taste in general literature is perhaps the finest method of improving both style and language. Moreover, the simplest words are always the best, and the philologist is not concerned with the best word, but the derivation and history of a particular word.

Latin for lawyers is for practical purposes quite useless and only remains in our syllabus as a compulsory subject because those who erected the framework of the course were encrusted with the classic deposits of past generations and fusty with attic cobwebs. It is not necessary for a lawyer to be able to translate Latin remains. Anglo-Saxon chronicles, or Chaucerian wills. He will probably be a better practitioner if he has none of the academic impedimenta so dear to the merely book-learned man, but acquires a knowledge of human nature and cultivates an analytical mind in place of a storehouse.

There are, however, three things (inter alia) in the law course which cry out for reform: the prescription for bookkeeping, the practical course, and the options.

While it is necessary for the candiate for the barristers' professional exams, to pass an examination in trust account bookkeeping, it is not so for the candidate for LL.B. Why? Is the seal of a degree also a certificate of competency in keeping a trust account? Or is this difference merely a species of reward for those who add University terms to their other qualifications?

It is possible for a student to become fully qualified by examination, be admitted, and enter upon a practice without a single day's practical experience. The so-called practical course in conveyancing is ridiculously and necessarily inadequate to train a student to bear the responsibility of practice, yet we are forced to waste time on philology and Latin.

Finally, while English, our own medium of expression, is optional, Latin is compulsory. Again, why? Matriculation Latin is quite sufficient to en-

Splendid Supper and Music

page 11

able a student to master the Latin tags which encumber text books and which as every law student knows are usually greater traps than truths. Our own literature is laid aside for the hastily crammed and quickly forgotten translation of two particles of ancient Roman scholarship and a bare sufficiency of grammar, neither of which are of the slightest practical use. The thing would be laughable were it not so manifestly the outcome of stunted minds.

If the University claims to prepare a student adequately for practice in law, and it evidently does so claim, let it do so without frills. Those who desire the higher type of University education will always seek it without the impetus given by an unwelcome prong.—Yours disgustedly,

Father O'Flynn.