Sir,—May I add something to what "Nec tamen consumebatur" has said in reply to your correspondent "Pro-Neronian." There is in the letter of "Pro-Neronian" that species of passionate ridicule which is simply a confession of thwarted rage. This is the rage of a generation who love facts but hate the truth. It is to be seen on all sides. A great artist, for example, like Jacob Epstein makes a statue, and immediately the critics acknowledge the spiritual truth contained therein by breaking into a frenzy of ridicule and scorn. They detest the truth and by every device of ridicule and scorn they deny it, but they cannot escape it. They go out of their way, as men do, to rail against the truth, and in that very act, they acknowledge it. The letter of "Pro-Neronian" is not a frenzy but at the back of his jibes, there is the same irritation, and behind the irritation there is the inescapable truth—the truth for which the S.C.M. stands.

"Pro-Neronian" gives us a picture of the modern Christian showing off in the arena, but don't be reticent, "Pro-Neronian"; show us the rest. Show us by contrast the valiant and modest pro-Neronians picturesquely seated up in the amphitheatre—taking notes. This particular pro-Neronian says that the S.C.M. chooses certain topics and surveys certain sides of life merely to attract people—to advertise itself. He might as well say that the Almighty was playing to the gallery when he made life so fascinating, and that the devilish attractions of the world was only the Lord bidding for popular favour.

The Editor asks for some opinion about the S.C.M. and the scope of its activities. The S.C.M. is concerned with the religion of Christ, and the religion of Christ is concerned with life. It is concerned with finding a principle of unity among things that are outwardly different. If those different manifestations of life try to act by and for themselves alone, they become more or less impotent. There must be some unity to which they can all subscribe, and it is this unity that is the concern of the S.C.M. Does the University foster any comprehensive view of life? It does not. The University does not even foster a decent philosophy, let alone a religious view of life. It gives nothing to unify its blind and scattered branches of culture. There are a dozen or so clubs, each with its own "ideals." There is an athletic club with an athletic ideal, a literary club with a literary ideal, and science clubs with scientific ideals—masses of confused and cross-cutting "ideals." Small wonder that, as soon as the student leaves 'Varsity, he lumps his ideals together, beats a path straight to the scrap-heap, and flings away the mess of dotage that he has exchanged for his birthright. Now, sir, when the athletic club and the literature club, and the scientific club all contribute to one ideal—a religious one—then we shall be getting a real education, and the S.C.M. will need to be curtailed if it has not earned its full discharge. In the meantime were it not for the S.C.M. many students at our Universities to-day could truly say that "they had never had a day's education in their lives."

In the last number of "Smad," I made some criticism of the shock-tactics employed by the S.C.M. in this University. I was completely confuted by the two replies from representatives of that movement, which were forwarded to the Editor. It was once again, it would appear, purely a matter of definition which was the cause of the controversy. It seems that I have been under a complete misapprehension as to what a Christian really is. I had always understood that a Christian was bound by a certain definite body of doctrine and dogma, which varied from sect to sect. Thus, if you were a Roman Catholic, you were bound by the teachings of your Church; if an Anglican, you believed in the clauses of the Nicene and Athanasian creeds; if a Christian Scientist, you held the Gospel according to Mrs. Eddy,—and so on. I also believed, that for a person to call himself a Christian, simply because he admired the life and teachings of Christ, without subscribing to the doctrines of the Trinity, of the Divinity of Christ, of personal immortality and so on, would be sailing under false colours. Apparently I was wrong.

Having these totally erroneous ideas about the nature of a Christian, I was extremely surprised by Mr. Howie's letter. He started by bringing forward in his opening paragraph, the irrefutable argument "We're right. Hence it follows that you must be wrong." Than which nothing could be more logical. The S.C.M. stands for spiritual truth, and I attack the S.C.M., therefore I am an enemy of spiritual truth, and in this typical of my generation! It appears that to criticise the S.C.M. is equivalent to desecrating a sanctuary.

Finally, after a cogent little comparison between the methods employed by God in creating the world and those employed by the S.C.M. in advertising itself, Mr. Howie gives us his definition of a Christian. The religion of Christ is concerned with finding a principle of unity among things that are outwardly different. Naturally such a definition disallows my criticism altogether. Also what a crowd of new and valuable Christians it allows one! Obviously Buddha and Mahomet and Plato and Lucretius were first-class Christians. Even the fetish worshipper of Africa is concerned in some measure with finding a principle of unity among things. In fact, if he's a Christian already, it seems almost a pity to baptise him. Surely some of these very early Christians could be canonised now. I suggest St. Socrates and St. Marcus Aurclius as first recipients of the honour. Mr. Howie's idea is really very charming, but I cannot help thinking that the prospect of becoming "Christians in spite of themselves." might have caused them, humanitarians though they were to join in the old cry of "Throw them to the lions." I am still—

Pro-Neronian.

: : :

When the Travelling Secretary of the S.C.M. gave his lecture here on "The Christian Student's place in the University " he struck what I consider a treacherous blow at those beliefs and principles

Now therefore you are holden and firmly bound,

that are the bed-rock and foundation of the Christian faith.

Christianity is a revealed religion. For a Christian to "liberalise" it, is blasphemy; for a non-believer to "partially accept" it, is hypocrisy.

Either the revelations are true or false. There is no middle way.

Is the explanation of this lecture to be found in what was suggested in your last issue: that the S.C.M. has changed from a religious organization to an ethical debating society?

Back to the Gospels.

: : :

Though as little of the S.C.M. as your correspondent, I should like to reply briefly to the ingenuous complaint of "Pro-Neronian" which I finally unearthed from his sometimes obscure welter of metaphor.

Now whether or not the S.C.M. does carry out those ideals to which it ascribes, I am not in a position to say, but of this I am convinced: that if there is anything at all in their creed which is to be commended it is this very fact about which "Pro-Neronian" complains. That is, their attempt to relate their religion, creed, call it what you will, to that which alone and of necessity must be its province, namely, real life. Once the Church in general and movements like the S.C.M. in particular were commonly indicted for divorcing themselves from everyday life, whose realities after all, they existed essentially to interpret. More power to them now for trying to remove this cause of complaint.

Pro-Neronian however evidently belongs to the grand old school of thought which, in earlier days, when a change of residence was suggested from the leaky cave to the dry but new-fangled hut, staunchly declared that what had been good enough for his father's father would serve for him also. He cannot see that the broad principles of Christianity which its founder laid down simply as a more adequate way of relating oneself to the harmony of life, are elastic enough to be adapted to the changed ways of living of the modern world.

There still exist those who complain because the psychologist has stepped forth from his laboratory and is applying the results of his investigations to the sphere with which they are concerned . . . the world at large. This hoy polloy complaint is analogous to that of "Pro-Neronian," and has as much justification.

The following is a report on the activities of the Executive since its entry into office on July 2nd.

Sir,—On reading your comments on "Our Finances" it occurred to me that the time was opportune to draw attention to the fact that an M.Com. had offered his services as Treasurer of the Students' Association at the last election and was turned down.

Now, Sir, I have nothing against the present Treasurer, and my object in writing this is certainly not to belittle him. However, I wish to suggest that in future it be the accepted thing, that a Commerce Student hold the position of Treasurer. I might state in passing that I have no designs on the job, but am sure that any number of Commerce Students could be found who would do it, and who are well fitted to make a success of it.—Yours faithfully,

A. P. O'Shea.

All excuses being laid aside, to attend the same.

I notice with strong approval that the Students' Executive of Otago University have recommended that smoking be prohibited in the Women's Common Room. Our Executive might well consider the advisability of following such a lead instead of pandering to popularity by abusing the Professors in public, by having open Executive meetings and by other periodical doses of democratic eye-wash.

But to prohibit women from smoking in their Common Room is but partially to remedy the abuse. They should be absolutely forbidden to indulge in their favourite brands of nicotine poisoning within the precincts of the University.

It would not be a very great hardship. After all ninety-nine women out of a hundred smoke for the same reason that they partake of any other oddity—namely for the purpose of attracting notice. Affectation has always been women's bane. In the matter of smoking the ladies of a bygone age had a nicer perception of the elementary decencies when they prohibited their men folk from smoking within the house. But what after all do the elementary decencies mean to the modern women? We had one of them preaching free love to us a week or so back!

One of the peculiarities of this so-called women's fight for equality is that for the average specimen of the allegedly fair and certainly false sex the phrase means "equality in vice." If a man is allowed a certain number of pre-marital infidelities then women must have the same. Man is permitted to throw away his money and strength on strong liquor—women must be hot on the trail, the only difference being that the money is usually that of a foolish male. Man smokes twenty cigarettes a day, ruins his health, stains his fingers, discolours his teeth, poisons his breath—the sweet young thing must emulate these doughty deeds.

Yours etc., Hearthrug.

Editor's note: The above letter was submitted to one of the women students who replied as follows:—

It is almost impossible to take "Hearthrug's" absurd diatribe seriously.

Granting for the moment that man, as such, has the right to enforce prohibitions or commands upon woman, because she is woman: Would prohibiting the women from smoking at 'Varsity stop them from doing so? The result would be precisely such as always follows upon dogmatic prohibitions. If as "Hearthrug" suggests, we are showing-off when we smoke in the privacy of our Common Room, where smoking or non-smoking is taken as a matter of course, then with how much more abandon would we smoke when doing so implied a risk, and made us appear daring!

But "Hearthrug" or any of his sex has yet to prove that he has the faintest shadow of right to lay down the standards by which women shall live. The day when he could do that is past.

"What women really mean by sex equality, is equality in vice." He makes the statement as earnestly as though he were showing us all an awful secret which he had laboriously unearthed. Yet another glimpse of the obvious. Of course we want " equality in vice." That is, we want freedom to choose for ourselves between "vice" and "virtue" to suit our own conception of what our lives should be.

Your correspondent's rant is illogical and out-of-date. In fact it leaves one faintly puzzled at the futility of such a belated cry from yesterday.

This Hui Marae.

In the March issue of "Smad" there appeared a stirring exhortation to the women of this College. Contributed by a member of the committee of the Hui Marae, it described in eloquent terms the proposed activity of the Club, and urged every girl to take advantage of the social opportunities it would present.

"The Old Women's Club," it cried, "has tottered to its silent grave and in its place, great and glorious, the Hui Marae has leapt to life . . . To belong to this club is to be one of the bright and busy girls around the place . . . Freshers join up and launch out immediately into the world of social activity at Victoria College . . ." etc. etc.

Further comment is almost superfluous. But one must drop a silent tear. Alas, for the Hui Marae. great and glorious; alas for its leap to life of which it must have repented; and woe to the girls who might have been so bright and busy (!)

If the committee has found itself bankrupt of ideas for running the club, one wonders why it has not bothered to get in touch with similar clubs in and beyond New Zealand. Apparently the enthusiasm of its initial appeal proved to great a drain on its energy; why else the lethargy which has since enveloped it?

Either this Hui Marae should frankly announce its own burial, and disappear into the vault where its sister lies, or it should stir itself to some purpose, and show that it does consider worth while the object for which it was created.

The Spectator.

Sir,—May I bring before your notice a tradition of this college, which I feel is worth breaking down. I refer to the reserved table set aside in the caf. for the staff. In other colleges it is the practice of the staff to have afternoon tea with the students. As at Cambridge, where the social centre is the dining hall, so could Victoria break down this unmeant attitude of dignity. Here Is a chance for the staff to exert an influence on the students, not through their subjects but through their own personal enthusiasm.—I am, etc.,

D.G.E.

Herein fail not at peril of missing

My attention has been drawn to an article in your last issue in which the subject, degree courses for LL.B. is discussed, and in particular I have been asked to express an opinion on the argument as far as English is concerned.

Speaking generally the argument is largely vitiated (I consider) by the demand for something that might be of permanent value to those concerned. This is an old plea against which anyone with a regard for University training will resolutely set his face. True education is ever indirect, and it is not inconceivable that to study the language of the Popocatapetls would be as "useful" as to study economics. The tendency to seek for "easy options" requiring no special equipment and no intensive study is surely regrettable.

But to meet the argument on its own ground—is it certain that to study the earlier stages of English is an exercise quite without value to the lawyer? Legal terminology is essentially archaic; in no profession is a nicer sense of the precise meaning of words more desirable; while there is a least as good a reason for being able to read old English charters, wills, etc., as to be able to decipher those in Latin.

Nor am I convinced that it is possible to divorce linguistic and literary studies. Among the three greatest names in English literature must be included that of Chaucer, and it is extremely doubtful whether his work can be appreciated without some philological training. Shakespeare again is a language study in himself; while all the great poets and not a few of the prose writers have been diligent students of the earlier forms of the language.

Having said all of which I am prepared quite graciously and merrily to capitulate in part and to admit (particularly when I think of the work that is actually done under the present system) that there are difficulties and that some reform is desirable. Many suggestion have been made. The ultimate solution of the problem lies without question in making a distinction between a Pass and an Honours B.A., whereby an Honours man will be required to study this subject (as others) in the only feasible way. that is historically, while the man who has neither "the time nor the inclination to do that will be provided with a syllabus, even at the advanced stage, which he will be able to cover "without tears."

P.S.—With respect to the first point made above it is perhaps Worth adding that candidates for the Home or Indian Civil Service (many of whom will be called upon to exercise the highest judicial functions) are quite unrestricted in the choice of degree courses. (Incidentally Latin is a pre-requisite for any degree course.) The essential thing is that they should have laid a broad cultural foundation; technical ability will come later.