By Rev. J. H. VINCENT, D. D., SUPERINTENDENT OF INSTRUCTION.
To a correspondent who forwards some poetry for personal examination and
criticism, and who wants to know how she can get her production before
the public. _Answer_:
One of the most difficult things in literature is to give a fair
judgment of poetry. There is one invaluable test by which a writer
may know concerning the estimate of competent critics, and that is by
sending poems or other contributions to such magazines as _The Century_,
_Harper’s_, _Atlantic Monthly_, etc., or to such weekly papers as the
_New York Independent_, the _Christian Advocate_, _The Christian Union_,
the _Evangelist_, etc. If the editors of these publications approve
sufficiently to publish and pay for a poem, the writer may congratulate
herself. The commendations of friends who hear a thing read, or who have
a bias in favor of the author, or who, as in my case, have sympathy with
young persons who are attempting to make fame and financial compensation
for themselves, are not always entirely trustworthy, and I therefore
commend you to one of the most invaluable tests of real poetic ability:
Submit your productions to the severest critics.
* * * * *
Phœbe S. Parker, of Roscoe, Ill., has recently joined the C. L. S. C. She
will be 89 years old May 30, 1884. She joined the Methodist Episcopal
Church in the year 1810, is a great reader, and has no difficulty in
keeping up with the class, and she enjoys the work heartily. May she live
to graduate.
* * * * *
A lady from the West, residing in a city where there is “a public
library, in which is an excellent collection of standard works of all
kinds, the current literature of the day and all the leading periodicals,
reviews,” etc., finds it difficult “to read all the other good things
she would like to read and, at the same time, keep up the C. L. S. C.
course.” For example, she “cares nothing about ‘Easy Lessons in Vegetable
Biology,’ and would rather spend her time reading something she enjoys,
such as Farrar’s ‘Life of Christ,’ Mackenzie’s ‘Nineteenth Century,’
Kingsley’s ‘Life and Letters.’” She says: “Having begun this work, I do
not want to turn back, yet I am very much inclined sometimes to drop a
book I am reading, and take up one I would much rather read, not in the
course.”
In answer to this devoted friend of the C. L. S. C., a member of the
class of 1887, I desire to say:
(1.) That the greater range of literature with which one is familiar,
the greater the desire to read widely, and one may be tempted, while
reading anything, to wish that she had undertaken something else, and it
will be a good discipline of the will, having begun a course, to carry
it through, since there is nothing in the course that can be pronounced
“trash,” or be considered useless.
(2.) The aim of the C. L. S. C. is not merely to give pleasant or classic
reading, although the style or character of the reading should be worthy
of commendation by the most cultivated taste. The object of the C. L.
S. C. is to give the “college student’s outlook”—to present in a series
of brief readings the whole world of history, literature, science and
art. This is for the benefit of college graduates, who in college spent
so much time with the languages and mathematics, for purposes of mental
discipline, that they failed to enjoy the charms of the literature
itself. It is also for the benefit of others, who, having studied the
physical sciences years before, desire now to review, seeing that so
many changes are continually taking place in the hypotheses and settled
conclusions of the scientists. The course is also designed for people who
have never enjoyed college training, that they may have the benefit of
the outlook which is to be enjoyed by their children later on.
(3.) A course so wide-reaching will embrace many topics about which
certain people care nothing; but one of the greatest advantages of
reading is the training of one to read because he ought to know rather
than because he has a particular aptitude or delight in that direction.
I hope that my genial, candid, “enthusiastic” Chautauquan of the class of
1887, from beyond the Mississippi, will continue in the ranks of the C.
L. S. C.
* * * * *
“Has any plan been devised by which graduates may go on with the regular
classes as long as they wish, reading new and re-reading old subjects?”
_Answer_: We give a seal for the re-reading of former years, and also a
special seal for those who continue year after year to read.
* * * * *
Our excellent Canadian friend, Mr. James L. Hughes, writes: In answer
to your query respecting the origin of the name “Canada,” I have the
honor to state that the best authorities agree in deriving it from an
Indian word “Kan-na-ta,” meaning a village. It is certain that Stadacona
(Quebec) was spoken of as “Kan-na-ta,” and Champlain found it to be a
common name applied to Indian villages. This is the received origin of
the name. Some attribute its origin to the Spaniards, who first visited
the country in search of mines, but finding none frequently exclaimed,
“Aca Node,” “here is nothing.” This is not now accepted as reliable.
Several others have been given, only one of which may be mentioned to
show its absurdity. Some one claimed that the French supplied their
workmen in the colony with canned food, and that each man was allowed a
can a day! Hence the name.
* * * * *
A QUESTION.—“Some of our class reject the pronunciation of Goethe’s name
as given by Prof. Wilkinson in the Latin Course. Please confirm—in the
next number of THE CHAUTAUQUAN—the Professor, or give us the _correct_
pronunciation according to the highest standard.”
_An Answer_:—The Rev. Dr. Jos. A. Seiss, of Philadelphia, pastor of the
leading Lutheran Church in Philadelphia, gives the following clear and
satisfactory answer to the question, “How shall we pronounce the word
GOETHE?”
“There can be no doubt about the pronunciation of the name of
_Goethe_ to those familiar with the sounds and powers of the
German alphabet, which are always and in all relations the same.
The diphthong _oe_, often written _ö_, has the sound and force of
_a_ in _gate_. The remainder of the name, _the_, has the sound
of _teh_, pronounced nearly the same as the English _ty_, with a
slight vergence toward _ta_ as in _take_. Giving to the letters
these sounds, the pronunciation of _Goethe_ would be represented
by _Gateh_ in English phonography, or _Gayty_. It is hard for any
other than a German tongue to give exactly the sound of _oe_; the
above is as nearly as it can be represented in English letters.
“Yours truly,
“JOS. A. SEISS.”
“45 East 68th St., NEW YORK, 17th April, ’84.
“DEAR SIR:—In the name of Goethe the _oe_ is pronounced like the
_u_ in the words “but,” “hut,” “rut,” only long. You stretch the
_u_ in those words and you will have the vowel of the German _oe_
as nearly as you can get it. The _th_ is pronounced like _t_, and
the _e_ at the close has the sound of the _e_ in “let,” “get,”
etc., but is half swallowed. You see that it is very difficult
to express in English letters the pronunciation of the name of
Goethe.
“Very truly yours,
“J. H. VINCENT, ESQ. C. SCHURZ.”
* * * * *
If members of the C. L. S. C. fail to receive prompt reply to their
letters addressed to the Superintendent of Instruction, they will please
remember the multitude of duties which crowd upon him, especially at
this time. He will, as soon as practicable, reply to every letter on his
table.