C. L. S. C. WORK.
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.
