The "P.R." Letter Bag.
Volume 14, 1903, pgs. 554-556
(The Editor is not responsible for the opinions of Correspondents.)
Dear Editor,--May we call the attention of your readers to a scheme which is intended as a preliminary attempt to meet the need felt by many educated women for more systematic and intelligent Biblical study.
No serious student of the Bible to-day can afford to ignore the fresh light continually pouring in from recent research and exploration--least honour to England that the responsibility for teaching the Bible is so universally recognized, but we are beginning to see that those who teach it must study it more thoroughly.
There are many who have little opportunity or leisure to gain the knowledge which alone will enable them to resist the attacks of hasty and one-sided criticism. A three-weeks Vacation Term has been arranged at Cambridge, in order to provide facilities for Academic Bible Study on the level of honour work in other subjects. It is hoped that such a course of study, arranged on a Christian basis, and conducted by lecturers chosen, not as representatives of any particular school of doctrine, but as experts in their own subjects, may meet a very widely felt need.
As at present arranged the scheme will include the courses of four lectures--from Dr. Kirkpatrick, on "Old Testament Religion"; Professor Swete, on "New Testament Christology"; Dr. Stanton, on "New Testament Times"; Dr. Rashdall, on "The Philosophy of Religion"; Mr. F. C. Burkitt, on "The Synoptic Gospels"; Rev. C. F. Burney, on "Genesis and Exodus"; Dr. Barnes, on "Isaiah"; Dr. Agar Beet, on "The Epistle to the Romans"; Rev. R. H. Kennett, on "The History of Israel"; as well as single lectures on special subjects.
The terms, including lecture fees, and with residence at Newnham or
Girton Colleges, will be £1 175. 6d.; in lodgings, from £1
125. 6d. per week.
Mary Benson (President of Committee)
Tremans, Horsted Keynes,
Beatrice Creighton, Secretary, Hampton Court Palace,
who will gladly give any necessary information.
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
Dear Editor,--One is so accustomed to hearing the Kindergarten attacked as a mere place for play that one notes with a little amusement, though with much satisfaction, that your correspondent, Mrs. E. K. Johnston, admits that it is, after all, a serious institution. Whilst it is impossible to discuss the merits of the Kindergarten system within the limits of a short letter, the question raised, of its effect upon a child's nervous condition, is so important that I cannot refrain from writing a few words on the subject.
One can readily sympathise with a mother whose child, possibly of an exceptionally nervous temperament, may have suffered some harm through the danger of over-excitement not having been realized by the teacher with whom she was placed. In such special cases it is always desirable for a parent to take the teacher into her confidence, and in particular to inform her of any sign of over-excitement shown in the home as the apparent result of the morning's work. It is, however, a great mistake to suppose that the principles on which the Kindergarten is based tend in their proper application to produce anything like nerve-strain; indeed, the exact contrary is the fact of the case. It is rightly claimed for the system that, though it is intended to stimulate the mind within the limits of a child's natural capacity, its effects upon the nervous organisation is to soothe, certainly not to irritate. It appears that your correspondent has not clearly distinguished between the stimulation which makes for health, and that undue excitement which produces irritation and injury.
One of the greatest misfortunes that can happen to a nervous child is to be left largely to its own resources without full an suitable occupation, in which case the mind turns upon itself, producing a morbid, nervous condition. This danger at least the well-ordered Kindergarten removes by providing pleasurable occupation for hand and eye which demands enough attention for interest and development, without straining childish faculties; while the Nature knowledge gained there places the child in true relationship with Mother Nature herself, who can then exert her peaceful influence in garden, field and lane.
Among the many other advantages gained by the child is the restful sense of well-disciplined activity, so rarely to be found in home and nursery; while the long and careful training which every Kindergarten teacher has undergone, coupled with such wide and close observation of child-nature as can only be gained by daily contact with numbers of children, should enable her to acquire in a special degree sympathetic insight into the varying conditions and capacity of individual children.
Yours faithfully,
158, Norwich Road, Ipswich. Sophie B. Flear.
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
Public School Boys
Dear Editor,--Reform in the educational system of our public schools on the lines suggested in Mr. MacEacharn's paper cannot, even if started at once, be effected for years. What, in the meantime, are parents to do? That is the pressing question for those who, like myself, have sons just ready for public school. Book-learning and intellectual training boys may get at home; can the influences of family life be made equivalent to the forces which go towards the moulding of character in the small world of a public school? Most thoughtful parents are, I believe, forced to answer this question in the negative, and, after balancing advantages and disadvantages, feel compelled to adopt what seems the better of the two courses, unsatisfactory as that may really be. If reform of our public schools is to be hastened, the pressure of parental opinion must be brought to bear. The voice of intelligent fathers and mothers must be loudly heard; and the apathy and ignorance which characterise so large a proportion of parents must be overcome. The influence of wealthy parents, of whom there are so many in English society, is, as a rule, inimical to progress. In many homes, luxury and frivolity prevail, and the boys are from the first brought up in the knowledge that they will never be called upon to work, if indeed they are not imbued by example and precept with the idea that all serious work is hateful or degrading. Sport and pleasure are the only serious pursuits of vast numbers of wealthy Englishmen, and their sons carry these ideas to, and propagate them in our school-boy societies. Many of these wealthy boys go into the army. There the tone acquired at school and at home becomes developed. Pursuit of professional knowledge is "bad form"; the more complete his ignorance of military science the more popular the officer. Instead of being a training ground for intellectual manliness of the finest type, the army often forms merely a school of idleness and selfishness. So much sacrifice of personal ease cannot be made as shall enable the young officer to qualify for the discharge of subordinate duties; so that when the call comes, useless love of life, national disgrace, or disaster, may be the final result.
An immense step towards reform will be accomplished when headmasterships are made open to laymen as well as to theologians. The culture of a theologian necessarily tends to narrowness. An ideal schoolmaster is, before all things, a man of science in the broadest and most comprehensive sense of the words.
Yours faithfully,
June 13th, 1903. Henry Sewill.
P.S.--The class list of the Cambridge mathematical tripos published to-day (June 17th) will not tend to diminish the uneasiness of parents of public school boys. The Senior Wrangler is a grammar-school boy; and among the remaining twenty, only two hail from the great public schools; one of these being from Cheltenham, one from Rugby. It has been not at all uncommon in my experience to discover a similar state of things when examining the list on previous occasions. Our great public schools are the recognized training grounds for Oxford and Cambridge before any other universities. It would be interesting to hear from headmasters an explanation of the causes to which they attribute the poor show made as a rule by the students for whom they are primarily responsible.
June 17th, 1903.
Proofread by LNL, Nov. 2008