Affichage de 18 résultats

The letter states that the Council of the Senate of Cambridge University, 'acting on the recommendation of the General Board of Studies, have proposed the appointment of a Syndicate to consider the expediency of allowing more widely than at present an alternative for either Greek or Latin in the Previous Examination' and that a number of residents 'have appealed to non-resident Members of the Senate to aid them in resisting all enquiry into this question.'

Sets out 'one or two reasons against this very unusual step'. Refers to the report of a Syndicate of eleven years previously, whose members included Dr Kennedy, the Professor of Greek, and which proposed the removal of the obligation on candidates for honours of studying both Latin and Greek on the grounds that the obligation of students to study both languages tends to exclude from the University a number of able students, educated in schools in which Greek is not taught.

States that since that time, with the development and extension of 'the "modern" system', about half the boys educated in the schools represented at the previous Headmaster's Conference 'are now taught only one classical language. Argues that with the obligation still in place, the University is prevented 'from receiving a number of boys thoroughly capable of profiting by academic study and training', while the time spent by other boys on both classical languages could better be spent on other subjects.

Asserts that the removal of the obligation, would not, as those who are attempting to block this move claim, result in an end to the study of Greek in all but the leading schools. Acknowledges the charms of Greek literature, 'its historic prestige, and its established position in the education of Europe', and claims that the teachers at Cambridge who desire this change 'certainly do not aim at the extinction' of the language. Refutes the argument that ignorance of Greek would injure all professions.

Adds that it is not proposed that the above considerations be taken as grounds for an immediate decision in favour of the proposed change, but merely as food for thought. Appeals to 'all open-minded Members of the Senate to assist...in defeating this attempt [to stop the proposed change].' Announces that voting will take place in the Senate-House on the following Thursday, 29 October at 2pm. Adds the text of the Grace relating to the appointment of the Syndicate referred to in the letter. The names of those on behalf of whom the letter is written are included, and the name of Francis Darwin added in ink to the list of signatories.

Handwritten covering note by Henry Sidgwick stating that the letter has been sent to the London newspapers, and asking whom the fly-sheet is sent to send their signatures to the University Press if they agree with the arguments contained in the letter.

Conduit Head - reading "The Voyage of the Beagle", hopes their sons will inherit Charles Darwin's curiosity, Francis darwin to be married next week.

Brookthorpe, Gloucester - happy about Francis Darwin and Florence Maitland, believes Florence's nerves will get better, would prefer Francis Darwin not to be in Cambridge when baby is born:

Letters dated 5 and 7 Feb. 1903, 1 July 1908, with one undated.

Francis Darwin's marriage to Florence Maitland will make him less dependent on his children, Frances Cornford trying to reconcile Eily and Bernard Darwin to it

Aug. 28, 1913 - Gives his opinion on an essay of Frazer's about Loranthus and Viscum [and their relationship to the golden bough?].

13 Madingley Road, Cambridge. Dated January 26, 1908 - Concerning identifying an artwork [the Nemi bust?] as representing oak, has consulted [Richard Irwin] Lynch who thinks the leaves look more like nettle.

11 Egerton Place, S.W. Dated Feb. 24, 1904 - In answer to a question, doubts such a book exists, approves the enclosed passage about male and female flowers [transcribed].

Wychfield, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge. Dated [1890] - Concerns a question Frazer asked about oak trees; he discusses oaks in peat bogs and suggests Frazer ask J. Geikie his question.

Wychfield, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge. Dated [28 April 1889] - Wonders if he knows of any drawings of the sacred tree mentioned in his father's Voyage; wonders whether the golden bough is Loranthus europeans.

The Shiffolds, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking. - Thanks his father for his letter [12/265], for arranging to pay £50 pounds into Robert's account, and for sending back the [Samuel] Butler] books. He and Bessie were reading Charles Darwin's autobiography in his Life and Letters [edited by Francis Darwin] and thought the account there of Shrewsbury and Dr Butler, 'though quite short, might be of interest'.

The Annual [of New Poetry] already seems to be selling well; if they 'get some good reviews, it may prove quite a success'. Expects the 'relative dearth of new books' helps. Robert's name was mentioned in the Supplement to the Nation as the editor [see 20/64], a 'bad mistake on somebody's part', and he had to ensure that it was corrected in last week's Nation. Has 'had to do all the business with Constables' and 'get the contributions out of the contributors, which was sometimes not an easy task', but has 'no right to reject' anything submitted by anyone asked to contribute, so does not have 'in that sense an editor's responsibility'.

Bessie and Julian are both well. The Russian Revolution 'seems to have been proceeding very satisfactorily so far'; it is 'the most hopeful event' that has occurred in his lifetime, and 'completely good in itself', quite apart from the fact that it 'ought to make the right kind of peace easier', even if it delays peace a little, which is not certain.

Inch-ma-home, Cambridge - Thanks him for his letter giving his permission to use his name on the memorial [to the Australian government on preserving the anthropological record of 'primitive men now left on the globe']; other signatories are Professors [Sir Richard] Jebb, [Frederic?] Maitland, [Charles] Waldstein [later Walston], [James?] Ward, [Henry Francis?] Pelham, Andrew Lang, Henry Jackson, and James Bryce, and of Cambridge science men, [Sir Michael?] Foster, [Alfred?] Newton, [Sir Francis?] Darwin, [John Newport] Langley, [Adam?] Sedgwick.

States that he cannot agree with Gurney's view. Believes that 'if Bishop were to turn round and say he had tricked [them], he would have to say also how the trick was done, in order to discredit [them].' In the event of it not being a trick, Sidgwick believes, Bishop 'cannot invent a plausible fiction of a trick, if [they] take due precautions'. Approves of Barrett writing about their results 'and offering a cautious challenge to Bishop'. In this way the Society for Psychical Research would be making clear to to the public that they 'are not at present supporting Bishop, but only prepared to investigate him.' Fears that Myers' letter (which Sidgwick signed), and Labouchère's reply may have caused the Society to be associated with Bishop in the public mind. In relation to the proposal to let a room to the Theosophic Society, claims to have no strong view. States that they [Henry and Nora] 'are much pleased at the Darwinian matrimonial engagement' [that of Francis Darwin and Sidgwick's cousin Ellen Wordsworth Crofts?]

Refers to 'the remodelled review', which, he claims, is all that he should desire or deserve. Claims that he is keeping it a few days to see if his wife can find time to read it, but explains that the latter is much distracted at present with Newnham affairs. Doubts that desirability of answering the review in the American Journal of Psychology, 'as the writer makes so much of the [Creevys], and claims that nothing that they could say 'would be particularly effective...' Suggests that if Myers has some time on his hands now, that he might write a review of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin [published in 1887; edited by Francis Darwin]. Remarks that 'Frank D. does not want the reviewing to be entirely done from the scientific point of view', and think that the latter would be glad to hear that Myers were thinking of reviewing the work.

Expresses his eagerness to write in honour of Darwin [on the occasion of the publication of Francis Darwin's Life and Letters of Charles Darwin], but envisages some difficulties, viz., the papers, including the Times, being so full of Darwin 'from every point of view' that it will be difficult 'to make one's voice heard.' Presumes that [J. T. ?] Knowles and others have already arranged for reviews. Refers to Darwin's own autobiography, and suggests that any review should merely say 'read it'. Remarks that F[rancis] Darwin 'may be quite sure that the book has intrinsic interest enough to dispense with any [puffing] or interpreting.' Undertakes to read the book at once, and consider what he can do. Complains of '[t]hat accursed dictionary [of National Biography]', which he describes as a treadmill, but claims that he is getting into a sort of routine, which will give him time to do other things. Claims that he is always trying to get to Cambridge to see his boy [his step-son George Duckworth] there, but doesn't often succeed; hopes to be there one day during the term, and promises to make an effort to see Sidgwick. Expresses his [and Mrs Stephen's) gladness that [Arthur?] Balfour is convalescing.

Hopes that Sidgwick will not be bored to receive a letter from Switzerland, 'as Frank's mother always was.' Tells him of the great pleasure that she derived from reading the novel he recommended to her, The Confounding of Camelia by Alan Douglas Sedgwick [1899]. Discusses the latter and its characters. Expresses her concern for Sidgwick's health; that his 'indigestion discomforts still continue.' Remarks that 'out here [in Switzerland]', she only gets 'the silliest novels to read' and is disappointed that she cannot read 'such silly ones as Miss Harrison'. Refers to John McCunn The Making of Character. Some Aspects of Ethics [1900], the author of which 'quotes too much poetry sometimes'. Announces that they are going to Venice 'when Frank comes here in about a fortnight'.