Timely Topics

Northern Advocate, 1 August 1938, Page 4

Timely Topics

Should one speak Latin like Queen Elizabeth or like Cicero? This (says the “Christian Science Monitor”) is

AS THE ROMANS DID.

the problem to which England’s learned men are

n o w devoting their intellectual resources. Yet, on the face of it, the solution would seem to be simple enough. When talking the Roman language, ought one not to talk as the Romans did?

Queen Elizabeth spoke English as her tutor, Roger Ascham, instructed her; and Ascham said that Latin should be pronounced as though it were English. For three ' Centuries this was the manner in which Latin was taught and spoken in. England, but during the reign of Victoria cer tain scholars reverted ("more or less) to the pronunciation used by the Romans themselves. This has led to great confusion among classical students. Most people going up to the universities use the Reman -pronunciation, but some schools, including Eton, have gone back to the traditional English stylo. The situation is neatly exemplified in an Incident concerned -with Mr Lionel Curtis’ book. “Civitas Dei.” A bookseller rang Mr Curtis up, and asked whether the title should be pronounced “Saevitas Deei,” or “Keeweetas Dayee.” ! Upholders of the Roman style assert that the English school is “hOpe'lessly confused and inconsistent,” and (that it “induces gross phonetic inebm'petence.” So far the argument appears to be wholly on their side, but one is a little shaken to leam that Julius Caesar, for example, said “Wayni, weedy, weeky” for “Veni, vidi, vici” (I came, I saw, I conquered), and pronounced “vicissim” as “we-kissim” (in turns). . . m e a s

“War is the most prolific source of economic waste and frustration .conceivable, and preparation for war is only a degree less

WAR A DESTROYER.

wasteful (says Sir . Harold Bellman). Two

decades ago, in the few ye'ars from 1914-19, we spent more than the total Government expenditure during the preceding 2i centuries on a war that was to end war. It might have ended war—we hope profoundly that it did—but obviously it did not terminate the necessity for preparing against war. It-Id'one thing, however, to deplore this madness of armament and another-riot to be dismayed by it. What is the essential perspective of this problem? We contemplate spending a stim in excess of £1,500,000,000 during the next few years, of which part is to be borrowed. First compare this against our war-time expenditure from 1914-1919, which amounted to no less than £11,250,000,000; in short, we shall now spend, we may reasonably hope, only a fraction of that earlier sum.

“Again, compare our contemplated expenditure against the realities of our national income. , Between our last pre-armament year, and the present day our national income has increased by about £1,000,000,000; in brief, so long as , wter does not actually break out, we are unlikely to spend anywhere near the whole of this increase in, a single year.-' i