PASSING NOTES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18872, 26 May 1923, Page 4

PASSING NOTES.

If you make a holiday jaunt and somehow'miss the best of it, that—in Italian talk—is to go to Rome and not sec the Pojje. On the lava fields of Vesuvius, hot and smoking after an eruption, men appear with a hand barrow and , offer to carry you—not up the cone (there is a “funicular'’ for that), but over further stretches of burning marl to parts that are hotter and smokier. When you decline, they say in remonstrance : “This s like going to Rome and not seeing the Pope.’’ And indeed for the every-day tourist, what else? To see the Pope would cost him official introductions and ■ a world of trouble.' When the Italian King and Government came to Rome the Pope in dudgeon shut himself up. It is true that the Vatican affords him ample elbow room—scope and verge. The Quiriiial, abode of the King, is .a stately palace; but by the side of the Vatican, with its 4422 rooms, the Quiriiial is a cottage. Under conditions, the everyday tourist may get into the Vatican. Wandering through its labyrinthine halls and galleries, corridors and staircases, he may possibly run into a cardirial, but that is the limit. Hidden away and guarded well is. a sanctum sanctorum which no casual foot may tread—a manychambered palace within a palace. And there enshrined abides ■ his Holiness the Pope. That our English ' King and Queen should go to Rome and not see the Pope, they of all people, would be a thing beyond reason—in the classic language of Dogberry a thing most tolerable and not to be endured. The Protestants who protest are overdoing their Protestantism. What are they afraid of? Is King George thought to be weak in the faith—. the Protestant faith? Is there a risk of his . “going ■ over' ? The last English king 1 that “went over”—his name not George, but James, a Stuart not an Hanoverian—lost crown and kingdom. King George is quite as .good a Protestant as he.needs to be; and it would be an indecency if he and the Pope should be in the same city and not meet. Meet they did, and the churchman received the king with all the pomp and circumstance at his command. . What they said- to each other we are not permitted to know. But it is pretty certain that the Pope would not touch on the wrongs of Ireland, nor would King George broach transubstantiation 'or the power of the keys. Nothing but-the most considerate courtesies on both sides. Of course King George is a- heretic; but then the Pope is a gentleman. As much has been said of the Prince of Darkness. “Dancing is not what it used to be.” So the beldames in a once popular opera. So also, without contradiction, they of our own generation. And the reason? Evidently internationalism. An international meeting of dancing-masters .at Paris holds its own in the cablegrams with the Women's Congress, at Rome and the Lausanne Conference. To the long list of; international problems is added another—overmuch proximity in the dance. It is not insoluble. Professor - Rossi proposes that ladies wear a thin metal belt, having in front three large protruding buttons shaped like on a.' railway train to keep the male partner at least three inches away,, the belt to be covered by silk .ribbons matching the wearer's-dress. - “Prpxime Accessit.” Great inventions astonish the world by their simplicity. Perhaps Professor Rossi will rank among the' immortals. His name will be .recalled wherever the dancing-buffer or the Princess L'ily, belt is mentioned. l He-has'the Church., behind, him. -"' “Priests say that it is an excellent invention.” Modern dancing seems to, 1 become l an obsession in its devotees." Sallust speaks of a lady ( who was “wont to play and 1 dance more 1 - skilfully than is necessary 1 in an honest woman.” Diogenes said concisely •of a young man • that danced decently—“the better 1 , the "worse.” Other times, other manners! .“Community dancing’.’ may be the next - development. The .“cheerio" men, the wbrld-brighteners,.must see to it. Professor Rossi and his buffers silence the voice’of''criticism. " Dear “Civis,” —A . few weeks back you were pleased to vent your sarcasm on a letter of min© in the Times on loyalty. As the ire I aroused in your worthy breast has by this time probably abated, and your loyal and devoted self has probably forgotten that “a human, oddity” ever existed, I-would like to humbly approach 'you and ask your opinion of the farrago of riitish ■ that Mr Massey has despatched for the edification of a British’crowd on. Empire Day. ■ Surely you will 1 permit me the pleasure" of a slight, snigger when I read in the aforementioned “patriotic message” : “Freedom of thought, speech, and action, illustriously won,” etc., etc. Sounds awfully nice, do you not think so? Truly the - minds of the great on these auspicious occasions turn to water and pour Over the most idiotic clap-trap. Phew, I wonder what Mr Massey would do if I were to climb on to a public platform and put my thoughts into words. “Freedom of speech”—pah—what hypocrisy ! A Human Odditt. Bravely signed! An excellent signature ! Pleased to be reminded of the existence of “A Human Oddity!” Glad also that he has survived the mortifications of Empire Day ! Nor would “Civis” grudge him his quiet snigger, for Mr Massey would appreciate the joke. Human oddities are expected to laugh in the wrong place. -Permitted ■to them is a “freedom of speech” that becomes license in sober men. It pleases them sometimes to thank the gods that they are not as other men. Let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp And crook' the pregnant hinges of the knee Against prejudice no argument may prevail. Tin's ainiable correspondent must have his “farrago of mush',” and trail the tail-of his coat . There are things which lambs cannot forgive nor worms forget. With “Human Oddity” it is chronic, as with Mr Pecksniff, who would have none weep for him. Men of the mid-Victorian time were of freer speech than the men of to-day. In “Pinafore” the rulc-r of the Queen’s Navee makes his boast: “1 never use the big, bid D.” “ What, never?” “No, never.” “ What, never?” “Hardly ever.” But men'such as I/H'd Randolph Churchill and Sir William Harcourt could hardly get through half a dozen sentences without that regrettable vulgarity. Even Air Ruskin !—the evidence was in this column a few weeks back. But the men of the generation that went before were worse. A correspondent asks me to note a passage 'in a gossiping book of “Recollections,” by Sir Algernon West, who was private secretary to Mr Gladstone: One day at dinner Harry Keppel, who came to meet Mr and Mrs Gladstone. fold ns that when be was taking Lord Saltoun as Comniamlor-in-Chief to China, he asked him if there was any truth in (he oft-repented order of the Duke of Wellington. “Up, Guards, and at them!” at Waterloo. He said “None,” and be ought to have known, for there be had commanded the light companies of (he 2nd Brigade. He was standing by the Duke when the Guards were lying down, and be beard the Duke call up an aide-de-camp and give him some Orders which he galloped off (o execute. On his return he saluted the Duke and fell back to the rear. In a few minutes the Duke called him up and said: “ Did you deliver my orders to . General ?” “Yes, your Grace,” said the aide-de-camp. “-And what did he say?” “ lie said he'd see your Grace damned first.” The Duke took up his. glass and looked in his direclion, and leant over to Lord Saltoun, saying, “By God he's right.” An incident of Waterloo one wouldn't care to miss—the humour m it, anml ail the ghastly tragedy of the hour. But that is not* the point. The point is that emphasis was got by what we call swearing. Defective education. \Ve have now learned that all the emphasis mi-, affiliable may ,bo ' had without curse words, and that to talk as the soldiers, and even the .statesmen, of the past talked is bad form and sheer vnl*»«ty.

On the use of “who” and “whom” discussed in this column last week, that -guide for doubters (“Ductor Dubitantium”) —“The Kings English”—the read ing of which left Andrew Lang afraid to put pen to paper, abates its' customary' vigour and rigour. A distinction should be made between conversation written or spoken, and formal writing. ’ Many educated people feel that in saying “It is 1," “ Whom do you mean?" instead of “ It's me," “Who do you mean?” they will be talking like a book, and they justifiably prefer geniality to grammar. But in print, unless it is dialogue, the correct forms are advisable. So we may say, “It's me.” For this relief much thanks. In the Jackdaw of Bheims,” when “heedless of grammar they all cried 'That's him!’ they were entitled to be heedless, and had grammar enough. In conversation "Who do you say? ' - “Who' do you think?” “Who do you want?” and other “Who’s’ under i. transitive verb, are allowable. Substitute “Whom,” and you would have not English, but Ollendorf. You would not even be talking like a book, Ton would be talking like ,a pedant. On the subject of toothache (distracting theme!) —from a Coue handbook of practical directions: If you are suffering from any severe pain such as toothache or headache, sit down, close your eyes, and assiue yourself calmly that you are going to get rid of it. Now gently stroke with your hand the affected part, and repeat at the same time as fast as you can. producing A continuous stream of sound the words “ It’s going, going, going—gone !” Keep it up, for about a minute, pausing only to take ft deep breath when necessary. . mid using the word “gone” only at the conclusion of the whole proceeding. At the end of this time the pain will either have entirely ceased or at least sensibly abated. So simple, so easy—but how belated ! Toothache has been a torture from the days of the cave men downwards; not a single human being can have escaped. Listen to Robert Burns —raving, ramping, swearing, stamping: My curse upon-your venonied slang. That shoots my tortured gums alang, An’ thro’ my lug gies sic a twang, Wi’ gnawing vengeance, Tearing my nerves wi’ bitter pang, Like racking engines! And yet all that he need was to sit down, shut his eyes, and say “Going, going, •gone!” We are familiar with dentistry without pain. In the supreme matter of toothache we have now arrived at deii tistry without dentists. . I encourage correspondence. And from all parts of New Zealand I get it. Some of rav correspondents shoot their arrows into the void, or may think so. As the prophets of Baal appealing to their god from Mount Carmel, so they—there is no voice nor any that answers. res, 1 confess, a waste-paper basketl didn’t like to' mention it, but the recepta’cle is always there. It should be understood that letters addressed to this column may be lopped or stretched or dissected (and , dismembered, turned upside down or inside out; or may be consigned simpliciter to the limbo of: vanities. La Mort sans phrase. Sometimes lam asked-for the answer to a prize conundrum Ain the double rule of three. Here is a letter, dated Waikoikbi, beginning “Let x equal 1 and y equal minus 1,” proceeding through seven lines of algebraic hocus pocus, and bringing out the result. “Then 1 equals 2.” Will I kindly explain? I have no other explanation than that the linotype is incapable of algebra. This inquirer should get at the nearest library and ask for De Morgan’s “Budget of Paradoxes.” A , specimen letter of another kind I print just, as..received :ADear “Givis,”—Will :Vou kindly tell me' this Mil your' next, issue? Supposih/SJa child!.; has an English .mother?” atlo* a.. Scotch ’father, do you Think it- would he silly to dress the child in ' Scotch' ' clothes? Where can one 'get the proper tartans, please? Does one buy the suit all complete or have it made? It would ill become me to pronounce on domestic questions difficult and delicate. My modesty is that of'the Scottish dame when asked is- she understood the sermons of her favourite minister: "I wa'dna preshume.” Civis.