PASSING NOTES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21988, 24 June 1933, Page 6

PASSING NOTES

Always difficult and almost insplvablc is the problem suggested by every mauled movement, great or small. Did the man create the movement or did the movement throw up the man? Did the leader who gave his name to the movement begin as a general or as a campfollower? Byronism antedated Byron and dc Valerism de Valera. Communism was a doctrine long before Karl Marx made “ Das Kapital” out of it. The Reformation had begun before Luther nailed up his ninety-five theses on the door of the Wittenburg church. What are we to say of Fascism and Nazi-ism? The Greek Athene sprang from the head of Zeus with a mighty_ war-shout and in complete armour. Did Fascism thus spring in this ungyntecological manner ready-armed from the head of Mussolini? And would there still be a Fascism had Mussolini never been born? Did Nazi-ism antedate Hitler, or was Hitler merely a surf-rider carried to shore on the crest of the advancing wave? The vigour and fury of both movements suggest that in each case the movement .is greater than the man, began before him, will outlast him, and can live without him! For the real fons 'et origo of both Fascism and Nazi-ism we have to look beyond Mussolini and Hitler to the real progenitor —Karl Marx. But for Karl Marx modern Communism would have been a pale academic theory. He made it a class war, militant, aggressive, arrogant. But for the threat of Communism Italy and Germany would have been content with their Nittis and their Sforzas, their Bruenings and their Stresemanns. Mussolini and Hitler, now bestriding their narrow worlds like colossi, might well sing in unison, “ Hail, Karl Marx.” Comparison of Mussolini with Hitler reveals as many differences as similarities. Though the portrait of the Italian dictator adorns the desk of the Nazi chieftain, the pupil alternately follows and deviates from the lessons of hia master. From Mussolini Hitler learnt the Machiavellian device _ of uniting Socialism and reaction against the common enemy. But the master’s lessons were not always learnt. Said Mussolini in 1930: — Anti-Semitism means destruction and dissension. Anti-Semitish Fascism is therefore an absurdity. .. We protest against the efforts of certain people in'Germany to identify Fascism with anti-Semitism. And Italy and Germany seem strangely to have exchanged their national qualities. Says a German writer:— What is known ,as German pedantry characterises the work of the Italian Mussolini, while the supposedly Teutonic Hitler is swayed by outbursts of a Latin temperament. The march on Rome and the abortive march_ on Berlin were illustrations oftthis point. The march on Rome had been prepared in every detail with German thoroughness, and the dispositions were executed with the utmost regularity. The march on Berlin was left to Providence. Hitler had been under the impression that he could wish himself into the dictatorship by addressing the audiences of a few ■ beer-halls.

Again, Mussolini is progressing. Already he shows signs of becoming a good European. Will his pupil follow him?

From time to time we are reminded that many human characteristics are to be, found among the humble members of the animal creation. Or rather —to put the matter more scientifically—that man has still some traits of the animal ih him. From this fact emerged the oldtime “ fable,” once a favourite vehicle for gentle satire of humanity,' The fable of the “ fox aiid the grapes ” might be a scene from a human drama. Human frogs frequently exchange King Log for King Stork. It. is not dogs alone that let slip the substance of the bone for the shadow. And we have all met in the human flesh the spider -that attracts the fly into his parlour, the wtflf that forces a quarrel on the lamb, and the patient lumbering tortoise that outstrips in the race the fleet-footed hare. The Greek A<lsop, the Latin Phaidrus and the French La Fontaine had ample material wherewith to clothe their satires. But even this rich material was soon exhausted, and for centuries the fable has been as dead as Pharaoh, for science did not keep pace with the demands of the fabulist poet. With our increased modern knowledge the fable might well be revived to reduce our overweening conceit of ourselves. A French naturalist, after years of research, has just discovered that mackerel swim in their sleep, that robins sing in their dreams, and that the busy ant is by instinct a sluggard that yawns and stretches when it pulls itself out of its bed. v If the mackerel is a somnambulist, why not the trout? And .what satiric picture has greater point than the invincible optimism of the fisherman who for hours whips a stream to catch a fast-sleeping fish? Human endeavour is often thus.

From other ornithological sources we learn that nightingales return to Europe from their winter sojourn in North Africa‘precisely as does a human family. The male arrives first to select a choice neighbourhood and to set up house. The female arrives jater, seeks out-her mate with an unerring instinct, and frequently finds herself forestalled. Yet no instinct ever warns her of the frailty of the male. While sleeping mackerel may leave us cold, and yawning ants inspire in us merely a passing sympathy, the triangular troubles of the nightingale move us as would a human tragedy. The heroine of a truly poignant drama is this “ bird forlorn ’’—the poet calls her—this “ sweet bird that shunns’t the noise of folly,” , The nightingale among the thick-leaved spring „ , . That sits alone in sorrow, and doth sing Whole nights away In mourning. The unimpeachable authority of a justpublished novel informs us that the tragic vanity of much human endeavour is, after all, merely a survival: Tti Norway certain rodents called lemmings annually swim out into the North Sea. The island which is their objective has boon long submerged, vet they continue year by year ■ to make their way to it, swimming on ,'111(1 on till they are drowned. Since from this bourne no rodent traveller ever returns, the annual exodus continues. Fuller reports to baud of G. B. S.’s tip-and-run-visit to America present him still as the inveterate playboy, even in that Western world. Mr Shaw is at his best in interviews —he enjoys them. Arc not bis life and work one long interview? A boundless amiability and good temper have made him insensible to things by which lesser people arc fussed and 'ruffled. Did bo not himself correct the proof-sbeefs of Frank Harris’s attack on him. piously preserving—ns his own words tell us—“ all the criticisms, jibes ami.explosions of passing ill-humour ami hitter condemnation”? His interviews are therefore an ■entertainment. As somebody has said, ho is the _ greatest contributor to the gaiety of nations that the world has over known. Shaw once explained why he called , Frank Harris a ruffian—softening the explanation with the assurance that he himself was a rulfian too —and that, indeed, they were both a pair ot

pickles. But America must have disappointed him. It did not take him seriously. He roamed from China to Peru, girding at the American Constitution, and picturing a. hahy-carrying President wading through sentimentality to a throne. What made America sit up and take notice was a quite unspoken criticism on a quite non-political subject; While Mr Shaw was speaking, the National Broadcasting Company received several hundreds of telephone

calls from radio listeners throughout the country. A small number only of these were protests against Mr Shaw's being allowed to broadcast offensive criticisms of American institutions. The large majority were from people who challenged the speaker’s use of the English tongue. This, of course, was an unprecedented experience for him.

The visit of G. B. S. to America raised, therefore, not a debate on high international politics, but on pronunciation. He is a careful user of English. Was lie not a member of the expert committee of six on English pronunciation appointed by the British Broadcasting Corporation? On this subject he was for Americans an authority. On weightier subjects his Shavian eccentricity was merely amusing.

Writes the New York correspondent of the Observer: I learn from the National Broadcasting Company that Mr Shaw’s pronunciation of some half a dozen words created uothiug less than a furore among the. immense listening . multitude of the western hetfiisphere, w.hile teachers everywhere were excited. Americans find it impossible to .believe that the most renowned of English authors, although an Irishman, should be permitted to lengthen the first vowel of “evolution" and to pronounce the first vowel of “ privacy ”as in Privy Council. It is to them incredible that Mr Shaw should be following the accepted English usage when he stresses the second syllable of “ financier.” The universal American practice is to say “finnan-seer” as in “ firinan haddie.” The debate was between “ ev-volulion ’’ and “ ee-volution,” “ priv-vacy ” and “ pry-vacy,” and a second-syllable and a third-syllable accent in “ financier.” The English standard favours the vowel “ ee ” in “ evolution,” allows “ priv-vacy ” or “ pry-vacy,” and accents the second syllable of “ financier.” In New Zealand “ ev-volution ” seems commoner thau “ ee-volution.” And still commoner is the monstrosity “ ekkonomics.” New Zealand pronunciation can rightly therefore cast no stones. For do we not sometimes hear “ finance ” pronounced with a fearsome first-syllable accent on “ fynance ”? Would that onr interest in correct pronunciation equalled the American. Writes EL E. Palmer, author of authoritative works on English pronunciation, now linguistic adviser to the Japanese Government in Tokio: I have come in very close contact with the not inconsiderable American population here. I have discovered certain disconcerting facts' concerning this matter of pronunciation. I _would be engaged in conversation with an English-speaking person, and would eventually inquire from what part of England he hailed. The stranger: Oh, I’m an American. Myself: Really? Naturalised? The stranger; Oh no, native born. A 100 per cent. American, Myself (too astonished to be tactful) : But, you—well—you pronounce English just as if you were English. The stranger (too annoyed to be gentle): Well, hang it all, man, I hope you don’t suppose that all Ameri-' cans are backwoodsmen or raw country hayseeds comparable to the yokels of Sussex or Yorkshire?

The long-headed pioneers who established the best elements of our community 70 years ago seem on occasions to have short-sightedly gone in for short measure. Among the interesting glimpses of olden time given to us under the heading of “ Seventy-one Years Ago ” in the Otago Daily Times recently appeared the following:— A sale of sections in the Oamaru township took place on Wednesday, 28th ult., at Hannall’s store, Oamaru —Mr Short acting ns auctioneer—when 50 sections realised L 1079, or an average price of Ll 3 10s, Od each section. Writes the correspondent whose observant eye has picked up the above enigma,: The old Oamaruvians enjoyed an elastic currency, since 50 sections at £l3 ,10s produced £1979, against £675 to-day. Someone has blundered. A search for the culprit would take us a lengthy journey from Mr Short of old Oamaru dotyn to last week’s proof reader—or possibly the P.D., whose youthful genius has to find expression somehow. It was possibly he who once read off the copy, “ The Leg end of the Kid ” for “ The Legend of the Cid.” On another occasion he travestied the line—wilfully no doubt— His soul was like a star, and dwelt apart into the burlesque His sole was like a skate, and smelt afar. ' He is known also to have in oddjnoments corrected Shakespeare—and read off “As You Like It” with the correction: And this our life, exempt from public haunt, i Finds leaves In trees, stones In the running brooks, Sermons in books, and good In everything. ,_ Cms.