PASSING NOTES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26631, 29 November 1947, Page 9

PASSING NOTES

Queen of the Earth.—Old song. The interest throughout the world in the royal wedding would have been more readily intelligible had either of the contracting parties been actually a sovereign of Britain. Where lies the interest? First of all, the Princess may one day be Queen of England, and this sub-conscious feeling prompted part of the homage. A Queen is first of all a woman. All men do their best under womanly inspiration—as Goethe says: The woman soul leadeth us upwards. Even the austere Milton, Puritan as he was, pictures the scene at the tourney— Where throngs of knights and barons bold . . In weeds of peace, high triumphs hold, Where store of ladies whose bright Rain influence, and judge the Pfi ze Of wit or arms, while both contend To win her grace whom all commend. But not only in tourney of gallant knights. A champion tennis player a few years ago said that when a great lady wished him luck as he went out to the green, he knew he was. as it were her chosen champion, and gave of his best. In the case of our Princess there was the personal merit of natural grace and a gracious goodwill radiating from her countenance even in a photograph. The shouts that came over the radio from London’s central roar were obviously straight from the hearts of the people. But there is more.

The mind is its own place. —Milton: "Paradise Lost. Englan'd is the one country where a truq seed of freedom has been sown between a people and their ancient throne. Rationally viewed, a monarchy in a democracy is illogical, but it works because it suits the temper of the people. Again, there is—strange as it may seem —a racial memory embedded in the unconscious mind, an en gram like that inscribed on the racial minu of migratory oirds. This racial mind can never lose its interest in the magic word “ princess, because it runs back into time immemorial, and this memory thrusts itselt up into notice whenever there appears a princess worthy of the title and the name. And more—in England amongst the greatest reigns have been those of Elizabeth, Anne and Victoria—the only three English Queens. Shakespeare, Raleigh, Drake, Bacon and a host of others are the glory of Elizabeth’s reign, and they were all proud 'o serve her and to win her approval. Anne’s reign is known as the Augustan age, because in it flourished Marlborough, Pope, Swift,» Addison—men who rivalled the talented group under Augustus in Rome. And in Victoria's reign, Tennyson, Disraeli, Browning, Dickens, Thackeray, Darwin and 50 more. The public spirit of men responds to a queen. She embodies thenpatriotism and devotion in a way no king can ever do. Men in mediaeval days responded to Joan of Arc’s call. In ancient days the face of Helen of Troy launched a thousand snips. Ana why did so many Americans show interest? Partly because of the old racial mind, and partly in those of Anglo-Saxon descent because of an unconscious urge to ancestor-worship.

Takes from my lips the wish of happy years.—Shakespeare.

Of the 1500 presents received by the Princess, the oldest was that sent by King Farouk of Egypt—a gold necklace of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphia, which was worn Jay his Queen Arsinoe in 250 B.C. This Pharaoh was a Greek. His father, one of the generals of Alexander the Great, was the first Pharaoh of this Greek dynasty in Egypt. He founded the famous Alexandrian library;' Philadelphus increased this library to half a million volumes and built the Pharos, the great lighthouse of Alexandria, which was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The necklace is thus a link, as it were, between the Princess on the one side and the Egyptian Queen and the Greek Alexander the Great on the other. Somehow it recalls Browning’s song from “Paracelsus”:— And strew faint sweetness from some sold Egyptian’s fine worm-eaten shroud. Which breaks to dust when once unrolled; Or shreaded perfume, like a cloud From closet long to quiet vowed. With mothed and dropping arras hung, Mouldering her lute and books among, As when a queen, long dead, was young. Our Princess is young and strong, and should have many happy days before her. And maybe in the long lapse of years to come, as 2200 have sped away since Queen Arsinoe vore the necklace, so about the year 4150 A.D.. allowing for the same long lapse of years, some other princess, even in the old Abbey, may be adorned with a necklace worn by our Princess, or maybe even with the golden one worn long ago by Arsinoe.

Archbishop Duhig made a bitter attack on Russia.—News item.

The strongest argument against the adoption of Communism in this country is that we do not want it. It may be all that its devotees claim for it, but we do not want it. The type of democracy we have here is homegrown; we know its virtues and its defects—it suits us. It is susceptible to improvement, true; but on the whole it works well, and there are n,o large-scale flagrant social injustices here, there is no iron curtain and no secret junta with power of liquidation of life and property, no fetters on speech, nor on the return pf wives to husbands. We do not object to the advocacy of Communism by writing and by speech on the same level as the advocacy of any other social reform. But we feel—and “we” means most of us—we feel a grave misgiving about the source of such Communistic activity as exists here as everywhere. In England there is a suspicion that the serious strikes in Italy and France have not been unconnected with Moscow. and that even the hotel strike in London may be traced to the same source. The Communist paper in London gives only a few inches to the royal wedding. Yet Stalin is more powerful than any king, and his supporting oligarchy more powerful and more tyrannous than any existing aristocracy. Russia’s non-co-operative policy on the Marshall Plan looks like an attempt to prolong the misery of Europe. Communism thrives on social misery. Russia has got rid of the Czar nominally, and has in his place a social Czar, but one who has maintained, the traditional Czaristic lust for domination.

Victors in defeat—Edmund Gosse: Memorial Verses. All true cricketers will be sorry that the Indians were defeated in Queensland. Not failure, but low aim is crime, saith the philosopher. Applied to cricket, it means that it is better to have lost in playing for an outright win than to have staved off defeat by stonewalling for a draw. There are some defeats that are more glorious than victory, and this is one of them. The Indians have done a service to the Empire game. In war a general when unable to win is justified in escaping defeat if he can—that is, in playing for a draw. This principle has invaded sport, which after all is not war. The public as a rule are not fanatically set upon avoiding defeat—they want to see lively play—something of the spirit of a hoys’ team where the* slogan is •• Hit out or get out.” All our organised games tend to lose the playspirit by becoming too serious. Some years ago on the fourth morning of a test match a friend with me said to one of the bowlers, ” What do you think of the game, Donald?” Donald looked black, as he had bowled most of the previous day for one wicket, and said, “ Game, do you call it? I call it 'a haematic battle.” But it is difficult for players to make decisions which may bring defeat. I remember vears ago Trumper, (who displayed the poetry of style) was blamed for “swishing” at off-balls and making only 14, when a solid stand was required. But I wish, as an old cricketer, that there were more Trumpers. And I hope the Indians will go on, win or. lose, to play the game in the true play spirit. We have had enough of the protracted monotony of playing for a draw. To make a bad pun—a draw does not draw. Civis.