USE OF CHRISTIAN NAMES

New Zealand Listener, Volume 28, Issue 724, 29 May 1953, Page 14

USE OF CHRISTIAN NAMES

Sir-Mr. Maxwell Stewart, in selecting for exclusive approbation a particular clause in my letter, has shown that he himself is’ no stranger to English usage as applied to matters of courtesy. Nevertheless, in the phrasing of his compliment one may perhaps detect a gentle castigation for one’s temerity in disapproving of a New Zealand custom. I am therefore suitably abashed. ~ With regard to the use of the title "doctor," I am afraid that» the shade of. the worthy Dr. Johnson’ would scarcely approve of Mr, Stewart's standpoint. Although it is not quite clear to me what he means by "members of a university faculty," I am inclined to think that he restricts the term to professorial staff within the University it-self-otherwise his argument would surely lack a basis. Mr. Stewart is apparently more recently familiar with the English scene than I am, for neither in England nor in New Zealand have I noticed the reservation which he implies. The term "doctor" is, indeed, the correct and traditional title to apply to any university graduate who has achieved his doctorate in any one of a variety of faculties, though the honour may also be conferred by a university non-aca-demically. A doctor of philosophy, for (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) example, is entitled to-and in my experience usually receives-his correct form of address even though he may be driving a steamroller. Possibly, now that doctorates in faculties other ‘than medicine are becoming less uncommon in New Zealand, the title is being heard more frequently, but it can hardly, I think, be described as a "purely local usage." As a matter of fact, both here and in England the title "doctor" is probably more .widely misused within the medical and surgical professions than outside them. The correct form of address for most surgeons is "mister’-and they are invariably so addressed by their colleagues and staff. (1 am not at all sure whether the degree of Ch.D. actually exists, but if it does I think it must be quite rare.) Similarly, not all medical practitioners. are technically entitled to be called "doctor." Many of them hold no more than a M:‘B. degree-usually associated with various diplomas of high standing. However, while I have never discovered if a surgeon prefers to be called "mister" by his patients, I am very sure that to address a medical practitioner in the same way, irrespective of his qualification, would be the grossest disceurtesy.

J. B.

HYATT

(Wellington).