4
THE RUTHERFORD RECTANGLE
EDITOR OF RECTAjSTGLE
OFFERS RESIGNATION
Rutherford College, N. C.,
December 10, 1928.
Prof. D. D. Holt, Chmn.,
Publication Committee,
Rutherford College, N. C.
Dear Sir:
I find it impractical to continue
in the Office of Editor of The Ruth
erford Rectangle for the following
reasons:
1. There is a lack of coopera
tion among the student body as a
whole and I find that I am unable
to secure this necessary coopera
tion.
2. Owing to this lack of cooper
ation, I have to write—or leave
unwritten—much of the material.
This takes too much of my time
from my scholastc work.
3. The older students have the
preference on the campus and seem
to resent a newer man taking the
inittative.
4. I have ideals and beliefs
which conflict with faculty dogmas'
and creeds.
5. The faculty, as a whole, op
poses a progressive, live issue of
the paper. They say what can and
what cannot—mostly cannot — be
printed. I do not mind working as
hard as is necessary on a student
publication, but I will not work
that hard on a faculty paper.
6. Owing to the excessive crit
icism and severe repimands fol
lowing the advent of the November
10 issue of The Rectangle, I think
it best to resign as Editor of The
Rutherford Rectangle. I will not
work under a faculty censorship.
There have been a few who have
given me unlimited support. They
are: Edwin B. Hunt; Fred Hedge-
path; Grady Kincaid; Charles P.
Roper; Miss Elma Barnhart; and
the literary society reporters.
These students have been a great
help and are to be commended for
their splendid cooperation.
Respectfully,
HENRY F. SNOW, Editor,
The Rutherford Rectangle.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE AC
CEPTS EDITOR’S RESIGNATION
De'ar Mr. Snow:
I have your resignation as ed
itor of The Rectangile. We regret
that there seemis to be a lack of
cooperation among the students,
that there .is a conflict between
your beliefs and creeds and those
of the faculty to the point of
breaking, and that you are not
willing to ■work under faculty cen
sorship; but since we believe your
criticism pf both student body and
faculty unjust, and since we have
faculty supervision over all col
lege publications, under which you
are not willing to work and be
cause you desire to be released as
editor, I, as chairman of the Pub
lication committee, accept your
resignation.
Very truly yours,
D. D. HOLT, Chairman,
Publication Committee.
COURTLY LOVE SYMBOLS.
By Gay W. Allen.
Dodd in his discussion of the
relations of the Canterbury Pil
grims to the Courtly Love System
seems to me to bring in two char
acters, the Prioress and the Monk,
on evidence which is almost ingen
iously frail—^if, indeed, it is evi
dence at all. Dodd says:
“Two other characters of the
Prologue are brought into relation
with this study by what the poet
says of them; these, strangely
enough, are the Prioress and the
Monk. The Prioress wore a brooch
on which was written the motto,
‘Amor vincit omnia.’ Similarly,
the Monk wore a pin, the larger
end of which was fashioned like a
love-knot. Of course, neither of
these characters- was a lover; but
the devices which they wore show
the prevalence of love ideas at
this time.”
Dodd then quotes from Warton,
whose theory on this particular
point Dodd has obviously adopted
and paraphrased:
“Chaucers’ Prioress and Monk,
whose lives were devoted to relig
ious reflection and the most serious
engagements, and while they are
actualy travelling on a pilgrim
age to visit the shrine of a sainted
martyr, openly avow the universal
influence of love. They exhibit on
their apparel badges entirely in
consistent with their profession,
but easily accountable for from
wears a bracelet on which is in
scribed, with a crowned A, ‘Amor
vincit omnia.’ The Monk ties his
hood with a true lover’s knot.”
I am a little bit doubtful wheth
er these two critics are arguing
precisely the same point. Is Dodd’s
statement that “the devices which
they wore show the prevalence of
love ideas at the time” exactly the
statement that these twp devices
“openly avow the ■ universal influ
ence of love.?” It seems to me
that there is a slight discrepancy,
just as there is actually a differ
ence between a “brooch” and a
“bracelet!” But both men seem to
be accepting the same conclusion,
i.e., that the-motto on the Prior
ess’s brooch (or bracelet if Whar
ton insists) and the love-knot on
the Monk’s pin in his bonnet are
sym.bols of the love represented in
the courtly love system.
Whether or not Dodd and War
ton meant to insinuate that the
Prioress and the Monk wore these
symbols because they realized that
they were courtly love symbols is
left for conjecture; but most as
suredly they did mean that the
motto “Amor vincit omnia” and the
love-knot were symbols of the love
represented by the courtly love
system. And I think that the evi
dence for either of these conten
tions is entirely insufficient.
To avoid confusion let us con
sider the Prioress and the Monk
separately, especially in dealing
with the first point (which, we
must admit, Dodd and Warton may
or may not have intended). No
where, either in Chaucer’s charac
terization in the Prologue or in the
Prioress’s Prologue and Tale, do
we find the least indication that
the Prioress is the' sort of person
who would be the least interested
in courtly love or in courtly love
matters; but everywhere we do
find indications that she is most de
voutly interested in another kind
of love, i.e. spiritual love, the kind
of love which she was taught that
Christ preached and that her relig
ious order was supposed to spon
sor.
If Chaucer intended to use the
motto as a symbol, most assuredly,
it seems to me, it symbolizes spir
itual love, or, at least, that was
what the symbol meant to the
Prioress herself. Even if it was
the custom of the time to wear
such a motto as a symbol of sen
sual (sensual as opposed to spir
ess’s sad story of the pious little
boy, “Nowhere is the poignant
trait of thwarted motherhood so
affecting a sin this character of the
Prioress.” But there is no evi-
tience (in this particular case, at
least) of the sensual courtly love
in that trait, and the Freudian dis-
cussion is entirely beside the point
.here.
As for the Monk, his wearing of
the love-knot as a conscious sym
bol of the love of the courtly sys
tem is entirely inconsistent with
his character as revealed in Chau
cers’ Prologue and in the Monk’s
Tale, which is piously religious
throughout; however, if any of the
insinuations made in “The Murye
wordes of the Hoost to ,the Monk”
are based on actual traits in the
Monks’ character, it would not ’be
at all inconsistent for him consci
ously and intentionally to wear a
courtly love symbol. ,
. .This maketh that our wyves wole
assaye
Religious folk, for ye mowe bet-
tre paye
Of Venus paimentz than mowi
we.
God woot, no Lussheburghes pay-
en ye!
says the jovial Host. And we are
told that the Monk is not the sort
of person to “make himself mad
through study;” also, he is ex
ceedingly fond of hunting—“that
lovede venere”—; but there is no
evidence that the Monk was, or
system merely because he wore a
love-knot in his bonnet. I can not
see how the simple fact that he
did wear one proves anything, ex
cept perhaps that he is interested
in such trinkets and vanities. Un
less we had evidence that love-
knots in Chaucer’s day were rec
ognized as a conventional literary
symbol of a defin'te kind of love,
the presence of one proves no
more than the vanity of the wear
er. Of course Chaucer must have
had some definite reason for men
tioning such an observation, and I
think the explanation I suggested
above is reasonable. Today there
are some people who wear four-
leaf clovers and horse-shoe pins,
pendants, and other trinkets, but
the wearing of such a symbol of
luck does not necessarily mean
that the wearer is siaperstitious—
nor .does it necessarily “openly avow
the universal influence” of super
stition!
again. I am sure that this was
unintentional and unavoidable, and
that it will not be the case next
time.
Thanking you to pript this, I re
main
Yours very truly,
A CITIZEN OF DREXEL..
CITIZEN OF DREXEL
WRITES A COMPLAINT
Mr. Henry F. .Snow, Editor,
The Riitherford Recorder,
Rutherford College, N. C.
Dear Editor:
I was at the Rutherford College
Gymnasium on Friday night, No
vember 23, to see the. Drexel bas
ket ball teams play the opposing
teams from Hildebrand. I was
shocked beyond words at the beha
vior of some of the town boys and
worse shocked at the behavior of
one or two of the college boys. On
the whole the conduct of the stu
dents was with little reproach, but
there were a few whose conduct
was most annoying — to S'ay the
itual — and certainly ocurtly love |
these principles. The Prioress I I have in mind a certain young
was sensual) love, certainly Amor man—not gentleman—^who had ^a
to the very spiritual-minded Prior- very loud mouth and a terrible
ess mean% spiritual love. Of manner of expression. I under
course, it may be true, as the Freu-j stood that his name was Hauser,
dians would have us believe, that | He was most annoying to the vis-
when a Nun consciously thought i iting girls and , in a few instances
and talked of spiritual loge (e.g. ( actually forced his attentions upon
“Bride of the Church,” “Married I them. There were one or two oth-
to Christ,” “her Master’s Beloved,” j ers, but they were not so notice-
etc.) she subconsicously—^or enjoy- able.
ed vicariously—physical and sen-. I sincerely hope and trust that
sual love. Kittridge is hitting d^n- this will not be the case when the
Trade With Our
ADVERTISERS
PANGBURN’S BETTER
CANDIES
For Sale Only by
Burke Drug
CQm,pany
MORGANTON, N. C.
gerously near this idea when he
says, commenting upon the Prior-
■bas'ket hall teams have the privi
lege of playing on your court
Make your appointments now for Christmas Portraits.
Our new stock of cards have arrived. Come in and see
them. We are making Christmas Greeting Cards from
your kodak negatives. Something diiferent.
Kodak Finishing, Commercial and Portrait Photography
WEBB^S STUDIO
MORGANTON, N. C.
BUMBARGER’S
A GOOD BOOK STORE IN A
GOOD TOWN
HICKORY, - - - N. C.
WE WILL ALWAYS BE GLAD TO SEE YOU
NEW AND LARGER
Whippet
AT THE OLD PRICE
STANDARD MOTOR
COMPANY
MORGANTON,
N. C.
PARKER
WATERMAN
JOHN HOLLAND
PENSETS
Whitman and Hollingsworth
CANDIES
IN GIFT PACKAGES
KIBLER DRUG COMPANY
MORGANTON, N. C.