Autobiography of Sir George Biddell Airy by George Biddell Airy (e ink epub reader .TXT) 📖

assertions were Hamilton of St John's, Rusby of St Catharine's, Field of Trinity. It was customary for the Opponents to meet at tea at the rooms of the Senior Opponent, in order to discuss and arrange their arguments; the Respondent was also invited, but he was warned that he must depart as soon as tea would be finished: then the three Opponents proceeded with their occupation. As I have acted in both capacities, I am able to say that the matter was transacted in an earnest and business-like way. Indeed in the time preceding my own (I know not whether in my own time) the assistance of a private tutor was frequently engaged, and I remember hearing a senior M.A. remark that my College Tutor (James D. Hustler) was the best crammer for an Act in the University.

At the appointed time, the parties met in the Schools: the Respondent first read a Latin Thesis on any subject (I think I took some metaphysical subject), but nobody paid any attention to it: then the Respondent read his first Dogma, and the first Opponent produced an argument against it, in Latin. After this there were repeated replies and rejoinders, all in viva voce Latin, the Moderator sometimes interposing a remark in Latin. When he considered that one argument was disposed of, he called for another by the words "Probes aliter." The arguments were sometimes shaped with considerable ingenuity, and required a clear head in the Respondent. When all was finished, the Moderator made a complimentary remark to the Respondent and one to the first Opponent (I forget whether to the second and third). In my Respondency of 1822, November 6, the compliment was, "Quaestiones tuas summo ingenio et acumine defendisti, et in rebus mathematicis scientiam plane mirabilem ostendisti." In an Opponency (I forget when) the compliment was, "Magno ingenio argumenta tua et construxisti et defendisti."

The Acts of the high men excited much interest among the students. At my Acts the room was crowded with undergraduates.

I imagine that, at a time somewhat distant, the maintenance of the Acts was the only regulation by which the University acted on the studies of the place. When the Acts had been properly kept, license was given to the Father of the College to present the undergraduate to the Vice-Chancellor, who then solemnly admitted him "ad respondendum Quaestioni." There is no appearance of collective examination before this presentation: what the "Quaestio" might be, I do not know. Still the undergraduate was not B.A. The Quaestio however was finished and approved before the day of a certain Congregation, and then the undergraduate was declared to be "actualiter in artibus Baccalaureum."

Probably these regulations were found to be insufficient for the control of education, and the January examination was instituted. I conjecture this to have been at or shortly before the date of the earliest Triposes recorded in the Cambridge Calendar, 1748.

The increasing importance of the January examination naturally diminished the value of the Acts in the eyes of the undergraduates; and, a few years after my M.A. degree, it was found that the Opponents met, not for the purpose of concealing their arguments from the Respondent, but for the purpose of revealing them to him. This led to the entire suppression of the system. The most active man in this suppression was Mr Whewell: its date must have been near to 1830.

The shape in which the arguments were delivered by an Opponent, reading from a written paper, was, "Si (quoting something from the Respondent's challenge), &c., &c. Cadit Quaestio; Sed (citing something else bearing on the subject of discussion), Valet Consequentia; Ergo (combining these to prove some inaccuracy in the Respondent's challenge), Valent Consequentia et Argumentum." Nobody pretended to understand these mystical terminations.

Apparently the original idea was that several Acts should be kept by each undergraduate; for, to keep up the number (as it seemed), each student had to gabble through a ridiculous form "Si quaestiones tuae falsae sint, Cadit Quaestio:--sed quaestiones tuae falsae sunt, Ergo valent Consequentia et Argumentum." I have forgotten time and place when this was uttered.


THE SENATE-HOUSE EXAMINATION.

The Questionists, as the undergraduates preparing for B.A. were called in the October term, were considered as a separate body; collected at a separate table in Hall, attending no lectures, but invited to attend a system of trial examinations conducted by one of the Tutors or Assistant-Tutors.

From the Acts, from the annual College examinations, and (I suppose) from enquiries in the separate Colleges, the Moderators acquired a general idea of the relative merits of the candidates for honours. Guided by this, the candidates were divided into six classes. The Moderators and Assistant Examiners were provided each with a set of questions in manuscript (no printed papers were used for Honours in the Senate House; in regard to the [Greek: hoi polloi] I cannot say). On the Monday on which the examination began, the Father of the College received all the Questionists (I believe), at any rate all the candidates for honours, at breakfast in the Combination Room at 8 o'clock, and marched them to the Senate House. My place with other honour-men was in the East Gallery. There one Examiner took charge of the 1st and 2nd classes united, another Examiner took the 3rd and 4th classes united, and a third took the 5th and 6th united. On Tuesday, one Examiner took the 1st class alone, a second took the 2nd and 3rd classes united, a third took the 4th and 5th classes united, and a fourth took the 6th class alone. On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday the changes were similar. And, in all, the questioning was thus conducted. The Examiner read from his manuscript the first question. Those who could answer it proceeded to write out their answers, and as soon as one had finished he gave the word "Done"; then the Examiner read out his second question, repeating it when necessary for the understanding by those who took it up more lately. And so on. I think that the same process was repeated in the afternoon; but I do not remember precisely. In this manner the Examination was conducted through five days (Monday to Friday) with no interruption except on Friday afternoon. It was principally, perhaps entirely, bookwork.

But on two _evenings_ there were printed papers of problems: and the examination in these was conducted just as in the printed papers of the present day: but in the private College Rooms of the Moderators. And there, wine and other refreshments were offered to the Examinees. How this singular custom began, I know not.

The order of merit was worked out on Friday afternoon and evening, and was in some measure known through the University late in the evening. I remember Mr Peacock coming to a party of Examinees and giving information on several places. I do not remember his mentioning mine (though undoubtedly he did) but I distinctly remember his giving the Wooden Spoon. On the Saturday morning at 8 o'clock the manuscript list was nailed to the door of the Senate-House. The form of further proceedings in the presentation for degree (ad respondendum quaestioni) I imagine has not been much altered. The kneeling before the Vice-Chancellor and placing hands in the Vice-Chancellor's hands were those of the old form of doing homage.

The form of examination which I have described was complicated and perhaps troublesome, but I believe that it was very efficient, possibly more so than the modern form (established I suppose at the same time as the abolition of the Acts). The proportion of questions now answered to the whole number set is ridiculously small, and no accurate idea of relative merit can be formed from them.


THE COLLEGE HALL.

When I went up in 1819, and for several years later, the dinner was at 1/4 past 3. There was no supplementary dinner for special demands. Boat-clubs I think were not invented, even in a plain social way, till about 1824 or 1825; and not in connection with the College till some years later. Some of the senior Fellows spoke of the time when dinner was at 2, and regretted the change.

There was supper in Hall at 9 o'clock: I have known it to be attended by a few undergraduates when tired by examinations or by evening walks; and there were always some seniors at the upper table: I have occasionally joined them, and have had some very interesting conversations. The supper was cold, but hot additions were made when required.

One little arrangement amused me, as shewing the ecclesiastical character of the College. The Fasts of the Church were to be strictly kept, and there was to be no dinner in Hall. It was thus arranged. The evening chapel service, which was usually at 5-1/2 (I think), was held at 3; and at 4 the ordinary full meal was served in Hall, but as it followed the chapel attendance it was held to be supper; and there was no subsequent meal.

There were no chairs whatever in Hall, except the single chair of the vice-master at the head of the table on the dais and that of the senior dean at the table next the East wall. All others sat on benches. And I have heard allusions to a ludicrous difficulty which occurred when some princesses (of the Royal Family) dined in the Hall, and it was a great puzzle how to get them to the right side of the benches.

The Sizars dined after all the rest; their dinner usually began soon after 4. For the non-foundationists a separate dinner was provided, as for pensioners. But for the foundationists, the remains of the Fellows' dinner were brought down; and I think that this provision was generally preferred to the other.

The dishes at all the tables of undergraduates were of pewter, till a certain day when they were changed for porcelain. I cannot remember whether this was at the time when they became Questionists (in the October Term), or at the time when they were declared "actualiter esse in artibus Baccalaureos" (in the Lent Term).

Up to the Questionist time the undergraduate Scholars had no mixture whatever; they were the only pure table in the Hall: and I looked on this as a matter very valuable for the ultimate state of the College society. But in the October term, those who were to proceed to B.A. were drafted into the mixed body of Questionists: and they greatly disliked the change. They continued so till the Lent Term, when they were formally invited by the Bachelor Scholars to join the upper table.


MATHEMATICAL SUBJECTS OF STUDY AND EXAMINATION.

In the October Term 1819, the only books on Pure Mathematics were:--Euclid generally, Algebra by Dr Wood (formerly Tutor, but in 1819 Master, of St John's College), Vince's Fluxions and Dealtry's Fluxions, Woodhouse's and other Trigonometries. Not a whisper passed through the University generally on the subject of Differential Calculus; although some papers (subsequently much valued) on that subject had been written by Mr Woodhouse, fellow of Caius College; but their style was repulsive, and they never took hold of the University. Whewell's Mechanics (1819) contains a few and easy applications of the Differential Calculus. The books on applied Mathematics were Wood's Mechanics, Whewell's Mechanics, Wood's Optics, Vince's Hydrostatics, Vince's Astronomy, Woodhouse's Plane Astronomy (perhaps rather later), The First Book of Newton's Principia: I do not remember any