This was meant to be a 600 word essay and I chose the topic:

“Man is the measure of all things”  What in your estimation did Protagorus mean by this?

Man is the measure of all things

It is a pretty lousy essay in many ways (and too long at 800 words) and while the marker was kind enough to say I made some good points he also pointed out they weren’t the key points I should have been making. The point I did make seems like I was looking at relativism not really being open slather but subject to correction and influence by a well formed conscience. Once I made the mistake of doing two subjects at once I was in no position to spend the research and thinking time to make a better effort than this and a mark of 13/20 was fair enough.

It is a fiendish pleasure to have finally typed this double spaced as requested twenty seven years too late – a feat that was impossible on my primitive C64 word processor in 1989.

I note that this was submitted on the 22nd August and returned on the 19th of October, which was about when the major assignment was due, so I had no time to correct any deficiencies noted before having to submit the next essay – like improving the presentation. This suggests Cook was brought in very late – the notification to students of this was only sent out on the 11th of October.

This was the subject I most definitely should not have been doing in second semester 1989, when I had little time for one subject and idiotically had signed up for two.

I don’t think this was anyone’s idea of a good time. The notes were written by Dr N.S. Thornton (Sigrid’s father) but the course was meant to be taken by a Dr E.N. Allen. I can find no trace of his CV on the web but he was absent on sick leave anyway and Ian Cook, who I suspect was at the time a PhD student, was called in to replace him. Cook went on to a stellar career in his area moving to Murdoch University and being responsible for numerous books and journal articles.  You can catch up on his career here.

In 1989 however, the poor bastard was thrown into looking after this unloved external course. This meant having to read my under researched, poorly argued essays. What really annoyed him however was my bloody awful word processor (Commodore 64 style) that was frankly hard to read. His marginal notes reveal a certain degree of exasperation when he wonders if I’ve ever heard of double spacing!

I was in no position at the time to correct this as we were actually rather short of money and seriously in debt. A good computer and printer was not immediately affordable and I don’t think I had the nerve to ask my poor wife to start typing for me again. His pain may have pushed me to get a second hand computer from my brother and a half decent dot matrix printer not long after this fiasco.

The only thing this course did tell me that was that the political thinkers that I thought interesting were religious writers and that set me off in following years to complete a major in Studies in Religion. But never more than one subject at a time.

This exam was in November 1989. I has just joined a new, smaller general practice and was struggling with a government subject as well, an embarrassment about which more anon.

There were four questions of which three needed to be attempted based on passages from poetry.

I attempted to comment on Dryden’s “Absalom and Achitophel”,  Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock” and Thomas Gray’s “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard”.

Whatever was required to get a mark above the 5 (7 being the highest) I received for the course was either beyond me or was not going to happen with the lack of time I had inflicted upon myself.

Oddly both assignments had to be presented at the same time. I chose this option for the second assignment:

“In Gulliver’s Travels and Johnson’s long poem, ‘The Vanity of Human Wishes’ – the authors are concerned to remove our illusions and to reveal the true character of our world. The methods and style, the manner in which they do this can be compared and contrasted – and their conclusion, arguably, are equally valid.”

Compare these two works, concentrating mainly of Gulliver’s Travels, Book IV and on several passages from “The Vanity of Human Wishes”.

Swift Johnson

This was called a well argued essay and better than the other one but still only got 15/20. I suspect he was being lenient on the first essay.

What makes Lemuel Gulliver and Parson Adams admirably contrived characters for their authors’ various purposes?

Swift Fielding

This is a particularly unsatisfactory essay (13/20) and its faults were rightly noted. It was pointed out that I did not elaborate on “various purposes” as the question quite clearly asked. It also was well over the word count (no word count on a C64) and need not have been as it was verbose and repetitious. The obvious excuse was not devoting enough time for proper thought, but it appears I did write an outline, then a copy by hand before typing. It took many more years before I was comfortable typing without a hand written draft.

This was one of two subjects I took in second semester 1989. What possessed me to do two subjects is not clear to me at all now and I certainly didn’t make that mistake again.  Perhaps buoyed by a good result in Medieval Literature I thought I could get my BA done in half the time, but I was working full time in General Practice and completing the Certificate of Satisfactory Completion of the Family Medicine Program and, while that wasn’t as difficult as the hospital years had been, it was still a heavy enough work load without trying to do two arts subjects at once.

This was my sixth English subject and at the time constituted a major. It was taken by Mr D.H. Henderson who, as usual, provided voluminous lectures, reading guides, assistance with assignments and preparation for the examination. He also had to suffer my below par essays full of spelling mistakes, convoluted syntax and tortured argument.

We covered the novels, Moll Flanders, Pamela I, Joseph Andrews and Gulliver’s Travels. I recall Pamela in particular as being interminable. There was also some Samuel Johnson and poetry by Dryden, Pope, Swift, Gray, etc. …and plays by Gay and Congreve. …and I was reading for a Government subject.

One big change was the arrival of a computer. The already old fashioned Commodore 64 was purchased for the sole purpose of doing multiple choice questions over the telephone for the RACGP. There was a very expensive item called a Tandata unit that you could borrow from the college, plug into a phone line and do MCP questions towards the certificate. We were informed that a $15 cartridge inserted into a Commodore 64 would achieve the same outcome, and so it did. It also introduced us to banking from your home computer many years before the internet.

With the primitive word processor on the Commodore 64, I could now type for myself.  This meant more spelling errors (no spellcheck and no wife typing and correcting howlers on the fly). The printer we had was a peculiar device with a plastic ribbon in three colours that took an age to print not very distinct letters, but it was just about readable. It is however not very scannable after all these years so I will have to retype the essays.

Assessment was two essays of ~1000 words each and an examination. I am reasonably sure I did not keep up with the reading this time.

I expect I went into UQ for the exam in June 1989. It must have been quite odd asking for time off from work to do an English exam.

There were three questions and my notes on the paper show I wrote on two of the Canterbury Tales (the Millers tale and another), Pearl and on the Fourteenth century mystics – the Cloud and Hilton.

I got a seven and enjoyed medieval literature more than any of the other  units I had done to that time.

For the second assignment, I was at least organised enough to get it typed. We had to look at two characters from the general prologue to the Canterbury Tales.

Analyse the methods and details which Chaucer uses to create in your mind rounded and life like portraits of the Shipman and the Physician.

Chaucer’s Shipman and Physician

This short essay was right up my alley and was given 20/20.

This assignment is unusual in that it is hand written by me and (gasp) legible. I suspect I left it too late to get it typed by my wife who was busy with work, children etc etc. Whether typed or hand written, in those days you could get away with a lot of things as far as formatting was concerned. On the other hand, an unsubstantiated comment or infelicity of expression was certainly noted. Looking at this essay, I suspect a hand written assignment made me more likely to succumb to my flaw of interminable sentences. Having my wife type something was editing on the fly as she would let me know it was dreck. I even think that typing myself in the age of word processor to come, impeded my prolixity somewhat.

For some reason I thought it was a good idea to compare a Mystery Play to Life of Brian and what followed was a clumsy attempt to understand a pre-enlightenment mindset. For some reason, I seemed to come back to this idea a lot and this may be where it all started.

I have typed this essay for posterity (egad).  With the technology available now, I know that I was under the word count – a rarity for me.

I think I might have got 20/20 for this but I slipped up with a bit of a stretch in the final paragraph and I only got 19/20.  The comments were encouraging and I got the good mark for “originality and clear expression” or maybe because I didn’t bore him. He commented that “It’s good to get something original and outrageous now and again.”

Second Shepherd’s Play

Despite being overwhelmed by Victorian literature the semester before this, I ploughed on with English courses as they came up in external studies at UQ.  My recollection is that I watched a program called Six Centuries of Verse in the early 80s (I found it on DVD quite recently) that got me interested in literature and I enjoyed the program on Chaucer particularly.

The course was taken in 1989 by Tony Glad, who impressed me as being the best teacher I had in external studies.  That may have been just my enthusiasm for the subject, or that I actually found the time to attend the weekend seminar and so actually met him, but he certainly conveyed his enthusiasm for the subject and pointed me towards ideas and works that were very new to me at the time.

I’ve looked for traces of him on the net and found all of three. He was one of many consulted in 1973 for an enquiry into academic salaries. He was consulted about the symbolism in the stone work in the Great Court of the University of Queensland in this publication. Part of a review he wrote is published here, where he is described in 2002 as a former lecturer in English. I recall that he only had a BA and I can’t imagine anyone without a PhD getting a course like this nowadays. If that means teachers of his quality are not employed at universities it is a major loss.

I was still working in general practice and thinking about whether I would join that practice or look further.

My wife did the same course in 1993 and my notes have somewhat got jumbled with hers, but the course didn’t seem to have changed much in structure.

We did some Chaucer, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, Piers Plowman, Mystery Plays and some poetry. We were also encouraged to look further afield and I chose the Fourteenth Century Mystics – Cloud, Julian of Norwich, Hilton and Rolle. I don’t think I had come across “The Cloud of Unknowing” before this, so that was a major discovery.