Skip to main content

Prank as high art

I'm not a great fan of the practical joke, but many years ago I took part in a prank that took the form onto a whole new plane. The ceremony I am about to describe happened when I was at university - I took part as a member of the choir. The whole thing was an elaborate practical joke, taking months of planning. It was called The Immersion of the High Professor.

Kings Parade in Cambridge was closed to traffic and a procession of hundreds, all in academic garb, ambled (we were instructed not to be formal) down it, through Trinity College and onto the backs. Here the High Professor was presented and stripped down to his underwear behind a curtain of cloaks. The choir chanted a Latin responsary, of which I can still remember this couplet: "In combinationibus stat." (He stands in his combinations.) "Sancta Michaelis designatus est." (Labelled 'St Michael's'.)

The High Professor was then slapped across the face with a fish (according to the handout for the crowd, this was introduced a few hundred years ago, but no one knew why). Finally he was rowed off down the river while the choir sang Superflumina Babyloniis.

According to the handout, this ceremony celebrated the actions of a medieval professor who drowned bathing in the Cam while attempting to set an example of cleanliness to his students. He died at age 68 (I can't remember the exact number, but it was about this) and now the ceremony is enacted every 68 years.

This was all undertaken with the assistance of the police, Trinity College etc. The best bit of all came about 10 years later, at least 100 miles from Cambridge, when we had some people we hadn't seen for ages round for dinner, and one of them told the story of this amazing cermony he had seen while visiting Cambridge as a tourist - he had been one of the huge audience that assumed it was for real.

Comments

  1. just discovered your post (thanks Google!) when relating this incident to my son. If the event you describe took place in '74 '75 or 76 I was there too! The Professor who played along was Donald MacKinnon, then Norris Hulse Prof. of Divinity. His Wikipedia entry, unaccountably makes no mention of the episode...
    "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_M._MacKinnon"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Tony. Yes, it was either 74 or 75. Nice to know who the professor in question was!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope