AN old gray-haired and gray-bearded man was passing a band of youths not long since, when, being startled by the blasphemy and profanity of the youth who was speaking, he approached the group and listened to what was said. A long series of oaths with now and then a word of English to connect them, was what met the ears of the old man. He waited until the speaker had finished, and then stepping up to him, he said: "Young man, to swear is neither manly, brave, nor wise; not manly because it destroys all that is noble and dignified in your nature; not brave because true bravery is exemplified by the pure and lofty in thought and expression, not by the unhallowed and degrading; not wise because all that is good, all that is beautiful, all that is holy within you tells you that it is not."

Not manly, not brave, not wise. How forcible and how true are these words, yet how few of our college men to-day realize their real purport. Go where you will on our campus, in our recitation rooms, yes, and even within the walls of our chapel and Y. M. C. A. building, and you will hear men, who profess to be men, curse and damn their fellows, themselves and their Creator! Is this right in the sight of humanity, in the sight of all that is true and noble in man? Conscience answers no, where there is a conscience to answer; reason and intellect answer no; everything that is good answers no, and still profanity exists to an enormous extent within our very midst!

It is not the purpose of the LIT. to preach a sermon on swearing, nor does it desire to interfere with what some may think to be individual interests. but the prevalence of profanity as it is in our college to-day pertains to more than individual interests. It is a blot on the face of our whole college, and is, therefore, vital to the interests of every one of its members. It not only weakens a man's vocabulary but it entirely ruins his resources for refined and cultured expression. More than this, too, it lowers any man in the opinion and respect of his fellows. Where is he who can command respect when in his conversation he makes every other word an oath? We reply there is no such man. Then why not away with profanity? Drive it from our college surroundings. Bury it with the old year, and when college opens on a new term let every one remember and profit by the verity that "to swear is neither manly, brave, nor wise."

"

THE very interesting lecture given before the students by Mr. Charles B. Rogers, on "German Universities," naturally suggested some contrasts and comparisons; and though our good friend Mrs. Malaprop has recently told us that comparisons are "odorous, yet they will be made, and are often wholesome if not pleasing. Some of these Mr. Rogers himself suggested. It would not be fair to make a comparison between the American College and the German University, either as to the grade of studies pursued, the degree of attainments, or the character of the instruction. But as to the quality and spirit of the work which is done, all schools may be fairly compared with each other. A shoemaker may put into his daily work the same qualities of character as are shown by a Prime Minister, and integrity and genuineness may mark the making of a chair or a stove just as much as the making of a treaty or a constitution. It was evident to any one who heard Mr. Rogers' account of German student life that the German student, who attends lectures, is really in earnest. He has an

object before him. His aim is not simply to conform in a perfunctory way to certain requirements, but to master a subject and make it his own. In other words there is an element of of genuineness in all that he does. This habit he has acquired at the Gymnasium, and he carries it with him to the University. He can not ride on the shoulders of another, or make a sham triumph over his difficulties. He must be what he pretends to be. We believe that, so far as the study of language is concerned, this is the weak spot in the American school and college of to-day. There are multitudes of students in our colleges--a majority of them we fear-whose aim is not to obtain a reading knowledge of ancient or modern languages, but merely to get through with a specified task in the easiest possible way. The use of the translation is sapping the foundation of classical work. It is no exaggeration to say that many students never think of using grammar and lexicon in working out a passage. They ride the translation blindly and remorselessly. The result is that they are just as ignorant of the principles of language at the close of a term's work as they were at the beginning. The disease is one that grows by its own indulgence.

Crescit indulgens sibi dirus hydrops,

Nec sitim pellit nisi causa morbi

Fugerit venis et aquosus albo
Corpore languor.

After the drug is once tasted it is not easy to resist it. It becomes more and more essential to the weakened intellectual system, and the student who begins to use it as a convenience ends by using it as a necessity. We claim that the use of the translation is:

First: Poor policy-it is short sighted and mistaken, from the practical point of view. The student hopes to get along easily and rapidly; in reality he makes slower progress. He hopes to run or fly; he ends by being a confirmed cripple. No one can learn to read a language without work. Though Dogberry thought that to read and write came by nature, "his theory does not seem to work, and most people have to stimulate nature a little. The student who persists in depending upon himself and using his linguistic tools-grammar and lexicon-honestly, will be sure in the end to outstrip his glib and fluent rival. "Slow and easy goes far in a day." The man who capers through his linguistic work, flattering himself that he is so nicely mounted, betrays himself. He is so ignorant of the difficulties of the road, that he does not recognize them when they cross his path. His aim has been to make the study easy; the result is that he makes it difficult or impossible. He grows more and more ignorant and helpless from day to day. He began by knowing something; he ends by knowing nothing.

Second: We claim that the use of the translation is not necessary if the work is properly graduated to the attainment which the student has made and to the time which he has at his command. The use of the " Pony" is a modern growth. Fifty years ago it had no existence. Twenty-five years ago its use was very limited. It was no uncommon thing to find college students in the early part of this century, who read largely in the classics, outside of, and beyond the requirements of the class room. The statement has been made that "students read less Greek at Harvard to-day than at Marietta College torty years ago." It is beyond dispute that the average classical student of fifty

years ago left college with a much greater familiarity with the classical languages, than the average of to-day. With less ground to cover, with better helps in the way of text books and general tools for work, there surely can be no reasonable plea for the use of translations. Strength comes from exercise and the only way to learn to read a language is to read it, and not a translation of it. So far as intellectual discipline and a knowledge of the language is concerned, it were better to read five lines of Greek carefully, working it out with grammar and lexicon, than five pages with a translation. Rufus Choate, in the midst of a most exacting professional life, wrote in his journal as follows: "Dec. 9, 1844. To my Greek I ought to add a page a day of Crosby's grammar and the practice of parsing every word in my few lines of Homer." The college student can surely find time to do what the overworked professional man takes time to do.

Third: The use of the translation is a species of intellectual dishonesty. It is next to impossible for a student to use a translation in an honest and legitimate way. We might concede that theoretically such a way of using it is possible. But few students have the force of character and resolution which will enable them to use a translation with any advantage or safety. It inevitably dulls the conscience of the student by leading him to pass off constantly as his own that for which he deserves little or no credit. It blunts the student's perception of what constitutes accurate and honest work, and substitutes a blundering kind of guess work for real knowledge. This blunting of the scholarly sense is seen in the apparent seriousness with which the "horse" student attempts to palm off his ignorant translation in the class room. It is evident that he is merely repeating something and not translating the passage. He, however, is unconscious of any intellectual dishonesty in this. He has actually cheated himself into believing that it makes no difference whether he knows a thing or not, provided he can make a show of knowing it.

We believe it is high time to raise a protest against this abuse, which is no more characteristic of Hamilton than of all colleges in America, but which is the enemy of genuine scholarship. Sometimes an abuse runs to such an extreme that it works its own destruction by exciting popular sentiment against it. We believe that the honest sentiment of the college is in favor of honest work-and therefore opposed to the sham and pretense of "horse" work. We are glad to ventilate this question in our pages and hope it may lead to some reform. "The only way to resume is to resume." Let students and faculty coöperate to correct this evil. Let us fling away crutches at once and resolve to do what we can by independent effort.

FOR Some time it has been evident that a change would have to be made in the method of awarding the Kellogg prize. Given, as it was, for the best delivered oration on Commencement stage, with the successful competitors for the Clark, Head, Pruyn and Kirkland prizes debarred, the strife was frequently among the poorer speakers of the class. The judges, chosen from the alumni or visitors, pleased, perhaps, by some thought in an oration, frequently disregarded the delivery and awarded the prize to men who had done little work in the rhetorical department during their course. But what made a change

especially necessary was the resolution of the faculty limiting the number of speakers to appear on the Commencement stage. After the class of '90 graduates only those Seniors will be allowed to appear who are in the High Honor, Honor, or Credit groups. This would limit competition for a prize, intended for the whole class, to a few high standing men, while it is an undisputed fact that often the best speakers are in the lower half of the class.

The faculty taking these facts into consideration have recently decided to award first and second Kellogg prizes to the two Seniors who have done the best work in the Saturday rhetoricals during their last two years. The writing of the Commencement oration will be taken into consideration and the winners of the "winter oration prizes" will be debarred. It seems somewhat unfair that this should go into effect in the present Senior class as all of Junior and one term of Senior year have been passed under the old conditions.

On the whole, however, the change is a good and much needed one, and will undoubtedly show many good results. There has been a slight tendency of late among some students, to poor work in chapel appearances and spasmodic efforts for oration prizes Senior year. The new system will tend to greater efforts in rhetorical work during upperclassman years, to make our Saturday chapels more enjoyable and to ensure for the college in the future the reputation she has so deservedly had in the past, that in rhetorical work Hamilton College is second to none.

AMONG the cant in use in college there is one word, suping, " which is expressive of an action, above all others seemingly honored by a few, yet most distasteful to the majority of students. 'Suping" receives its origin from an illegitimate act by which one is supposed to gain the favor of the instructor and thus enhance his own numerical standing. This odious term is applied to anyone who performs an un-called-for task; who does not rely upon his true capability to obtain "marks," but by subtle, deceitful methods, sometimes unknown to his classmates, accomplishes his purpose.

No specific act needs to be mentioned, so general its manifestation. Every class, from its entrance into college to its graduation, is possessed of those called "supers." If men have not acquired this abominable habit in "“prep." school, they have, here, instructed by the prevailing tendency of a few, developed the genuine "suping" habit. Can it be supposed that the professors can not divine the intention or purpose of any such persons? No! The fact is, the professors have as little respect for the person engaged in this odious practice as the students. Does not one engaged in " suping lose that trait which distinctively evinces his manhood? Yes! In the hope of a few extra "marks" personal independence should not be sacrificed.

It would seem, then, with this practice of suping," the marking system has much to do. In truth, we do believe it fosters this evil.

Men do not willingly continue an act which is the embodiment of scorn and derision. It is that avarice to obtain a higher standing, to gain an honor—in short, to attain to that position which appears to be the criterion of ability, which makes a student "supe.' Abolish the "marking system" and you will note the discontinuance of “suping." But while the present "marking sys

tem" remains you may ever expect to see those persons, in recitation who resort to methods unbecoming the college student for their own aggrandizement.

Perhaps if the habit of "suping" can be brought into popular disfavor by strenuous protestations and open disapproval, its degrading influence will be abated. Many a contemptuous practice prevails, but the simple, undignified act of "suping" is most despised.

AGAIN the annual farce of the fall meeting of the Trustees has been gone through with; again it has come to naught. Six "worthy curatores" out of the twenty-eight gathered together on the appointed day, and, as usual, there being no quorum, adjourned. They may have discussed the affairs of the college; they undoubtedly congratulated themselves on its welfare (?); but that was all they did, all they could do. We repeat again, the meeting was a farce. But such farces are becoming altogether too frequent in Hamilton's history. The only possible excuse for such inaction would be either that the present conditions are so perfect that mortal man can conceive of no improvement; or that they are so bad that all help is useless. Neither of these excuses are, we think, valid in the case of Hamilton's Trustees. The college has needs, crying needs, that should compel the attention of those to whom its affairs are entrusted. If the present members of the Board of Trustees are too indifferent to these needs, or too much engrossed with other cares to consider them, let them resign, and make room for those who have both the time and inclination so to do. It may be that the Trustees pride themselves on the spectacle they are presenting to the world of a college running itself; but are they sure that it is not running itself into the ground?

We grant that these views may be somewhat pessimistic; we confess to a strong hope for Hamilton's future; but it is, and must ever be, most discouraging to all those who have the welfare of their Alma Mater at heart to see her Trustees so manifestly indifferent.

Like all choirs, it has

OF the college choir we hardly know what to say. some good material, and some that is not so good. Yet, taken as a whole, we must grant that it has considerable merit. On the one or two occasions when its members have shown what they could do they have acquitted themselves with credit; but, alas! these occasions have been few and far between.

Now, we do not wish to be called "kickers," or to set ourselves up as musical critics; but we do think that we know a discord when we hear it; and we would urge upon all the choir the value of regularity and practice. If the choir were to do its best we are sure there would be no grumbling; but, as it is, we are afraid there is good cause for it. The members of the choir receive certain privileges from the college; and, in return, the college expects something from them. Let them see to it, that the expectation be not vain.