no basis of accurate knowledge and familiarity with the question. We are very willing to endorse the remark on which the author of a recent article in this Magazine animadverts, that "every man ought to go up to every meeting and take part in the debate;" but that "part," for his own best discipline, should not infrequently be a silent one. Let him lend the inspiration and incentive of his own presence and interested attention to the debate, and he cannot fail to be quickened and assisted in his own earnest aims. The sacred rule will be reversed for him, and he shall know that here, at least, it is sometimes " more blessed to receive than to give."

He most truly "takes part" in debate, who only sits and listens. It is a part which must not be unperformed by him who would train himself most efficiently; a part due alike to one's self and one's companions in debate. True, it implies a constant and unremitted interest in the objects of debate. This is precisely the claim we make upon all students, that they should be earnest and active in securing the peculiar intellectual growth and strength which Debating Societies afford, and which all men, whatever their aims or lots in life, should possess. It is a part of the preliminary training of a complete education. Like many of the studies of the College course, a genuine Debating Society will engender and confirm habits of mind and thought, whose value cannot be depreciated by any circumstances of subsequent life. We may never be public speakers on the most limited scale, but the mental habits and methods which these Societies promote, are potent alike in all callings, all walks of life. It is our conviction, therefore, that there is a demand for such Societies as "Linonia" and the "Brothers" were designed to be; a demand which all true scholars will recognize; a demand which will always continue, whilst man shall wisely seek the fullest development of head and heart.

Let us next consider a moment what relation our Public Societies sustain to this demand. Do they meet it adequately? Or rather do we, as wise students, come up to the measure of our duty and opportunity in these Societies? We are frank to say, that we do not think our community is properly alive to its own interests in this regard. We think our Yale culture wants, for its symmetry and completeness, just those qualities which Debating Societies secure. Not that we want more stump-oratory, more public speaking of any kind in the world outside us. No; but we do want more of that manly, stalwart, and, so to speak, muscular style of culture. Our literary standard will degenerate, if it has not already, into dilletanteism, without a fresh infusion of that robust manliness of intellect, that chivalric, al

most pugilistic style of mind so nobly illustrated in Milton, Dr. Johnson, Victor Hugo, or our own elder Quincy.

We sit in our rooms, smoking our meerschaums, and lazily talk over the "Mill on the Floss," or the "Idyls of the King," and think it almost vulgar and wanting in literary taste, to have any knowledge or opinions of the grand and stirring issues of actual life, past or present. Now this is not the full, strong, hearty culture, the times and all times demand. We need, not less of the purely literary, so called, but more, far more, of the study of great questions and principles which move the world of living men. We need, above all, more of sturdy investigation, more of "the strong muscle and hard nerve,” which enter into every great character. We need to come out oftener as inquirers, into "the world of agencies, actors and actions," where everything is under motion and, in the phrase of Bacon, all "resounds like the mines." For, the masterpieces of every Literature are the offspring of a severer, more masculine culture, the works of " the Herculeses and not the Adonises of Literature." The strong, the simple, the heroic, the grand in Literature or Life, do not derive their chief nutriment from tobacco-smoke and novel-reading. These betoken a luxurious mind and a predominantly æsthetic culture.

Now, it seems to us clear, that the most efficient agency which we can oppose to this tendency (mark, we do not say state, only tendency,) of the popular mind amongst us, is to revive and cherish, as an indispensable part of our culture and discipline, an abiding and vigorous love for debating in our Public Societies. Let it not be true amongst us, that a man gets more reputation by displaying familiarity with the Pickwick papers than with the great French question, which separated Burke and Fox with the tales of Currer Bell than with the prose works of Milton. The standard that results in this, is false, degrading, enervating. In the sharp conflict of the debate, in the flash and glow of the mental fray, this effeminate softness must be put away, and the strong armor of fact, argument, principle, history, logic, must be put on. Who shall question the value, the indispensableness of such training, in compacting and harmonizing into true proportions the mental man? This shall give "the tough core, the hard kernel" of intellectual character, and over and around these we will cast the grace and polish of æsthetic culture.

Our complaint, our criticism is, that too few seize upon the opportunities which are in their reach at Yale, for hardening and expanding the mental frame. Our ideal of College discipline is-every man faithful in the Recitation-room, faithful in the Public Society's hall,

faithful in his private literary culture. None of these may be safely neglected, none cultivated to the exclusion or neglect of another, without permanent, irreparable loss; without making each one of us something less than God meant him to be. Nor is there any "physical impossibility" involved in this plan. There is the fullest, amplest, grandest possibility, nay, opportunity for all this. Where is the noble' generous, literary enthusiasm, whose "vital breath and native air,” should be around these time-worn walls and beneath these dear old trees at Yale? Say not, the "golden age" is fled and forever; but let us grasp the forces that await our use, and Astræa will return to her home amongst us. If we could set ourselves down amongst the actors in the grand dramas of our Past, we should discover only a little handful of earnest, thoughtful, hard-working students, very like some among us, who had the stretch of vision to see that the culture of the Public Societies must make up a part of their full and sufficient discipline. Ten, twenty, thirty, as the times changed, they met; they debated; the halls rang with the voices of the combatants at the mental tournament. They went forth to meet the world, armed at all points; they strode to the high places of power; they were Kings amongst men. That is the simple story. We may repeat it.

We have now a few observations to make upon the relations which our system of Prize Debates, sustains to the Public Societies. This subject has been much canvassed of late in our community, and we have been not a little surprised and chagrined to notice the opinions which are held by a considerable number amongst us. We are told that, as a matter of fact, the rise of Prize Debates was the fall of the regular weekly debates. We are told that Prize men, getting their fill of oratorical reputation by a single strong effort, are content to neglect the Societies during the rest of the year. We are told that the style of effort which is successful in our Prize Debates is actually inimical to success and readiness in the ordinary debate. We deem all these allegations of fact or opinion, unfounded and mistaken. think that only a little inquiry is needed to show an unprejudiced mind that the introduction of Prize Debates, in point of fact, did not mark, much less occasion, a decline in the regular debates. The testimony of those who were active in our Public Societies during the six years succeeding the establishment of Prize Debates, points to the conclusion, that they have realized the aim and hope of their founders-the promotion of interest and skill in public debating. It is our belief, founded on diligent and extensive inquiry, that no influence has been so efficient in overcoming obstacles and keeping alive, at least, somə

We

sparks of the manly and generous spirit and passion of public debate. Against the influence of our present effeminate standard of literary culture, of the higher and severer requirements of the College course, of the exhausting and distracting efforts of the annual campaigns for new members, of the absorbing and universal devotion to our Class Societies, the system of Prize Debates has sufficed to retain and pass down to us at least the instruments, the opportunity of a better and manlier discipline. Without them, it may well be doubted whether "Linonia" and the "Brothers" would have a name and place even in our University.

Nor is this result and influence other than we might look for, from the very nature of Prize Debates. They are adapted to awaken and confirm an interest in the objects of our Societies. They furnish the strongest incentive, the keenest stimulus to diligence and care in the ordinary debates. They demand, for success, the precise discipline which the weekly debates will give; a discipline which cannot be found elsewhere in the whole circle of our advantages. Neither does one success in a Prize Debate allow the student to relax his efforts and retire, salva fama. Far from it. Every absence from the weekly debate, diminishes his chances of success in the next encounter, wherein his reputation is again to be put to the test. The pressure is upon him at all times; he "sees a hand," and "hears a voice," which other men do not, which will not let him be idle or neglectful. It is true, that occasionally a Prize man will neglect his Society, but he does it always at his peril, and rarely with impunity. As a rule, Prize men cannot safely, and hence do not neglect the discipline of the weekly debates.

There is, nevertheless, a "physical impossibility," which actually and patently stands in the way of our best discipline in the Public Societies. It is curious, moreover, to observe how carefully and constantly we seek, both in our reflections and discussions upon this subject, to shift the responsibility of injury to the Public Societies, from its real and palpable source. We are shrewd to detect a "physical impossibility," which has no connection with the present inefficiency of the Societies, whilst we entirely overlook and ignore the actual "physical impossibility," which the swarm of Class Societies presents. Students cannot do everything. The performance of some duties or tasks, compels the omission of others. It is physically impossible that we should give all the time at our command to Class Societies, and still find time and interest to engage with ardor and profit in the Public Societies. The best talent of College is constantly enlisted in

support of the Class Societies, and the result which we see is natural and unavoidable. The Public Societies "go a-begging," whilst the Class Societies "wax fat and kick." If some merciful dispensation should raze out every Class Society at Yale, and remove the incubus of their presence, we might hope to realize amongst us a hitherto unknown depth, richness and compass of discipline and culture.

We wish, in conclusion, to state the chief ground upon which our own estimate and support of Prize Debates rest. It is not, then, because they are calculated and adapted to increase the interest in the weekly debates, nor because they actually have done this, that we chiefly value them. These considerations would indeed entitle them to our warmest gratitude and support, but there are, to our mind, far weightier reasons. It is the Prize Debate per se, the Prize Debate in proprio vigore, which we value most of all. It is because it furnishes of itself a style of discipline so peculiar and invaluable, that we would cherish the system. It is not mainly as the assistant, but as the complement of the weekly debate, that the Prize Debate derives its value. It calls for an essentially higher, fuller and stronger effort. It resembles far more closely the actual conflicts of after-life, at the Bar, in the Pulpit, the Senate, and all the various arenas of American public life. It furnishes the incentive and occasion for an exertion which does more to arouse, vivify and enlarge the student's powers of mind, than almost any other discipline of his course. Look a moment at its requirements. In the first place, it brings the student to a higher umpirage than he finds in the weekly debate, to pass upon his effort. He speaks now to men of learning, experience, sagacity. Sophistry will not deceive them; bombast will not please them; flattery will not warp them. Is this true of those who are his judges in the weekly debate? Again, he is limited to a brief space of time and to a single effort. Condensation of style and thought, which he is apt to disregard in the weekly debate, is now the sine qua non. He must make his argument complete, but he must confine himself to the brief space allotted. He must canvass the whole theme, look at it from all points, view it under all lights. His object now is, not as usually in the weekly debate, merely to make a good speech; he must make a complete and exhaustive argument. He cannot now, as in the weekly debate, trust to a second opportunity, to dispose of objections and meet counter-arguments. As in the actual conflicts of after-life, he must discharge his whole fire in one volley and retire. The utmost caution in statement and refutation, the utmost care in style and delivery, are imperatively demanded.