No Headline

TO prevent the possible results of a controversy which seemed likely to degenerate into something like personal abuse, we have decided not to publish an answer to the article in the last Advocate, entitled "Maudlin Criticism." That article, even in its title, was so offensive that comments upon it have come to us from many sources, while lengthy - not to say heavy - refutations of its sentiments have been meditated by several persons. A feeling of compassion for the readers of the Crimson has also moved us in this matter. It has always been the desire of the editors of the paper to leave its columns open to the discussion of any subject in which a majority of undergraduates felt an interest. However excellent a thing Persian poetry may be in itself, it is not the prevailing topic of conversation in Cambridge. Apart from the discussion of Persian poetry the questions which this controversy has raised are questions of opinion in regard to the relative merits of Mr. Emerson's earlier and later works. We can only say of Mr. Emerson, in the words of the contributor to our last number, that he is "a man who has grown gray in literature, not for selfish gratification, but for the welfare and happiness of the whole human family, . . . . whose name deserves to live unsullied and untarnished forever." When we have said this we have said all that is becoming of us, considering our relative positions.