TWO "HARVARD MAGAZINES".

Since nine o'clock yesterday morning the University has been blessed by the birth of twin magazines, or, more correctly speaking, two magazines, each boasting the same highly cacophonous and widely copyrighted title. Wednesday's red polemic entitled "The Harvard Magazine" is being followed this morning by a collegiate Collier's of the identical title. The original offering with its motto "Luceat ad Nauseam" surmounted by three niger apes, rampant, proves to be an exceedingly clever parody on the true Magazine which appears in a cover of virgin purity and purports to be "everyone's" (including Radcliffe's) paper.

The CRIMSON is glad to find that there are actually some students in this self-sufficient community with energy enough to start a new publication, especially when this new publication, especially when this new effort shows that literary ability still exists among the undergraduates and instructors. The genuine Magazine contains better fiction and as good verse as the College has been offered in a long time. It has the ear-marks of a successful literary paper. But the editors, who fail to make themselves known, have lowered their standard in the story entitled. "The New Romance" to a most unworthy level. They must avoid such crudities if they aspire truly to represent the University.

A further criticism which should be made is that, although the business editors admit the active support of certain members of the English Department, no mention of this fact is made in the Magazine. Such support is a big step forward in making it possible for the best works handed in in English compostion courses to be dug up from their repositories and given to the public. In this way much material that would otherwise die a natural death can be utilized. But it seems only right that this fact be brought out so that the erroneous impression that it is run entirely by undergraduates may be removed.

In view of the open letter to the Board of Overseers which serves as an editorial, the connection with the paper of the instructors in question might well be cleared up. The purpose of the letter is an entirely worthy one. The unfortunate inference, however, is that somebody has an axe to grind.

Perhaps the most pertinent result of the appearance of the new magazine will be its effect on the Advocate. If its succeeding issues fulfill the promise of the first the older paper will find itself in competition with an energetic rival. This should lead to a renascent enthusiasm and activity on the part of the Advocate of which it is now in great need. There is room in the University for two good magazines. There is not room for a swan and a lame duck.