Plagiarism.

helps himself more or less , yet generally more than h >? s liberally , to the contents of tho work , appropriating them to his own ends . Another writes an article for some newspaper * , whereupon another article , almost , if not rerbatim , tlie same , makes its appearance in some other

newspaper . One editor lays down for himself a particular kind of programme , which , in his opinion , will most conduce to the success of his journal or periodical . Another editor , too lazy or too incapable to initiate a programme , adopts the former ' s , without the slightest hesitation or scruple .

In all these cases the man who follows is a plagiarist , or appropriator of his leader ' s ideas , and the press , indeed the whole world of literature , has set its face strongly against the practice , and condemns it with just severity . As Freemasons we , of course , view any Appropriation Act of this

kind with the most fraternal tenderness , but as journalists we feel bound in duty to object on principle , when our ideas or contents are copied or adopted without acknowledgment . We are careful , however , to express our objections as courteously as possible , we remonstrate only in the most

friendly spirit imaginable , we do our utmost to observe , not only the laws of journalism , but its amenities likewise . Thus , whenever we feel called upon to express our

concurrence with , or disapprobation of the policy pursued by our Masonic contemporaries , we do so cordially in the former case , in theJatter gently , and with all the courtesy we can command . Thus the week before last we drew

attention to a most marvellous coincidence , none other , in fact , than the appearance , with one or two verbal differences only , in two journals , ours and the Hebrew Leader of New York , of the very same article on a certain Masonic charitynot simultaneously , but in these columns on the 31 st July ,

in those of our contemporary on 27 th August . A few weeks previously we noticed that an article of ours on the late Dr . Oliver had re-appeared , after a brief interval of rest , in the columns of the Keystone . In both these cases we suggested , with becoming courtesy , that the omission of

the usual acknowledgment was the result of an oversight . We gave them credit , in fact , for those good intentions which they had previously extended to us when quoting from our columns , which in the case of the Keystone have been most handsomely extended to us since , and which the

Hebrew Leader , if it should do us the honour to utilise any of our articles , will doubtless put in practice for the future . These are the only two cases of the utilisation by other journals of articles which made their first appearance in our paper ] to which we have directed our readers' attention , bat

they are very far from being the only ones that have occurred . Thus far have we dealt with our American Masonic contemporaries . Coming nearer home , we find that sundry of the main features of our programme are not unfrequently followed by an English contemporary . To give one or two

illustrations of our meaning . After the presentation of chairs by the Baroness Burdett-Couttstothe Lodge bearing her name , we had a leader on the subject , entitled " What Next ? " wherein we discoursed pleasantly about this novel episode in Masonry , and pertinently

inquired , " What next is going to happen ? " The week following , our contemporary had also an article entitled " What next ? " We will do him the justice , however , to

say there was this difference between the two leaders . Ours was apropos of something very particular , while his was apropos of nothing in particular , and would have borne any other title just as well . With a very slight change

" The rose , by any other name , had smelt as sweet . " Again , as we have never seen any just cause or impediment why our readers should not have a digest of the week ' s news , or why that digest should not contain mention of the events , political , scientific , social , athletic , & c ,

happening from day to day in the outer world , we introduced and commented upon , among other matters of public interest , various athletic achievements . No long time passes , when our contemporary , once careless about such mundane trifles , follows suit , and discourses pleasantly , if not

scientifically , of similar matters . In our issue of the 11 th inst ., we gave an account of the Lodge Les Sages d'Heliopolis , our authority being Bro . Caubet ' s article in Le Monde Macomvique , which we reproduced , according to the best of our poor ability , in English , in the belief that our readers

would be pleased to note the difference in working between a foreign Lodge , under the Grand Orient of France , and our English Lodges . Last week our contemporary gave a summary of the same article . We might go on multiplying these instances in which our contemporary has , to use

Plagiarism.

•" ! common phrase , taken a loaf out of our book , but these v , ill suffice to show that , while some of our Trans ttlantic Masonic contemporaries hive thought our aW ' ok's worth utilising , n : ir Cisatlantic contemporary is no ' . * O- proud to copy on :- ideas . Yet , funnily enough , this s : i . ? ee o

intemporary has calml y igiunivl us fr > ni tho very first moment of our existence , and persistentl y describes himself iu his advertising columns , as The Masonic Journal of the period in this country . But there is something funnier even still . In one of our earliest numbers we

quoted something from Pomeroifs Democrat , with the usual acknowledgment . For so doing a correspondent of our contemporary took us somewhat severely to task , a week or two afterwards , calling in question our Masonic good faith . We shall not describe this writer ' s onslaught as a vulgar

attack on an inoffensive journal . We are not called upon to express any opinion on the character of the lettei ' , nor is our contemporary responsible for the opinions of his correspondents . It is enough that his attempt to ascribe a fault , had any been committed , to the wrong journal was a

complete failure , and doubtless the writer has long since repented in sackcloth and ashes the error of his ways . Grave inconsistency of human , to say nothing of Masonic human nature , that any English contemporary should suffer us to be attacked in its columns , nor hesitate to utilise our

titles and ideas , yet not even acknowledge our existence . After all , though we have felt these few remarks are not uncalled for , we have made them in all good nature . It is impossible to be otherwise than courteous and contented when so many of our Masonic contemporaries so often pay us the

graceful compliment of quoting our articles and adopting our ideas . We are fairly entitled to regard the frequent adoption or imitation of some part of our weekly issue as a tribute of respect to such humble merit as we may have given evidence of possessing . We necessarily feel that such

slight services to Masonry as it has been in our power to render have not been wholly unrecognised or unappreciated . When the most youthful Masonic journal in the world is thus liberally quoted , when its views find favour with its elder brethren in journalism , we may be pardoned if

we unconsciously yield to a slight yet delicious feeling of self complacency ; we should be less than human , indeed , if we did not . We are quoted often abroad , mostly with , yet occasionally without acknowledgment ; we are respectfully imitated at home . Our place in the periodical literature

of the Craft is everywhere recognised , either directly or indirectly . We are grateful , and express publicly our gratitude . What more in the way of thanks it is in our power to render , will be rendered willingly , even to the uttermost "thank . "

Cambridge Slang, A .D .1795.

CAMBRIDGE SLANG , A .D .1795 .

rpURNING over the pages of the Freemason ' s Magazine for " ^ February 1795 , I lighted on a very amusing account of the slang then in vogue afc Cambridge University , written by one who signed himself "A friend to Alma Mater , bub an enemy to all ambiguity . " This brought a rejoinder , the month following , from

" A Cantab , " and as a sketch of the two letters may be interesting to your readers , I have jotted down the following details . The writer of the first letter , having occasion to visit Cambridge on business , accepts an invitation to dine at the rooms of an old Yorkshire schoolfellow , in the expectation he should hugely enjoy , as

he says , " the feasfc of reason and the flow of soul . " He first introduces to his readers' notice tho company in which ho finds himself . These included a Harry Soph , a fellow-commoner and senior sophoccasionally also " called an empty bottle ; whilst , e contra , a bottle decanted was , from time to time , denominated a , fellow-commoner "—

a jiwnoT soph and pensioner—who " talked much of his independence , of his having refused exhibitions , and ( what gave me no good opinion of his learning ) declared he had no pretensions to either scholarship or fellowship—a jolly fat fellow— "by nature formed 'to lard the lean earth as he walked along '"—who was a non ens and had not

yet been matriculated ; and , lastly , a sizcr and questionist . His next ' experience is that those who go in for honours come out plucked , ' senior or junior optime and senior or junior ivranglers , bavin " previously kept all their acts . Their names aro printed on a tripos" a long piece of whited-brown paper , like that on which our

commonest ballads are printed . When the cloth is removed , one of those present exclaims , " D—n thoso retros ! My dip brought ono in this morning , faith ! and told me I was focussed . I resolved in this dilemma to smite my tutor- ; bnt , as I lately came over Mm for a good round sum , I was forced to run the riy upon him . Luckily , I crammed him so well , that at last honest Jollun ) tipped me the cole , " Another