Imágenes de páginas


Surrendering himself as he did to the engrossing duties of teacher, administrator, and editor, it is a wonder that Wright found any time for creative scholarship. Yet here too he won for himself an honorable place by his original work, which appeared in various journals, especially the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. His more important papers are as follows: "Unpublished white Lekythoi from Athens" (1887); "Did Philochorus quote the 'A0ŋvaíwv nodireía as Aristotle's?" (1891); "The Date of Cylon" (1888 and 1892); "Herondea" (1893); " Artemis Anaïtis and Mên Tiamu" (1895); "Five Interesting Greek Imperatives," and the "Origin of Sigma Lunatum" (1896); "Studies in Sophocles " (1901); and the "Origin of Plato's Cave" (1906). The article on the Date of Cylon stamped its author as an historical student marked by acumen and constructive skill. The main contention, that Cylon's attempt to make himself master of the Acropolis of Athens preceded the legislation of Draco (an opinion generally rejected at the time), was triumphantly confirmed by a statement in Aristotle's "Constitution of Athens," which was opportunely discovered shortly after the article appeared in its first form. To champion the truth the Master of the Wise had himself arisen from his tomb. It is not often that the student of an historical science, and above all of ancient literature, can have the satisfaction, ordinarily vouchsafed only to the researcher in physical science, of having the truth of an hypothesis established as valid — and that in his own lifetime. Dean Wright's judgment, as his taste, was excellent; and appeal was often made to both by young and old alike in questions of life and letters. He was one of those men to whom a saying of Matthew Arnold applies: "I know not how it is, but their commerce with the ancients appears to me to produce on those who constantly practise it a steadying and composing effect on their judgment, not of literary works only, but of men and events in general."


The life that has just closed was rich through its glad acceptance of opportunity for service that knew no taint of partiality; rich in its ideal of a rational scholarship that held in just equilibrium minute, but profitable research and imaginative sympathy with the highest achievements of the people whose literature, art, and history he felt himself privileged to interpret; but richer in its unswerving loyalty to the dignity of man. Careful to safeguard the rights and opinions of others, Dean Wright surrendered nothing that was his honest conviction. Generous in welcoming another's preferment, when it might have been his own; never betrayed by any contagion of association to depart from his lofty conception of the refinement of a gentleman; never moved to petulance or unkindness, and speaking only good of all men ; tempted into no treason to his serenity by anxiety or pressure of work; reconciling the differences and softening

the asperities of others; attaining unto wisdom by the qualities of his disposition and heart; loving men and beloved by them in return; consecrating himself to the beauty of sincerity and simplicity. So he lived, strong through his gentleness and the purity of his heart. And as he lived, so he will remain in the memory of those who have been cheered and inspired by his example. Herbert Weir Smyth, '78.


LAST year's victory of the Harvard crew at New London means more to the old oarsmen of our College than the one year's win. When I say "old oarsmen," in this article I refer to those ante-diluvians who rowed at Harvard before 1885, for in 1885 a new policy was established in the making and evolution of a crew, differing from the policy that had been pursued up to that time. Some one may ask, "What right have these ante-diluvians who rowed before 1885 to hold any opinion at all on modern boat-racing?" An expert in baseball or football of even five years back would be presumptuous indeed if he should venture an opinion on these subjects; but with rowing it is quite different. An eminent English authority on college boating recently remarked that there had been no change in rowing since the introduction of the sliding seat in 1872. He might have gone further and said that much of what was true even before 1872 is still true, especially in the matter of "getting a crew together," as it is called; that is, developing perfect rhythm and uniformity of work. Now, it is regarding this matter of "getting together," and the means employed for this purpose, that the older men are especially gratified by last year's victory, and the reason is, because last year's crew returned to the old methods in this respect. All the authorities, both before 1885 and since, have agreed that getting a crew "together" is important for speed. If there has been any difference as to this, it is that before 1885 this was considered all-important, and since then it has been simply considered important. But the marked difference between the authorities, before and after 1885, is that the old methods so successfully employed to secure rhythm and uniformity of work have been abandoned from 1885 to 1907.

Beginning with 1885, and up to last year, the policy has been to spend much of the spring season in "trying out" the candidates for the crew, and putting off the final selection until a week or two, and sometimes until even a day or two, before going to New London. In addition to that it has been customary to take no long rows except the time rows during the last two weeks or so before the race, but on the contrary, in all the

preliminary practice, to keep stopping the crew, so that even when the crew covered a fair number of miles in an afternoon the distance has been made up of many short rows instead of a few long, unbroken stretches. The customs before 1885 and which were abandoned were first to select the crew early in the season. If it was not selected by, say, the last week in April, or the first in May at the latest, it was considered a distinct disadvantage. It was believed that with proper forethought and oversight during the autumn, winter, and first few weeks after the boats were on the river, a wise selection could be made, and that this could be so nearly perfect that the possible advantage in the way of improvement in individuals composing the crew, by further changes, was nothing in comparison with the disadvantage to the crew itself, as a unit, of making such changes during the process of development into perfect rhythm of work. Secondly, before 1885 the chief method employed in getting a crew "together" after it was selected was to take long rows at a slow stroke of about 26 to 28 a minute, covering some 10 or 12 miles in single days, with as long, unbroken stretches as the conditions of the river would allow. This does not mean that all the rows were long, or that frequent stopping and speaking to the crew had not its important part in the scheme.

For the proper development of a crew, before 1885, the season might be roughly divided into three parts, the first from the opening of the river to the 20th of April or the first of May. This time was spent in constant coaching for individual and common faults, short stretches, and close watching of the men with a view to selecting the individuals who were to compose the crew and securing at least a general uniformity of style. The second part was the period of taking long rows, not necessarily every day, perhaps only three or four days in the week, devoting the other days to shorter rows with more careful coaching and frequent stopping. The third part was the remaining three weeks or so before the race, after the crew was thoroughly "together." Then the long rows were given up, that is, any rows longer than enough to cover the racing distance, with a light paddle back to quarters. These time rows were taken at racing or nearly racing speed, at 34 to 36 strokes a minute, about three or four times a week, according to the condition of the crew. The other days of the third period were occupied in practising starts and spurts and in putting on the finishing touches, special care being taken not to overtrain.

In 1896 an article entitled "The Essential in Rowing" was published in the Graduates' Magazine, in the June number, at the request of several old rowing men, laying this scheme out in detail and giving the reasons, based on both theory and experience, for its advantages. I may say in the matter of long rows as a necessary means of developing a crew,

the ante-diluvian men all agree, however much they have differed as to some minor details.

The other system in vogue since 1885 has been conscientiously and thoroughly tried. It had the support of Mr. R. C. Lehmann when in this country. One word as to Mr. Lehmann's coaching. He never himself rowed on a university crew. He was a coach of the celebrated Leander crew of England, but he was not the coach, as some have supposed. He did not succeed, in his two years of trial, in producing a winning crew for Harvard. He did do much to increase enthusiasm for boating. When abroad after Mr. Lehmann's coaching here, I met and conversed with several English rowing authorities and found they none of them agreed with him in giving up long rows, for a university crew at least. It seems true that the Leander crews are not supposed to need them, but the Leander club is a case of exceptio probat regulam. It is made up of oarsmen from past Cambridge and Oxford 'varsity crews, and its crews are selected from among those who keep up their racing after graduation. The nucleus of a Leander crew, sometimes its majority, rowed together in the same 'varsity crew or in some other club crews in prominent races. All have been taught in the same general style and are experts of many years in the art of catching the rhythm quickly. But the omission of long practice rows, even for these exceptional crews, has, in the opinion of some experts, been the cause of the two years' defeats of the Leander by the Belgian crew, which rowed with superior rhythm. I say this much about the Leander club, as its nearly universal success without the aid of long rows has been a great argument for giving them up.


As the policy of short rows had not proved a success at Harvard after

years of faithful trial, many of the older men felt that the time had come last spring when they might ask for a conference with the then management, in respect to the long row theory. As the outcome of this a formal conference was given up, and I, as informally representing some of the ante-diluvians, was allowed by the graduate committee to confer with the Captain, Mr. Richardson, and at the committee's request he came to see me in April, 1908. I found he had already come to the view that we older men entertained on this subject. All that remained for me to do was to encourage him in this and make some suggestions for carrying the theory out in detail. He said he had found, what we older men appreciated, that the Cornell crews, which had been so uniformly successful in this country, had been selected early in the season, and had employed the long row method, and that fact, he said, was enough for him. Mr. Richardson, therefore, deserves the whole credit of re-discovering, so to speak, the old system. We older men have also rejoiced to see, during the last three or four years, a return to old form or "style," chiefly in reference

to what we believe to be the proper sequence of back swing and slide in the stroke and in rowing the stroke through with the blade well in the water to the end. But good form, useful as it is, being secondary to rhythm, our chief satisfaction and the reason this article is written is because we feel the essential importance of this change in last year's management as to early selection and long rows. We emphasize this point so that students and graduates may appreciate the true value of the old methods revived, and may maintain them in the future.

At the end of this article is appended a table, showing the period of development by long rows before 1885, when Harvard won 17 out of 25 races against Yale, or, if we count one race where there was a mistake made by the judges as to the finish line,1 18 out of 25; and during the period from 1885 to 1907 inclusive (one year there was no race), when the long rows were abandoned at Harvard and the crew as a rule selected late in the season, Harvard won only four out of 22 races.

I will not repeat all the arguments, pro and con, bút I should like to mention one especially that has been used against the long row system, and that is that the long rows would make the men stiff and slow. The older men always contended that in their experience the results were just the opposite. Certainly this year's crew, though composed of unusually large and heavy men, after it had got perfectly together through the use of the long rows, was able to take 38 to 40 strokes a minute in perfect time and finished style, and showed an activity which has been developed by hardly any crew brought up on the short row system.

One word more. This year there will be seven of last year's Harvard crew eligible for membership. Let me give a warning, and that is that long rows will be needed again this spring. Harvard had just such an experience some years ago, when the old system was in vogue. All but one of the crew of the year before were in the boat. It was supposed that they could get together without going through the long rows, as they had been so perfectly together the year before. They raced a professional crew some three weeks before their contest with Yale, and were pretty badly beaten, and they did not show anything like as good rhythm as in the previous year. They then took some long rows and succeeded in getting together, rowed another race with the same professionals and did far better, and two days after this latter race badly defeated Yale and rowed with machine-like precision.

With this warning I close, in behalf of many ante-diluvian oarsmen, with best wishes for this year's crew and the crews of many years to come, brought up to the race, as we hope they will be, in the good old system that 1 See Harvard Book (University Press, 1875) for full account of this with quotations from referee's letter, etc., vol. ii, pp. 246-247.

« AnteriorContinuar »