SAI SA UT WEE I WHEKLY JULES LUQUIENS. [Continued from 7th page.]| appeared before New Haven audiences who showed cleaner knowledge of the grace and force of our English idiom than he. So pure was his idiom that his pronunciation of English, which em- barrassed him at times as he often con- fessed, was never remembered against him. His style flowed easily over tran- sitions with frequent admixture of the salt of unlooked-for similes and exam- ples. All his imagery was peculiarly luminous—this was perhaps his most original vein. Back of his words was an abundance of ideas. These ideas were the product of independent read- ing at first hand. Many teachers of French Literature are able to refer to a larger bibliography of French criti- cism than, at least, was his wont; few, however, can mine out more successfully the nugget in this or that piece of litera- ture. He was eminently fitted to explain a literature, for he possessed the mental rectitude which demands of an author his right to be famous and the intel- lectual and aesthetic perception to dis- cover such reason. Then he could pass from the individual to the group and put a backbone down a literary period. rie possessed sobriety in literary esti- mates. His students, after leaving him, knew that his strongest sympathies were on the side of the idealism of the classic- ists, yet he was able to lead: them on to enthusiastic appreciation of the feeling and dash of of the Lamaitines and Hugos. He was sincerely sympathetic with the best French standpoints, and well fitted by temperament to interpret French literature. A certain phlegm of temperament held him conservatively at- tached to the greatest age of French letters, the Seventeenth Century, and a peculiar endowment of Gallic wit and taste let him into the secrets of the French drama of all periods. From a literary point of view he did not re- egret the French rejection of the Re- formation movement, fearing lest, had it come to stay in France, it might have disturbed the airiness and sense of light which characterize the whole of French letters. He loved play of fancy, but could be severe enough upon lack of substance, as he was upon the analyt- ical novels of our dav, where, as he used to say, authors, after applying their dissecting knives through many pages, in the end find no soul. Most appre- ciative he was of mirth, and knew well how to separate the merriment of “the child who strikes his drum,” as he once said, from mere artificial tom-toms. His students drew inspiration from the constant freshness and vigor of his criti- . cal powers. They will count it a loss that none of his lectures are in print. Though their class-room notes may keep a skeleton of his thoughts and perhaps some flavor of his manner of expres- sion, at best they can do but meager jus- tice to the originality of his ideas and language. It is not too late still to hope that his lecture of last Winter on Moliére in the Comedy Course may be published ; the same, too, with regard to his Cher- buliez lecture written in French, and his paper before the Modern Language Club last year with some such title as: The Balance-sheet of the Nineteenth Cen- tury. There are other lectures, no doubt, in more or less formal shape, ~ perhaps some of his work upon Voltaire, of whom he had made special study. Prof. Luquiens was a modest man, even timid. He doubted the worth of some of his best ideas and honored them with pen and ink only under urgency. His lectures to his classes were delivered al- most always without notes of any kind. If in executive matters any were ever disposed to criticize him for lack of de- cision or procrastination, explanation can be found in his native modesty. Socially Prof. Luquiens was a good fellow. On first acquaintance and in certain moods he was somewhat austere in manner. In careless mood his smile was genial and his eyes bespoke hearty companionship.- Of the many letters of sympathy sent his family after his death, one of the tenderest expressions of per- sonal loss came from the assembled guests of the Summer hotel at Water- ville, N. H., where he had spent a half dozen Summers, and where he was known apart from his vocation, as man and companion. In conversation he was always a most careful, even reverent, listener and in reply gave as richly as he had_ received courteously. For several years past he had been obliged to carry on a constant fight with rheu- matism; many a day only a strong will -kept him before his classes, yet the writer can recall no word of bitter pro- test or complaint. | Prof. Luquiens’ memory ts destined to be held in high esteem in the history of Yale. As a man he made friends who will miss association with him; as a teacher he leaves students behind who will point enthusiastically to his intel- lectual fineness and to his educating in- fluence in their lives. Ropert L. TAYLor. Clinton, N. Y.. Sept. 7, 1899. TENNIS OF THE SUMMER. [Continued from 3d page.| Third round—Whitman vs. G. Whit- ney, 6-1, 8-6, 6-0; Davis vs. R. Whit- ney, 6-3, 6-2, 6-0; Wright vs. Samuel Hardy, 6-3, 6-1, 8-6; Sumner Hardy vs. Ward, 6-3, 6-2,: 6-3. : Fourth round—Whitman vs. Samuel Hardy, 6-1, 6-2, 4-6, 6-2; Wright vs. R. Whitney, 6-0, 6-3, 6-2; Ward vs. G. Whitney, 6-1, 6-2, 6-1; Davis vs. Sum- ner Hardy, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 0-6, 6-1. SLEEPY HOLLOW TOURNAMENT. Although this tournament in_ past years has aroused little but local in- terest, it’ brought forth some good matches this year, owing to the entry of Hackett, Allen, Paret and Little. Paret here met Allen for the fourth . time this season and won the tournament by defeating him by the score 2-6, 6-2, 6-1, 8-6. The championship was defended by _H. Hackett (Holder), who won from Paret 6-0, 8-6, 6-4. The doubles were won by the Yale team, Hackett and Allen, who defeated Paret and Little in the finals. TENNIS SCORES OF 1899. The following are the scores of the final matches in the tournaments of the year: Harvard Interscholastic—B. C. Wright vs. E. Leonard, 6-1, 6-1, 6-4. Yale Interscholastic—Miller vs. Col- lins, 3-6, 5-7, 6-3, 6-2, 6-2. Princeton Interscholastic—M. Thomp- son vs. Hazelhurst, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6.: Columbia Interscholastic—N. C. Grant vs. Hazelhurst, 6-4, 6-0. Southern Championship—J. C. David- son vs. J. P. Paret, 6-1, 8-6, 8-6. Dou- bles: Davidson and Paret vs. Graze- brook and Wadsworth, 6-1, 6-1, 6-2. New England—A. E.-Foote vs. C. P. Dodge, 6-3, 10-8, 3-6, 6-3. Doubles: Hackett and Allen vs. Dodge and Noyes, 6-1, 3-6, 8-6, 6-4. New Jersey Championship—R. Stev- ens vs. S. Millett, 6-2; 4-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4. Doubles: “W. Ac and. —. PP. “Larned s., Fischer and Bostwick, 6-4, 6-2, 6-3. Pennsylvania ‘Championship—N. T. Willson vs. J. A. Hill, 4-6, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. Doubles: Willson and Carpenter, vs. Jordan and Morris, 6-4, 6-2, 6-1. Massachusetts Championship—M. D. Whitman vs. L. Ware, 6-0, 2-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-3. Doubles: No doubles played. Ladies Championship—Singles: Miss Jones vs. Miss Banks, 6-1, 6-1, 7-5. Doubles: Miss Craven and Miss Ateer vs. Miss Rastall and Miss Banks, 6-1, ‘O=1, 7-5: Metropolitan Championship—Singles : FE. P. Fischer vs. J. P. Paret, 1-6, 7-5, 6-0, 6-4. Doubles: Hackett and Allen vs. Davidson and Paret,. 6-1, 6-2, 6-4. Pacific Whitney vs. Sumner Hardy, 4-6, 6-4, O-f,. O77. Middle States Championship—M. D. Whitman vs. W. A. Larned, 6-1, 4-6, 6-4, 6-2. Doubles: Ward and Davis vs. Hackett and Allen, 6-4, 6-4, 2-6, 0-1, un- finished. Chicago Invitation Bond (no scores). | Western Championship — Carr ° Neel (no scores). Doubles: Hackett and Allen (no scores). New York State Championship—M. D. Whitman.: Doubles: (Information missing). Longwood Championship— M.D. Whitman vs. D. Davis, 6-1, 6-4, 7-5. Doubles: Ward and Davis vs. Budlong and Wright, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2. Newcastle Championship — B.C. Wright vs. C. R. Budlong, 8-6, 735, 6-3. Doubles: Bond and Fischer vs.*Hackett and Wright, 9-7, 4-6, 11-13. Southampton Championship—M._ D. Whitman vs. L. E. Ware, 7-5, 6-4, 8-6. Doubles: Whitman and Ware vs. Allen and McKittrick, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. . Maine Championship—H. H. Hackett vs. J. P. Paret, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4. Doubles: Fischer and Bond vs. Paret and David- Championship— - son, 6-1, 6-2, 10-8. Coast Championship—G. F. Newport Championuship—M. D. Whit- man vs. J. P. Paret, 6-1, 6-2, 3-6, 7-5. Doubles: Ward and Davis vs. Sheldon and Ware. Yale College Championship—J. A. Aon vs. H. H. Hackett, 6-1, 6-4, 5-7, 5-2. Columbia Championship—J. D. Pell vs. E. W. Cushing, 6-1, 6-4, 6-4. Dou- bles: Pell and Griffin (score missing). Lenox (N. Y.) Championship—J. A. Allen vs. J.. P. Paret, 6-2, 6-3, 2-6, 6-3. Doubles: Hackett and Allen vs. Wright and Grant, 6-1, 6-3, 7-5. Canadian Championship—-M. D. Whit- man vs. L. Ware, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4. Doubles: Whitman and Wright vs. Paret and Little, 7-5, 6-2, 6-2. Finals: J. P. Paret vs. J. A. Allen, 2-6, 6-2, 6-1, 8-6. Sleepy Hollow Championship—H. H. Hackett vs. J. P. Paret, 6-0, 8-6, 6-4. Doubles: Hackett and Allen vs. War- neck and Smith, 6-0, 6-1. CHICAGO INVITATION. WON. LOST. MUG: CS a. vs ¥ O Neel. 6 I Peers ga ok 5 2 Waidner Se eS 4 weer eee oe 4 McQueston ........ I 6 DLE re! 5 sok agi ts ag O ri WINNERS OF IMPORTANT TOURNAMENTS. TOURNAMENT. WINNER. April 29. Harvard Intersch. B. C. Wright * Yale Interscholastic Miller ¥ Princeton 24 M. Thompson | , Columbia ‘ W. C. Grant May 16. Southern Champ. J. C. Davidson ‘* 23. New England A. E. Foote, ’96 June 12. New Jersey R. Stevens ns Bae etna. N. T. Wilson “ony. SB M. D. Whitman 2 20. | atin Champ. Miss Jones ‘* 26. Metropolitan E. P. Fischer July 3. Pacific Coast G. F. Whitney eRe Ss afliond States M. D. Whitman “ hicago 3: ; Invitation Bond ‘* 10. Western Ch. C. Neel Mit ga IN Py Le M. D. Whitman ‘* 24. Longwood M. D. Whitman Aug. 1. Newcastle B. C. Wright = 8. Southampton — M. D. Whitman “ 8. Sorrento H. H, Hackett ‘* 1s. Newport M. D. Whitman ‘* 15. Interscholastic B. C. Wright June 19. Lenox J. A. Allen ‘* 19. Canadian M. D. Whitman *:-