of it, benefits medical men, who again do good to their patients by
_cramming_ them in another way. There is also a species of cramming
which is found very serviceable at the Universities, by enabling certain
students to _pass in a crowd._

[Illustration: OH! HERE 'S A COMPLIMENT.]

In this respect however it differs essentially from aldermanic cramming,
which enhances the difficulty of such a feat in a very remarkable
manner.

Puellae, aliae aliis praelucere student:

Girls endeavour to outshine one another.

And yet they _make light_, as much as they can, of each other's charms
and accomplishments.

Intempestive parum longe prospicienti Doctori adlusit.

He joked unseasonably on the short-sighted Doctor.

Johnson was not so short-sighted as to be blind to a joke.

Not a few of the verbs mentioned in the last rule, sometimes change the
dative into another case; as

Praestat ingenio alius alium:

One exceeds another in ability.

[Illustration]

Thus one boy learns Latin and Greek better than the rest; another learns
slang. One is a good hand at construing, another at climbing. Some boys
are peculiarly skilled at casting accounts, others in casting stones.
Here we have a boy of a small appetite and many words, there one of a
large appetite and few words. Sometimes precocious talent is evinced for
playing the fiddle, sometimes for playing a _stick_; sometimes, again,
a strong propensity is discovered for playing the fool. This boy makes
verses, as it were, by inspiration; that boy shows an equal capacity in
making mouths. The most peculiar talent, however, and the one most
exclusive of all others, is that of riding. Those who are destined to
attain great proficiency in this science, can seldom do any thing else;
and usually begin their career by being _horsed_ at school.

Est, for habeo to have, governs a dative case, as

Est mihi qui vestes custodit avunculus omnes:

I have an uncle who takes care of all my clothes.

Suppetit, it sufficeth, is like to this, as

Pauper enim non est cui rerum suppetit usus:

For he is not poor, to whom the use of things suffices.

The two last examples must suggest a rather alarming idea to those who
are accustomed to propitiate the relation to whom we have just alluded,
by relinquishing _their habits_. Is it possible that he can ever _use_
one's _things_? We recommend this query to the serious consideration of
theatrical persons, and a