With Upton Sinclair announcing a new novel called "Boston", in which one assumes that the foundations of the city will be rocked and shattered, with Elmer Davis asking in Harper's "What Has Happened to Boston?", with the memory not yet obliterated of the funeral oration on Boston delivered in the pages of last year's American Mercury, and with the Nation's fervent and constant gibes in the direction of the metropolis of the Commonwealth, what journalists name the "Bub" is apparently in a bad, bad way. The comparison most often cited is that of decadent Rome--the parallel being in the fact that both cities lost their majesties, the one through luxury, the other through misplaced Puritanism.

There are pros and there are cons to this discussion and even the non-resident undergraduate can offer certain of his views. Boston has these in its favor: the Charles River, the State House (architecturally speaking), the Public Gardens in the spring, an excellent array of burlesque houses, beans, the intersection of Boylston and Tremont streets on a windy day, an interesting and odiferous market section, an Irish aristocracy which came over on the Mayflower, an English aristocracy which came over so long ago that it has forgotten the exact era, a charmingly decrepit business district, and good train and boat connections elsewhere. There are other assets but these save the city from utter blacklisting.

On the debit side may be listed: superabundance in cobbles in the streets, newsboys with Back Bay accents. Dudley Street surface cars, Friday afternoon audiences at the Symphony, the South Station, Mechanics Hall, old Boston ladies, old Boston gentlemen, hot weather, cold weather, and a tendency towards pompousness. One may add that there are also other debits. But after the assets are balanced with the liabilities . . . one has . . . one has a collection of opinions and sentiments.