ber was almost unmanageable; at St. Louis in 1904 the volume of exhibits " produced a condition approaching mental nightmare.' It is therefore the purpose of the directors of the Panama Exposition at San Francisco to make every exhibit not only the best possible of its kind, but a real index of historical and educational progress. If the people of the United States give their support to this Exposition, as we believe they will, it ought to be a great agency for industrial, social, and educational progress in this country and for the strengthening of cordial international relations of the United States with Europe on the one hand and with the Orient on the other.

Engravings and Etchings

Mr. FitzRoy Carrington, a partner in the firm of Messrs. Frederick Keppel & Co., of New York City, and an authority on engravings and etchings, has been appointed curator of the Department of Prints in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. He will also deliver at Yale University a course of lectures on prints, a chair having been endowed for that purpose. Mr. Carrington will also continue to edit the "Print Collectors' Quarterly," which is to be taken over by Messrs. Keppel & Co., and published by the Boston Museum. All this forms an interesting event in the world of art. It is Mr. Carrington's hope that a Society of Print Lovers in America may be formed. We hope so, too. Indeed, it would seem as if it had already been formed by the happy co-operation between the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard University. It would be well if a representative collection of prints might be established in every great city. The example of the Boston Museum should be an incentive to others. Its Bulletin of Fine Arts" states that "the print department of this museum has now more than sixty thousand prints, a collection which shows the history of the art from its beginning, and contains examples of the work of all the great masters." There is no reason why Boston should have sixty thousand prints and New York and Chicago not so great a collection in quantity and quality. Then, too, Boston has the advantage of having access to both its own museum treasures and those at the Fogg Museum at Harvard. This may stir the people in general, and particularly the art patrons, in any community to some attempt at imitation. In our largest collections there

66

603

should be a good print made of nearly every important etching or engraving.

THE PHILIPPINES AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

When the news of the Democratic victory in the Presidential and Congressional elections reached the Philippine Islands, the political leaders of the Philippines, who have long been agitating for the independence of the islands, had a great celebration. Indeed, it is reported that a gathering of twenty thousand Filipinos in Manila "indulged in the wildest jubilation," and that, for the first time since his capture as an enemy of the United States, Aguinaldo; the leader of the Filipino insurrection, appeared in public and made a political speech.

This was not a celebration by the people of the Philippines as a whole. The population of the Philippine Islands consists not of one race or of a number of races in the same stage of progress toward civilization, but of a variety of races, including people well advanced and people in a very primitive stage. Among those who have been most influenced by European standards are the Tagalogs. It has been chiefly a group of Tagalog leaders who enjoy political contests and the exercise of political power that have agitated the question of independence. Whether independence for the Filipinos is regarded as desirable or not, the demand for it on the part of Filipino politicians, with the support of many who live in Manila, is not identical either with the demand for it on the part of the Filipino people, or with evidence that the Filipino people are ready for independence.

It is plain, however, that, so far as these Tagalog leaders are concerned, the election of a Democrat to the Presidency of the United States, together with the election of a Democratic majority in Congress, has given the impression that the United States is about ready to promise that it will withdraw from the Philippines and leave the Filipinos to their own devices. It is not strange that such an expectation on the part of Tagalog leaders should be the cause of rejoicing among them; for if the United States were to withdraw, it would be these leaders and members of their race who would succeed to power over the islands.

It is a good sign, this ambition on the part of the Tagalogs and their leaders to secure

The

power and accept responsibility. An unambitious people is never a strong, efficient people. It is good for the Tagalogs to rejoice at what they regard as their certain prospect of advancement to authority. question is whether they are deluding themselves with a false prospect, and whether they should be intrusted with the care of hundreds of thousands of their fellow-Filipinos.

That there is ground for this expectation on the part of the Tagalogs is shown by the fact that the Democratic platform favors 66 an immediate declaration of the Nation's purpose to recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as soon as a stable government can be established, such independence to be guaranteed by us until the neutralization of the .islands can be secured by treaty with other Powers." What this means specifically may fairly be inferred from the report of the Democratic majority in the Committee on Insular Affairs at the last session of Congress. That majority approved a bill which would provide that after July 4, 1921, the United States would relinquish all sovereignty over the islands. It is true that the President-elect, Mr. Wilson, has not, so far as we know, committed himself to this specific plan, but has been content with saying that it is our duty as trustees on behalf of the Filipino people to make whatever arrangement of government will be most serviceable to their freedom and development."

The Outlook reiterates its belief that the independence of the Philippine Islands, or even a promise of independence at a specific date, would not be conducive to self-government in the Philippines; that it will be "most serviceable to their freedom and development" for the United States to continue the process of education which has been carried on since the Spanish War; that the present available evidence indicates that the people of the Philippine Islands are not yet ready for any considerable enlargement of the franchise or of the expansion of their legislative powers; that the maintenance of order, the protection of life and of property, the firm establishment of institutions of liberty, must for some time be under the responsible guidance of the United States in as great a degree as at present; that there is no reason why the people should not look forward to the time when they will take larger responsibilities upon themselves; and that there is no reason to believe that the time will ever necessarily come when the

people of the islands will be, or will wish to be, any more independent of the United States than Canada at present is independent of Great Britain.

The United States has assumed responsibility for the Philippine Islands, and it cannot rid itself of that responsibility by evading any duties that have come in the course of the years. If the Nation should grant independence to the Philippines, the United States would not be absolved from moral responsibility for any disaster that might come in consequence. It is conceivable, of course, that a Democratic Congress might pass a bill such as that recommended by the Committee on Insular Affairs. We hope it is not possible for Mr. Wilson to sign such a bill; but if such a promise as is involved in that bill were made to the Filipinos, we do not see how the United States could honorably refuse to keep it.

The Philippine question has not been a conspicuous question in the past campaign. The American people have not given any indication that they have changed their minds with regard to the right policy toward the Philippines. If such action as is contemplated in the Democratic platform and the proposed Philippine Bill is taken, it would seem to be irrevocable. We do not believe any party has the right to take such irrevocable action in so great a matter without a clear command from the people.

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH LIFE?

"Science" publishes an interesting report of a recent address by the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science on "The Nature, Origin, and Maintenance of Life." Recognizing the difficulty of defining life, repudiating the notion that it is synonymous with soul, declaring that "the more obvious manifestation of life is spontaneous' movement,' Professor Schaeffer argues, with a great variety of scientific illustration, that science is pointing toward a solution of the long-vexed question, What is the origin of life? The non-scientific reader will not easily follow Professor Schaeffer's scientific arguments. The scientific reader may be referred to the issue of " Science" for September 6, 1912. It must suffice for our purpose here to state the author's conclusions in his own-words :

"We may fairly conclude that all changes

in living substances are brought about by ordinary chemical and physical forces."

Or again: "We are led to regard it [life] as having been produced, not by a sudden alteration, whether executed by a material or supernatural agency, but by a gradual process of change from material which was lifeless, through material in the borderland between inanimate and animate, to material which has all the characteristics to which we attach the term 'life.'"

Or again: "Is there any valid reason to conclude that at some previous period of its history our earth was more favorably circumstanced for the production of life than it is now? I have vainly sought for such reason, and, if none be forthcoming, the conclusion forces itself upon us that the evolution of nonliving into living substances has happened more than once-and we can be by no means sure that it may not be happening still."

These speculations concerning the origin of life are curious and interesting, perhaps even profitable. But they have nothing to do with living a moral and religious life. They are like the question of the small boy to his father: "What was there before there was anything, and how did it happen?" It was not necessary for the boy to get a satisfactory answer to his question in order to be a good boy. It is not necessary for us to understand the origin of life in order to live good lives as reverent children of our Father in heaven.

Whatever is the origin of matter and of life, it is certain that man has not originated them. But man can direct them; and morality consists in giving a right direction to them. If a man discharges a pistol, he does not create energy, he releases the energy which is stored in the gunpowder and directs it what to do. If he directs it to defend his wife from the assault of a ruffian, he performs a moral act. If he directs it to kill a rival, he performs an immoral act. If a man signs his name, he does not create life; he uses life, which is a form of energy. "Our life," says Professor Schaeffer, "is not a single indivisible property, capable of being blown out with a puff like the flame of a candle; but is the aggregate of the lives of many millions of living cells of which the body is composed." When a man signs his name, he releases and utilizes the energy which is stored in certain of these cells. If he uses it to sign a check which will send

some of his money to feed famine-stricken China, his act is moral. If he uses it to sign some other man's name to à check in order to rob him of his money, his act is immoral.

What is the origin of life, or whether it ever had an origin, is a curious and interesting question. But there is no doubt that man can direct this energy to fulfill his will. His character depends, not on the origin of life, but on the use he makes of it. The question as to the origin of life is not a moral question. We can direct life into useful channels and employ it for the betterment of our fellow-men, whatever opinion scientists may entertain as to its origin.

Nor is the origin of life a religious question. Whether matter produces life, or matter is a form of life, or the two have existed from eternity, or one or both have had a supernatural origin, are not religious questions. The answer which philosophy makes to these questions has no necessary effect on the religious life.

Moral philosophy affirms that man can direct life into wise channels-that is, he has intelligence; and into beneficent channels— that is, he can be moral. Religion affirms that the life of the universe is directed into wise channels by an intelligence more far-seeing than man's, and into beneficent channels by a benevolence greater than man's. Belief in morality is not belief that man can originate life, but that he can direct life. Belief in religion is not belief that God originated life; it is the belief that he directs life. Creation is not making something out of nothing by a divine fiat. It is making order out of chaos by an intelligent direction and control. The declaration in Genesis i. 1, that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," does not mean that he made something out of nothing. It is a summary of the creative process described in the rest of the chapter. "How long the pre-existing waste and emptiness of chaos existed, and how long the darkness prevailed over the primal waters before the quickening spirit or breath of God brooded over its surface, we do not know."1 We revere, not an imaginary Being who in some distant epoch made something out of nothing and started a universe on its career; we revere a Being who is constantly directing this life of the universe so as to fulfill his beneficent purposes-a Being who directs all the life in the universe, from that which is

'Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible. Compare also International Critical Commentary.

manifested in a globule of water to that which is manifested in the orderly movements of uncounted millions of worlds.

As the life of the body is the aggregate of the lives of many millions of cells of which the body is composed, so the life of society is the aggregate of the lives of many individuals of which society is composed. As man can direct the lives of these cells in the body to a predetermined end, so men can direct the lives of these freely acting individuals in society to a predetermined end. On this faith in the power of man to direct life not only all individual morality but also all social reform is based.

As great men have a power to direct the free life of society in wise channels and to right ends, not by physical force but by moral inspiration and guidance, so there is an Intelligence higher than the highest and a Benevolence greater than the greatest which can and does direct the free life of society toward methods that are wise and toward results that are right. Call it God, call it what you will, there is a directing power in life that shapes our ends,

Rough-hew them how we will."

We cannot always understand what this Being is doing; we cannot always comprehend his designs, any more than the child in his pinafore can understand all that his father is doing or comprehend all his father's designs. But we can see that there is a

N

design in history as there is a design in nature. And we revere the Eternal, not because he is the Creator of life, but because we can see that he is directing life to ends that we see are intelligently planned and that we believe are beneficent in purpose.

It is not important that the passenger in a steamship should know how the steam in the boiler is generated. It is very important that he should know whether there is an intelligent pilot on the bridge who can guide the ship in safety, or whether the ship goes whithersoever the forces of wind and waves carry it. It is not important that we should know what is the origin of either matter or life, or even whether they ever had an origin or whether both have existed from eternity. It is very important that we should know whether we are machines blindly obeying the wires that pull us and whether the universe is a bigger machine without a ruler.

Morality is founded on faith in ourselves; faith that we have an intelligence and a will which enable us to direct our lives according to our predetermined purpose. Religion is founded on faith in God; faith in an Intelligence higher than our own and a Benevolence greater than our own, directing life to the fulfillment of a predetermined purpose.

Morality and religion do not depend on the question, What is the origin of life? Both are founded on the faith that life can be wisely directed by intelligence and rightly directed by benevolence.

O one can understand what is happening in the Balkan Peninsula to-day without a little knowledge of what has happened there during the last fifteen hundred years.

At the beginning of the fifth century the great Roman Empire tottered on the brink of its fall. It had become Christian, but Christianity had not been able to stop the .corruption that was eating into it.

The emperors had long abandoned old Rome-the Rome on the Tiber-and had made their capital at the new Rome on the Bosphorus, the city founded by Constantine, where the old Greek city of Byzantium already stood. Soon after the opening of the fifth century the barbarians swarmed across the border,

and in the West the Roman Empire speedily came to an end until revived in wholly different form by Charlemagne. But in the East it persisted for a thousand years longer, gradually becoming a Greek rather than a Roman Empire, and often taking the name of Byzantine, from the Greek town which Constantine changed into the Rome on the Bosphorus. This new Rome became for many centuries the most wonderful city in the world. It has generally been called, after its founder, Constantinople. But the name of Rome still haunts these eastern European regions where the Romans once held sway. To this day the Moslems of Asia speak of the Turkish Sultan as the Lord of Roum, and his European possessions are

often called Roumelia, while one of the nations. which has emerged from beneath the retiring Turkish sea is called Roumania.

When, fifteen hundred years, ago the barbarians crossed the Imperial frontier, there were three peoples dwelling in the Balkan Peninsula. These were the Greeks, who spoke the Greek tongue; the old Illyrians, whom we now call Albanians, along the

Adriatic, north of Greece; and the Romanized colonists and natives, including the Roman settlers whom Trajan had established across the Danube in Dacia after its conquest. The barbarians who pressed into the Eastern Roman Empire and the Balkan Peninsula were not Teutons, like those who overran Britain, Gaul, Spain, and Italy, but Slavs. Both the Slavs and the Teutons were Aryan