formed me that my facts fully demonstrated the evolution of the horse beyond question and for the first time indicated. the direct descent of an existing animal." What would Huxley say now? The whole lower floor of the new Museum is given over to a demonstration of the theory for which Huxley contended. No sooner have you entered the Gothic door facing Whitney Avenue and crossed a vaulted rotunda reproduced from the Château of Coucy than you are confronted by a placard inscribed with Tennyson's poem on evolution.

Here, manifestly, is something new in museums. Not a show merely. Not a succession of astonishments for their own sake. Not an exhibition got up mainly to elicit the exclamation, "Isn't nature wonderful?" Instead, something like the evolutionary chapters of Wells's "Outline," with each sentence accompanied by a concrete fragment of reality to establish its truth. For this is emphatically a teaching museum-as Director Richard S. Lull puts it, "a museum of ideas illustrated by specimens, and not merely a curiosity shop, as was the old conception."

In speaking of it thus Professor Lull is far from discrediting his predecessors. If they were showmen chiefly and teachers only incidentally, so were practically all museum directors then, and no one felt much disturbed when a small boy, after visiting a museum of stuffed animals, said that he had "been to a dead circus." But "dead circuses," while fascinating, can be greatly improved upon. Since the demolition of the old Peabody Museum to add room for the Memorial Quadrangle, Professor Lull and his colleagues have had a long time in which to plan improvement. During that long time they reached a conclusion that, inasmuch as the evolutionary idea is central in all modern scientific thought, the prime function of a scientific museum should be to present clearly and effectively the evolutionary idea.

Accordingly, the Museum stars its fossils. Accompanied with colored drawings of extinct animals and with maps showing how the continent underwent amazing changes as era succeeded era, they reveal the prehistoric history, so to speak, of North America. This much accomplished, a fresh serial begins the story of evolution from that earliest of living creatures, the amoeba, right on up to man himself.

Aware that museum-goers still demand something in the line of a "dead circus," Professor Lull provides here and there those entertainingly realistic "habitat cases" in which a painted background, with natural accessories, gives the speci

Courtesy of Peabody Museum

mens mens their appropriate surroundings. Devil-fish swim in an illusion of sea water. Lions slink out from their jungle abodes. A coal-age forest lives again, with tall reeds cast from actual fossil reeds, tree trunks cast from fossils, and painted to look as perhaps it really did look, while a painted background heightens the effect, showing what Pennsylvania must have been in the days when the vegetation that afterward turned to coal was thriving and when the first coal strike was still very far in the fu

ture.

At intervals, too, labels become dramatic, recalling great battles of great beasts millions of years ago. Says one such label, beneath the skeleton of a giant bird-footed dinosaur: "That the specimen here presented received a severe injury during life is shown by an elliptical hole about three inches wide in the right shoulder blade. The injury may have been received in combat with a Triceratops, for the hole is such as could have been made by the horn of that animal." Another label, beneath the skeleton of a female mastodon, reads: "The individual here shown had suffered several injuries, possibly from the tusks of rival males-a broken and healed rib on the right side, a split rib on the left, a

The latest thing

On one side the bare bones show, on the

severe injury in the front of the chest, and one on the left side of the skull just behind the ear." You look, and there are the evidences. It is as engrossing, almost, as watching those battles between great beasts in "The Lost World."

Very interesting also are certain skeletons of prehistoric lizards with wings and of prehistoric birds with teeth. Darwin, who wanted to visit America in order to see them, wrote to Marsh in 1880: "Your work on these old birds and on the many other fossil animals of North America has afforded the best support to the theory of evolution which has appeared within the last twenty years."

Whenever possible, the curators have placed specimens of surviving species alongside specimens of corresponding extinct species, and whenever possible there are conjectural models of extinct animals placed alongside their fossil skeletons. Some are by Charles R. Knight. The majority are Professor Lull's own handiwork. Moreover, Professor Lull has invented a way of combining reality and conjecture by producing half-statues of extinct animals. On one side you see the fossilized skeleton mounted on a silhouette of plaster. On the other side the plaster is modeled in the round, with contours arrived at by comparative anat

in skeletons

other is the animal as it appeared in life

omy and with coloring arrived at by applying known principles of coloration.

A great lark the curators have had arranging their Museum, but in the main they have been altogether serious, sticking to one dominant idea-that of illustrating with concrete evidence the theory of evolution. Toward the end of the series they show you how certain familiar species evolved. You witness the evolution of the elephant, the evolution of the camel, the evolution of the horse. A single display includes a model of the tiny three-toed "dawn horse," a fossil skeleton of his much bigger successor, and a fossil skeleton, still bigger, of the horse that survived in America until the ice age set in and ended his career.

These painstaking reassertions of the evolutionary doctrine, with the evidence worked out systematically over and over again and worked out finally in the case of man, would no doubt have astonished Professor Marsh, so constant is the effort to prove in 1925 what Marsh thought had been settled for good and all in 1882.

Not content with demonstrating evolution in the large, the new Museum at Yale affords demonstration of its various sub-processes, grouping together specimens illustrating heredity, specimens illustrating adaptation to environment

Having tramped the Museum's entire ground floor, you are still unfatigued, ground floor, you are still unfatigued, presumably because the simplicity of its arrangement has reduced mental exertion to a minimum. Says Professor Lull: "The old idea was to have crowded cases. Now it is to have comparatively few specimens in cases, each one telling a story, so that interest will be sustained. We are exhibiting, perhaps, one in ten of what we have." Where is the rest?

Down cellar mostly. "Our collections in storage are of tremendous importance," says Professor Lull. "Some of the material has been in the Museum for half a century and never scientifically described. It happens largely because Professor Marsh accumulated a vast deal of material for great monographs and died before more than two of the

great monographs were completed." But you will go upstairs, not down, and

on the way pause to admire two portraits. One of them shows you the genial white-haired American, George Peabody, who became a merchant, banker, and philanthropist in London, and founded this and several other American museums. The opposite portrait shows you Peabody's nephew, the brownbearded, keen-eyed O. C. Marsh, who served as a Yale professor thirty-three years without salary, spent over $250,000 of his own money in amassing his collections, and gave them outright to the Museum. "Daddy" Marsh, the students called him, much to his delight, as he was a humorous fellow appreciative of humor in others. He especially enjoyed the parody of Tennyson, beginning

"Break, break, break

At thy cold gray stones, O. C."

Upstairs in the Museum the leading attraction is a "dead circus" for the school-children of New Haven-stuffed animals and stuffed birds selected chiefly for their interest and gorgeous beauty. More important exhibits up there are as fascinating to children-stones that fell from the sky, lighted transparencies revealing the wonders of astronomy, a display of animals and birds useful in the trades, the fauna of New England, a hall filled with gleaming minerals, and another given over to the ethnological specimens gathered in regions where man is still a lovely savage.

The

Whole classes from the schools can visit the Museum. A special docent is detailed to guide them through the building and explain the exhibits-not only those on this top floor, but also the evolutionary exhibits downstairs. schools are responding enthusiastically, and New Haven's leading clergymen have publicly expressed their approval. Evidently, New Haven is a long way from Dayton, Tennessee. As evidently, it is a long time since Dr. Lyman Abbott was denounced as a heretic for writing "The Theology of an Evolutionist." Even the Yale divinity students prize the Museum. Recently one of them took first honors in Professor Lull's course in organic evolution.

At Dayton the scientists were not allowed to speak out, but at that very time the Yale scientists were preparing a concrete reply to Mr. Bryan, and here, in their new Peabody Museum, is the result. It will be increasingly effective. reporters who had "covered" the Scopes trial lately visited the Museum. Both of them remarked, "What a pity that Mr. Bryan never saw this!" The dedication ceremonies were attended by the

directors of other museums and by the editors of "Museum Work." All were impressed. Inevitably, the Yale idea will spread, and museums elsewhere will be rearranged in accordance with this plan. At Dayton Mr. Bryan declared it

"more important to know the Rock of Ages than to know the ages of the rocks" -as if belief in evolution were incompatible with belief in God. The Museum officials at Yale do not agree with Mr. Bryan as to that. When The Outlook's

correspondent questioned the director on the subject, Professor Lull answered: "We've got plenty of dinosaurs here, but not one speciman of an atheist. For my own part, I am a vestyrman of Trinity Church, down on the Green."

STEPHEN

S. WISE preached on Jesus and stirred up a hornets' nest. The Orthodox rabbis are indignant. The Methodist ministers are highly displeased. The Jewish press is unfavorable, and the Zionists, who only recently celebrated Rabbi Wise's return to their fold after a prolonged estrangement, had to see him

By B. Z. GOLDBERG

brought to the Jews in the Middle Ages. Orthodox rabbis do not want Christians to become Jews, nor are they worried lest Jews turn Christian. They have implicit faith in their religion and in the religiousness of the Jewish people. They are well satisfied to leave Jesus to the Church and let bygones be bygones.

step aside again and relinquish the very R

important chairmanship of the United Palestine Appeal, a joint drive for five million dollars for the rebuilding of Palestine as a homeland for the Jews.

Rabbis usually do not preach on Jesus. Orthodox rabbis seldom preach at all. They more often discuss points of the Law instead. Besides, Orthodox rabbis abhor religious disputes; they know their futility and what ills they

1 See editorial comment.

EFORM rabbis preach twice or thrice a week. They are sometimes short in topics for sermons. They sometimes crave for a topic that will arouse the members of their congregation and possibly cause general comment. Hence the temple will discuss subjects which the synagogue considers undignified and sensational. Occasionally a rabbi will venture far afield and discuss Christianity. This may bring the much-coveted report in the English daily paper, an

editorial in an Anglo-Jewish weekly, or a short feuilleton in the Yiddish daily. But no more. There are no synods or colleges of rabbis in the Jewish faith which may assert authority over the individual rabbi. The Jewish religion is highly individual. One rabbi ordains another, and one is as authoritative as the other, except for the additional authoritativeness that may naturally accrue to a rabbi from social prestige and scholarly attainment.

The fact that Rabbi Wise was to speak on Jesus might have aroused only small curiosity among the Jews of America. The fact that this sermon came in the week of Christmas might have raised their doubt as to the advisability of such a sermon from a rabbi at such time. They might have thought it were more tactful not to "butt in" on the

holiday of a neighbor. If Christianity is the gift of the Jew to the Christian-a Christmas gift, so to speak-the giver need not exactly mention it to the recipient just when the latter is about to relish it. Again, too many Jews celebrate Christmas, anyway, and additional prominence to this event will only increase the sales of evergreens among the West Side Jews. Besides, there was a Jewish holiday Chanuka (the Feast of Lights)within the same week. This holiday marks the victory of Judaism over Hellenism and the re-establishment of Jewish independence by the Maccabees. It particularly lends itself to Zionistic exhortation, and Rabbi Wise is the leader of American Zionism. Yet no newspaper reported a Chanuka speech by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise.

These are possible grievances, but they would have grieved no one had Rabbi Wise expressed the usual Reform-Judaic expostulations on Christianity at Christmas time—a sort of after-dinner speech, compliment and congratulations. But Rabbi Wise spoke of Jesus and of accepting Jesus, and touched the sore spot of the two religions. He made three definite statements-namely, that Jesus really did exist; that he was a great teacher; that the Jews should accept him as such and as one of their own. The statements are mild enough, yet the storm is great and is not subsiding.

IT

T is quite easy to make this out to be a struggle between Modernism and Fundamentalism in the synagogue. With very little make-up Rabbi Wise may be made to appear a martyr to liberalism in the Jewish religion and the victim of Pharisaic Orthodoxy. But the case is simply not so. There's no heresy in Rabbi Wise's statements on Jesus. Neither is there novelty or originality in them at least not for the Jew who knows his Judaism.

Rabbi Wise did not present these views as originating with him. He merely quoted Dr. Klausner, a famous Hebrew writer, editor, and now a professor in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Dr. Klausner has spent his life in the study of historical sources-Jewish, Greek, and Roman—of the life of Jesus. His book, in Hebrew, "Jesus of Nazareth" appeared, in part, in various magazines, and some three years ago was published in full at Jerusalem. Recently an English translation of the book appeared, which Rabbi Wise reviewed in his now sensational sermon on Jesus.

Orthodox Jewry did not have to wait for an English translation to know of Klausner's book. It had known of these

very same statements that Rabbi Wise made for full three years, and still raised no quarrel, for it had no quarrel to raise. Klausner asserted that Jesus did truly exist. No Jew, as a Jew, ever doubted it. The Talmud refers to Jesus in several instances. Talmudic legend tells of the punishment of Jesus in the world to come. So does post-Talmudic rabbinic literature take it for granted that Jesus truly existed. This may not have been sufficient proof for Dr. Klausner, but it sufficed for the religious Jew. Doubt of the historicity of Jesus is found only in a number of German BibelKritiker, whose pride was hurt by the thought that Arians worshiped a Semite. It is strange that the historicity of Jesus should be news to Rabbi Wise, who is President of the Jewish Institute of Religion.

Neither could Orthodox Judaism find heresy in the statement that Jesus was a teacher. Teaching is not only a religious function; it is also a secular one. Moses was not at all abashed to take a lesson in administration from the heathen Jethro. The Talmud speaks quite respectfully of the "Wise Men of the Nations," and "to learn from all men" is good Hebrew advice. There would be no objection to calling Kant or Tolstoi a teacher; what objection could there be to calling Jesus a teacher?

Nor is there any difficulty about "considering Jesus as a Jew, a fellow-Jew." If you are an Orthodox Jew, you cannot consider him otherwise. It is said in the Talmud, "An Israelite even if he transgressed an Israelite still he is," and a Jewish convert to another religion is considered merely as a "transgressor" and is counted as a Jew in all respects, except that he may be deprived of certain privileges and distinctions, as rabbis may see fit.

THE

HE only possible element of heresy in Rabbi Wise's sermon may obtain in his reference to "accepting Jesus." Of course, he did not advise to accept Jesus as the Christ, for that would be plain and full conversion to Christianity. If he meant to accept Jesus and his teachings in the same sense that he might have advised his congregation to accept James and Dewey and pragmatism, there would be no heresy, of course, but there might be objection. Jews might say to Rabbi Wise: "Now, look here, the ethical teachings of Jesus we do not need; we have had them right along-in fact, Jesus took them from us. Hasn't the Sermon on the Mount its Jewish sources, and did not Jesus say he came to fulfill the Law, not to break it? The theology

of Jesus we do not want, if we want to remain Jews; we cannot afford even to let Jesus restate our own ethics for fear that he bring in with them his theology. We do not need Jesus. The world needs him; let her have him."

Again, Rabbi Wise may have meant to say that Jews should accept Jesus on equal grounds with the prophets of the Old Testament. That would be no shock to the unreligious Jew. He has already accepted Jesus in this sense. Denying divine inspiration, the Bible is only literature to him, and the New Testament is as much Jewish literature as the Old. Prophets were poets, and the difference between Jesus and Isaiah is their difference in beauty of style or loftiness of thought. But the religious Jew, except the ultra-Reform, cannot accept the New Testament on the same basis as the Old. If he denies divine inspiration to both of them, he is an atheist; if he grants it to both of them, he is Christian. A Jew must affirm the one and deny the other.

Now what did Rabbi Wise mean by "accepting Jesus"?

He most assuredly meant to make a speech, and, like all great orators, he is often carried away by fine phrase and noble sentiment. There was the Klausner book with its remarks about accepting Jesus, and Rabbi Wise forgot that Klausner. is the individual Jew who needs only to deny Christ to be Jew, while Stephen S. Wise is a rabbi, who is expected to have religious attitudes and conviction.

I

T is a sign of the religious tension of the times that Rabbi Wise's sermon should have raised such a storm of protest. The apparent lack of toleration is to be decried, of course, but it also needs to be understood. Both Jew and Christian feel strongly about Jesus. One affirms him, the other denies him; but both are on the same ground of faith and reverence. Both are averse to wiping away their historical differences with a mere phrase. The Jew can understand. and in a measure sympathize with the Christian's displeasure at Rabbi Wise's making Jesus a mere teacher. Both realize that with most people to-day one's religion is chiefly "anti-any-otherreligion," a faith of denial rather than of affirmation, and that nothing will be gained by reducing various religions to one common level of shallowness and empty words; it is only through reaching. toward their own inner selves and being honestly themselves that the religions of the world will approach one another. No harm if the steeples vary, so long as all are built upon rock.

At Ebbs

Kent is proud of her history. The two-thousand-years-old road, called in many sections Watling Street, still goes from London to Dover. The ancient British track-the Pilgrims Roadwhich the Pilgrims walked on their way to Becket's tomb at Canterbury, may still be traced and walked. fleet, by Pegwell Bay, St. Augustine landed; here also landed Hengest and his war band. Richborough (the Roman station Rutupiæ) still gazes over the marshes to ancient Sandwich. To-day the coast towns from Margate to Folkstone are in summer-time the playground of hundreds of thousands.

All this is threatened. Coal-incredibly abundant-has been found in East Kent, in some of the very places where so much history has been made, where so many orchards have blossomed, and where so many Londoners have bathed and played on the sands.

Dover, the Gateway of England, is in the coal area; so are Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich; so are a hundred and more little ancient villages, the names of many of them mentioned in Domesday Books;

Wingham

Woodnesborough

An Anxious London Le

half-timbered houses, with twisty white lanes leading to them, and all around, as far as the eye can see, orchards and meadows.

Coal can do what the enemy could never do. Coal will conquer East Kent. It just misses Canterbury on the west; it just misses Ramsgate on the north; it just misses Folkstone on the south; but the coal field area is huge enough, alas! to break the heart of the nature lover.

"Coal in Kent" has been the "Wolf!

wolf!" cry for so many years that men of Kent and Kentishmen scattered through England and through the world had almost ceased to regard the

cry.

As far back as 1855 the fact of coal in Kent was deduced by Mr. GodwinAusten in a paper which he read before the Geological Society. Thirty-five years later, in 1890, when Sir Edward Watkin was trying by speech and deed to persuade the Government to undertake the Channel tunnel scheme, coal was found by him at the foot of Shakespeare Cliff; but the boring proved unprofitable.

The appetite of the coal seekers had been whetted. Man after man took the coal fever. It is said that since the abortive attempt at the foot of Shakespeare Cliff forty companies have devoted a capital of some ten million pounds to the search. They found coal and they found ironstone, and they per

Wickhambreux

Deal

Chillenden Court