the palmy days of the Daly Theatre will always think of Drew as a bright particular star in that gracious and friendly company that included Mrs. G. H. Gilbert, Ada Rehan, James Lewis, and others. A long series of light dramas, widely diversified in character and including a few revivals of the older dramas, delighted audiences who came to look upon Daly's as a regular part of their lives. Those whose memory reaches not quite so far back will probably think with greatest pleasure of Drew's long run in 1896 with Maude Adams in "Rosemary," in which romance tinged with gentle sadness gave the two stars an equal share in pleasing and moving audiences. Others will remember Drew's part in the revival of "The Taming of the Shrew," first seen at Daly's with Ada Rehan as Katharina, but played by him more recently. Here for once Drew as Petruchio was farcical and boisterous in the acting, but so was Shakespeare in the writing. Still other play-goers will testify that when almost or quite seventy Drew played in Sheridan's "School for Scandal" with fire and dash.

It is related that when Ethel Barrymore stood hesitating on her first stage appearance some one in the gallery called out: "Speak up, Ethel. Don't be afraid. The Drews is all good actors." They certainly have been; and perhaps

H

Underwood & Underwood

John Drew 1853-1927

most memorable of all of them was John Drew, the courteous, witty gentleman, off and on the stage.

AVING to take an early morning railway journey the other day, I looked about on the shelves of a country house where I was temporarily staying for a book that could be easily slipped into a coat pocket. Moreover, I sought something with a useful, literary flavor that would ease my conscience after I had enjoyed to the full the "sports" pages of the morning paper. I wished to convince that sensitive New England organ that my real taste was for the intellectual life, and that my interest in the supremacy of the "Yankees" on the diamond, in Babe Ruth's or "Columbia Lou" Gehrig's home runs, in Jack Dempsey's efforts to achieve a "comeback," in Bobby Jones's heroic pilgrimage to St. Andrews, in the defeat of the Harvard-Yale track team by their Oxford-Cambridge rivals, in the contests of Helen Wills and William Tilden at Wimbledon, in the excellent record of the Kent School crew on the placid waters of the Thames-that this inter

est was only superficial, after all, and that my real absorption was in the life of the mind, not the life of the body.

Luckily for me-since the car was waiting at the door to take me to the station and there was little time for reflection or selection-I spied at once a pocket-sized little volume bound in blue and gold, one of those bibclots that are chosen for wedding gifts or birthday presents because of their looks and not because they possess any inherent value. In this case, however, the donor had chosen this petit objet de luxe qui se place sur un cheminée, une étagère, etc., objet futile et de peu de valeur, as Larousse somewhat contemptuously defines the term, more wisely than he or she knew-probably, I think, a she, if one may judge from the gilded cover and the red-lined title-page. For this dainty boudoir booklet contained twenty-seven selected "Essays of Elia." What Charles Lamb would say if he could see his "dream children" thus decked out in furbelows is not hard to imagine, for he

was the least pernickety of English writers and abhorred-no, abhorred is not the right word-rather, he habitually and quizzically laughed at affectation and artificiality.

But-to paraphrase Robert Burnswhatever may be its dress a book's a book for a' that. So I thrust the little etui-like collection of essays into my coat pocket.

Now I confess that I did this not with spontaneous enthusiasm, but under some degree of compulsion. The little book answered to the momentary requirements of space and time. With more leisure and more room, I suppose I should have chosen some other essayist than Lamb, notwithstanding the fact that E. V. Lucas, the greatest of Elia's living apostles, says that he is "perhaps the sweetest, sanest, and most human of English prose writers." I should doubtless have preferred, if they had been at hand, Augustine Birrell's "Obiter Dicta" or "Res Judicatæ;" for Birrell, to my taste, is one of the pleasantest of contemporary English essayists. Birrell's portrait of George Borrow is at least comparable to Lamb's portraits of Mrs. Battle and Fanny Kelly, and-since I am indulging in the dangerous pastime of comparisons-let me add, at the risk of lese-majesty, that neither surpasses the character sketch of John Cavanagh, the handball player, by Lamb's friend Hazlitt. I have sometimes felt not quite educated up to Lamb. While in this respect I would not claim admission to William Lyon Phelps's admirable order of "Ignoble Prize Winners," I think I ought to receive a certificate of honorable mention for the confession.

On the train, when I had scanned the newspaper and finished the daily crossword puzzle-perhaps with that admission my readers will discern why my mind is not up to the highest refinements of English prose-I took out of my pocket my blue-and-gold essays with a feeling of literary self-righteousness. "Thank God," I thought to myself, "I am not as other men are who spend their railway journeys in reading the popular magazines!"

My first pleasurable surprise was to find that reading Lamb gave me some excuse for my commonplace tastes instead of making me ashamed of them. Cross-word puzzles, for example. I found two new words, both wholly unfamiliar to me, which I gladly pass on to the cross-word fraternity without definition, leaving them to look up the meanings in the dictionary, as I was compelled to do-not on the train, of course. but later. One is the verb

"endenizened," which appears in the essay on "Books and Reading;" the other is the noun "neoteric," which Lamb uses in writing on "Imagination in Modern Art." If it be an educational process to learn daily something new about the novelties and flexibilities of our noble English tongue, then crossword puzzles have their place, and in this function Lamb would certainly have approved them.

My prickings of mediocrity were also soothed by finding that Lamb, "the sanest and most human of English prose writers," liked "The Winter's Tale." "Winter evenings-the world shut outwith less of ceremony," says Elia in commending books to read, "the gentle Shakespeare enters. At such a season, the 'Tempest,' or his own 'Winter's Tale."" Now for many years "The Winter's Tale" has been one of my favorites, but I have concealed the fact because the critics have frowned upon it as a hasty and ill-constructed piece of work. Richard Grant White, one of the wisest, most accomplished, and most readable of Shakespearean scholars and critics, has this to say about the charming story of Hermione and Perdita:

He [Shakespeare] was as indifferent in regard to anachronism as he was in regard to the unities of time and place.

That disregard . culminates in "The Winter's Tale," one of his very latest plays, in which the very semblance of them is so disregarded that it affects to a certain. degree even a reader's enjoyment of it. Well, it does not affect my enjoyment of it, nor, apparently did it affect Charles Lamb's. When he was enjoying a fairy tale, he did not allow reason or logic to interfere. Indeed, he says in his chat on "Some of the Old Actors:"

H

"When an actor comes, and instead of the delightful phantom-the creature dear to half-belief-... displays before our eyes a downright concretion . . . when, instead of investing it with a delicious confusedness of the head, he gives to it a downright daylight understanding, we feel the discord of the thing. . . . We want [him] turned out. We feel that his true place is not behind the curtain, but in the first or second gallery." No, Lamb was last of all a realist. To him the imagination was not an orderly, systematic faculty. He knew how little it cares for "the unities of time and place." Otherwise he could not have tolerated the grave-digger in "Hamlet" or Autolycus, the English village clown, in a semi-classical romance. The great fact about Lamb is that his philosophy of life was that of Autolycus, who puts into a quatrain a comprehensive truth which some philosophers have failed to get into four volumes:

Jog on, jog on, the foot-path way,
And merrily hent the stile-a:
A merry heart goes all the day,

Your sad tires in a mile-a.

I like to think that it was Autolycus who led Lamb on stormy wintry evenings to open "The Winter's Tale" in front of "a clear fire and a clean hearth." If not a merry man, Lamb was certainly a happy one, and was buoyed by an unfailing sense of humor. When William Hazlitt made his unhappy marriage, Lamb's sister Mary was the bridesmaid and Lamb was one of the three or four guests present. He realized the misfit, which finally resulted in separation, and later he said to his friend Southey, the poet, that he was almost sent out of the room during the ceremony, for "anything awful makes me

laugh." Lamb was like Dr. Johnson and John Holmes, the younger brother of Oliver Wendell Holmes, in this respect his devoted friends were drawn to him by a liking for his personality rather than by any conscious admiration of his literary genius. It is their humanity rather than their artistry, finished as that may be, which has drawn to the "Essays of Elia" perennially thousands of gently satisfied readers. I have already quoted E. V. Lucas; in his intimate and loyal "Life of Charles Lamb" he calls the author of the "Essays of Elia" "the most lovable figure in English literature." A high tribute! But an incident he relates goes far to justify the assertion:

A little while ago I heard a story which illustrates the affectionate regard in which Lamb's name is held. A blue-coat boy [Lamb was a bluecoat boy more than a hundred years ago], walking through a residential street in London, was astonished to hear himself hailed by a strange, bareheaded, elderly gentleman standing on a doorstep. "Come here, boy," he cried, "come here;" and when the boy reached him he pressed a five-shilling piece into his hand, with the words, "In memory of Charles Lamb."

I wonder whether a hundred years hence some bareheaded, elderly gentleman, standing on a doorstep in New Haven, will call to his side a passing Yale freshman and, pressing into his hand a five-dollar gold piece, exclaim, "In memory of Sinclair Lewis!"

Such are some of the impressions made by my small blue-and-gold companion in a short hour. Certainly a slice of Lamb, however thin and hastily cut, makes a palatable and nutritious literary snack on a railway journey.

ENRY FORD controls the Dearborn "Independent." By means of his organization for the distribution of his automobiles, he has a ready access to the public. His weekly journal has therefore a wide circulation and wherever it goes carries the prestige of his name. Because he has built up his enormous business upon his confidence in the common people he has established in the common people an extraordinary confidence in him. Therefore whatever appears in the Dearborn "Independent" is accepted by hosts of readers on the strength of Henry Ford's supposed indorsement. For several years the Dearborn "Independent" has carried

on a journalistic campaign against Jews. Although this campaign has been directed in particular to Jews active and powerful in what is called "international finance," it has been accepted widely as a systematic warning against the influence of Jews in general. Among those whom the Dearborn "Independent" has mentioned by name is Aaron Sapiro, who has been active in promoting farm co-operatives. Mr. Sapiro brought against Henry Ford a suit for libel. There was a mistrial. The significant facts in this case have already been reported in The Outlook. Mr. Sapiro's suit against Mr. Ford was not abandoned,

Suddenly at least without any preliminary statements that prepared the public for it-there appeared in the newspapers on July 8 a statement signed by Mr. Ford repudiating the Dearborn "Independent's" anti-Jewish campaign and apologizing to the Jews generally for it. In that statement he says that trusted friends have assured him that the character of the charges and insinuations made against the Jews in many of the articles in the Dearborn "Independent" "justifies the righteous indignation entertained by Jews everywhere toward me." He expresses his deep mortification that the Dearborn "Independent" "has been made the medium

for resurrecting exploded fictions, for giving currency to the so-called Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, which have been demonstrated, as I learn, to be gross forgeries, and for contending that the Jews have been engaged in a conspiracy to control the capital and industries of the world, besides laying at their door many offenses against decency, public order, and good morals." Though recognizing that there are black sheep in every flock, he declares that he is aware of the virtues of the Jewish people as a whole, that it is wrong to judge a people by a few individuals. He declares himself greatly shocked as a result of his study and examination of the files of the Dearborn "Independent" and deems it his duty as an honorable man to make amends for the wrong done to the Jews as fellow-men and brothers. He explains that the multitude of his activities made it impossible for him to keep informed as to the contents of the Dearborn "Independent" and the pamphlets entitled "The International Jew," and that he had trusted those to whom he had delegated their conduct and policies.

Elsewhere in this issue we comment editorially upon Mr. Ford's apology.

In response to a telegraphic request of the Editor-in-Chief of The Outlook, the following despatches have been received by The Outlook. These three replies come from three great sections of the country-the Northwest, the Central West, and the South; and they represent both Jew and Gentile:

From William Allen White

An editor who has made Emporia, Kansas known throughout the Nation as the place of publication of the Emporia "Gazette," which he controls and edits; a public-spirited citizen who has the almost unique distinction of being an admirer and follower of the two most contrasted and probably most mutually hostile public men of modern times and perhaps in American history, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson; a novelist who has applied to American life the kind of analysis that the greater fiction writers of English have applied to England; a vigorous, salty writer.

Henry Ford, according to his own story, allowed the "Independent" to abuse Jews unmercifully because of their race. He now seems to have concluded that the "Independent" will not abuse the Jews unmercifully.

A man with the tremendous responsibility that comes with an ownership of a

paper like Ford's who would idly or carelessly or ignorantly use his power to pain and humiliate millions of his fellowmen has no qualities as an editor which his fellow-men are bound to respect. His change of opinion is unimportant. The fact that his changed opinion will relieve the Jews of a gadfly's sting does not render the gadfly more intelligent.

Ford has one talent in his little bag of tricks. That talent is a certain knack of industrial organization. That idea has revolutionized the industrial world and has made a vast social change in America. His ideas and opinions in ethics, politics, and literature are silly and insignificant. It is a sad commentary on humanity that Ford's great wealth has not revealed his ignorance, his mental sloth, and his incapacity to think.

Man is always inclined to feel that greatness in one field of activity presumes greatness in all activities.

W. A. WHITE.

From Samuel R. Stern

An American of Jewish ancestry and faith; an eminent and respected citizen of the State of Washington; a lawyer of distinction and ability, member of the firm of Stern and Cohen; a former President of the Washington State Bar Association and former counsel for the Great Northern Railway Company and Harriman Lines at Spokane. He has been a valued contributor to The Outlook.

Mr. Ford's recent contacts and experiences have undoubtedly taught him what others are fast learning from longer and more intimate association, that the masses of the Jewish people are quite as reliable, reputable, and religiously honest as his own and many other of the civilized peoples of the world.

He has learned his lesson, and is apparently trying to make the amende honorable. His efforts should be and, I think, will be received by my people in the true Christian spirit so well exemplified by the Jew. His newly acquired consciousness is the result of first-hand, not second-hand, or even more remote, sources of information. He has had the manhood to admit his error. Selah. While the unfortunate consequences of his ill-advised efforts in the past cannot be minimized, nevertheless his willingness to ameliorate them cannot be overlooked and must be commended. His idea is one of confession, and not avoidWe owe him our acknowledgments for this.

ance.

In Seattle the pastor of the largest and probably most influential Presby

terian congregation has heretofore vouchsafed for the truth of the charges which Mr. Ford now admits were unfounded. If he and other anti-Semites will follow Mr. Ford's example, and try and minimize instead of augment prejudice against Jews, Mr. Ford's belated efforts may not be fruitless. If the mainspring which set the Ford confession in motion will cause others to follow his example, we may yet attain a real brotherhood of man. If he can afford to admit an error, why cannot others? While the lamp holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return.

SAMUEL R. STERN.

From the Atlanta "Constitution," edited by Clark Howell

An editor who, succeeding Henry W. Grady as managing editor and his own father as editor-in-chief, has not only maintained the Atlanta "Constitution" as a great organ of Southern opinion as well as one of the outstanding newspapers of the country, but has contributed to the development of its character; for several terms a member and for his final year Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives; one of the distinguished men of America. The request from The Outlook went to Mr. Howell. The reply is signed "The Constitution."

The "Constitution" says editorially of Ford's retraction and apology to the Jews:

"Although manly and courageous, the retraction is no more than Mr. Ford should have made. The pity is it was not made long ago. And the greater pity is that a Nationally circulated magazine, with the name of one of the most extensively known men of the world at its masthead, should ever have permitted such baseless attacks to have begun.

"The Jewish people as a whole are among the most patriotic, most charitable, and most constructive of any group in the business and National life of the Nation. They have never turned a deaf ear to the call of their country, whether to arms or to the relief of human suffering or to the financing of war. They have served their Government in many and momentous capacities of honor and trust and responsibility. In municipal and community life they have been active in civic affairs, in education, in culture, and in the economic betterment of the people.

"As a group the Jewish people predominate in several lines of business, but they are particularly fair. This is illus

TWO

By CHARLES K. TAYLOR

The basic reason for the failure is very fundamental. Our chlld-teaching programmes, in subject more than in presentation, are constructed from a wrong angle. That is, they are based on an adult conception as to what a child should know, and not upon a knowledge of the concepts that a child can understand and appreciate through his various stages of development.

I do not for a moment wish to imply that a child should be taught only those things he likes and can understand. There are many vitally important matters that a child must learn, whether he wishes to or not, and whether he understands or not. It is difficult to have patience with the sentimentalist dictum that a child should be taught only those things in which, by some expedient or other, he can be interested. Here is a theory that implies that adult experience is of small value, despite the fact that such progress as the race is able to make is built upon its experiences--its failures as well as its successes. It is, in fact, very necessary for a child's welfarephysical, mental, and moral-that very decided steps be taken in his training on the part of those who are responsible.

So there are things a child must be taught; and taught over and over again, until reactions become automatic. But when one would base

ethical and religious training on automatism of the same kind we strike a very abject kind of failure. By sharp punishment or reiterated warning a child may learn to avoid a danger that he might not comprehend. But when it comes to developing mental attitudes and concepts that will affect behavior during stress, then it is that we meet a totally different problem. The understanding must be appealed to, and, as has been said, the ethical concepts presented must be those that can be comprehended by children of the maturity concerned. Merely putting a highly complex concept in words of one syllable (a very common Sunday-school practice) will not do. We must painstakingly find just what the child can comprehend, and then we can act effectively.

But all this may seem to be a very difficult affair. Fortunately, it is not too difficult. Perhaps a brief description of an experiment in this direction may be suggestive to those who are directly concerned in ethical teaching as well as the work of the Sunday school.

A little time ago the writer presented a large number of every-day, simple ethical concepts to a considerable group of school-children in a number of public and private schools. Every effort was made to learn what concepts were actually understood at the different ages. Sometimes, if an idea did not "get across," then a different mode of presentation was tried, sometimes with success. The result was the obtaining of a series of matters that can be understood, and hence rationally acted upon, by children of progressive age groups.

It would be tedious-not to speak of the length to list all of the subjects studied. We can, however, perceive the method by the use of one example. It was found that at about seven years

a child has gained very definite ideas as to what is meant by possession. In fact, this comes very early, but the rights of others have not become clear at all. A young child is likely to be honest more through fear or habit than from any other reason. And it was also found that at this age, roughly, a child can be brought to appreciate the rights of others in their own possessions. One such group of children was asked what would happen if no one could at any time trust another. The question method is much better than any formal "talk to children." They are induced to evolve the ideas themselves, and these latter therefore mean much more to them than would otherwise be possible. This group concluded that if people did not, and could not trust one another all windows would have to be barred, workmen would not work for employers, employers could not trust workmen, schools would not dare to lend books to children, there could be no public libraries, stores could have no charge accounts, if there could be stores at all! Once started, they discovered all sorts of predicaments likely to ensue if there were no trust, and if a man was not safe in his possessions. At seven this began to become clear. And yet we find parents almost hysterically alarmed because Johnny, aged five, has gone off with the dime he found on his mother's bureau! Now Johnny must be taught and right speedily-not to go off with dimes, but he will not be likely to understand why before he is about seven years old.

It was found that a real consideration for others can be developed at about eight years, and that at ten a child can begin to see a real reason for mental cleanliness. This gives the idea of the process, which involves a careful searching for concepts that can be