ment of specialized instruction and training. In France, Germany, and England, and elsewhere as well, an influential body of opinion has held that the earlier a child is put in the line of direct preparation for his future occupation the better; American experience and American theory point to the contrary policy, and they unite in enforcing the position that general intelligence, well and thoroughly trained, is the best possible basis for future effectiveness in special lines. In America, therefore, the elementary school wholly and the secondary school in large part are given over to general education and not to the training of particular aptitudes. The exhibit at Paris fully justified the American contention, and European educationists are openly suggesting that something like the American plan must be adopted there also. Since the foundations that bear the name of Wykeham and Balliol, nothing so epoch-making has happened in the higher education of Great Britain as Mr. Carnegie's colossal gift of two million pounds sterling for the benefit of the Scottish universities. It is the example rather than the amount of the gift, as Mr. Bryce has already told the House of Commons, that will be most influential. Great Britain has never learned to endow higher education munificently with private funds. It has made the most petty provision for research, and when Harvard and Columbia, Cornell and Chicago, have been in receipt of princely sums from private donors, Oxford and Cambridge, Edinburgh and St. Andrews, have been slowly starving, while great landowners and merchant princes have looked on and wondered at the niggardliness of Parliament! Mr. Carnegie puts such men to shame, and it is hard to believe that his example will not be followed, and followed generously, by the wealthy men and women of Great Britain. The withdrawal of Dr. Gilman from active service and the celebration of the Chicago decennial remind us of the reality of the new university dispensation under which money and administrative skill accomplish what time alone was once competent to do. With Berlin, Johns Hopkins, and Chicago before us, it is unreasonable to hold that universities cannot now be made, The mobility of scholars and of scholarship, and the modern-day annihilation of time and space, so far as regards the ordinary business of life, have brought even that to pass. In one brief generation the higher education of the United States has been wholly revolutionized, and the part taken in the revolution by these newest of university creations has been highly infiuential, as all the world knows. The horizon of public education in the large cities is clearer than for a long time past. past. To those in New York who believe in the total elimination of the school service from politics and from local "pull," in the provision of adequate and assured funds for teachers' salaries, in the enforcement of a high standard of professional attainment and efficiency, and in noninterference with the chief educational officers in the performance of their statutory duties, everything that law can give has been given by the new charter which takes effect on January 1, 1902. The leaders of the present Board of Education, though in political sympathy with Tammany Hall, are beyond the reach of the malign influences of that organization, and they are bending every energy to build and equip sufficient school-houses and to support the statesmanlike policy of Superintendent Maxwell, which is rapidly lifting the New York City schools up to a high place among those of the world's great cities. In Philadelphia and in Pittsburg the situation is far from satisfactory, although Superintendent Brooks, of the former city, is doing all that a man can do to surmount the obstacles that personal and political influence put in his path. In Boston there is a temporary truce, and Superintendent Seaver is still in office, but there seems to be no great amount of confidence that hostilities will not be renewed sooner or later by those who look upon public schools as political spoils. In Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Cincinnati things are moving forward, while in Cleveland the forces of darkness were met in sharp combat and completely routed. During the year a group of the strongest colleges in the Middle States and Maryland have been demonstrating that that ancient bugbear and mortal enemy of sound secondary education, the college admission examination, is not an insoluble problem. Fifteen colleges united with the secondary schools to form a college entrance examination board, which has successfully conducted examinations on a uniform plan, at one and the same time, in sixty-one cities and towns throughout the United States and at several places in Europe. These examinations represent the co-operative effort of the best colleges and the best schools, and provide a single standard of attainment for secondary school pupils instead of the multiform and varying standards which have hitherto prevailed. From every point of view the work which has been so auspiciously so auspiciously begun is noteworthy, and it bids fair to take rank with the most far-reaching educational movements of our time. We commend it most heartily to the attention of every college and secondary school teacher in the land. In the Washington Memorial Institution all that was best and wisest in the movement for a National university seems to us to have come to fruition. Against a National university many and weighty arguments may certainly be urged, and these are stated with great force in the important report on the subject, just made public, by the committee of the National Educational Association which has had the matter under consideration for three expect from it a distinguished service to the country and to science. For some time to come all educational . eyes will be fixed on the British Parliament. Can and will Great Britain provide a universal and effective system of public education, elementary and secondary, under non-ecclesiastical control? This is, in essence, the question which Parliament must presently face. A powerful party in England thinks of State schools, and talks of them, as mere charity schools, to be economically maintained and kept within the narrowest limits. This party is reinforced by another and equally powerful party which holds strenuously that all education must be religious in character and must include doctrinal teaching. A small but growing party, supported by what we in America should consider the best expert educational opinion, would answer flatly in the affirmative the crucial question as put above. With a newly chosen Parliament, and one controlled by the Conservative party, to decide the question, at least for the present, it is fairly obvious that the best expert educational opinion will not have its way. Just what form of compromise emerges from the struggle remains to be seen. years past. On the other hand, the vast The Reform of the Theater resources of the Government at Washington ought to be used in all possible ways for the advancement of science and the arts, both liberal and useful. Congress has given its consent to this use, and now the Washington Memorial Institution has come into existence to be the effective agent in the matter. The Institution is in no sense a university, but it will co-operate with universities, colleges, scientific associations, and scholars generally in making the Governmental laboratories and collections useful for research. Director Walcott, of the United States Geological Survey, is chairman of the board of trustees, and Dr. Gilman, who will turn over the presidency of the Johns Hopkins University to his successor in September, will shortly thereafter begin to organize the work of the Washington Memorial Institution as its director. Every important influence in the Nation's educational system is interested in the new Institution, and there is every reason to Those who have read Mr. Norman Hapgood's suggestive essays in the "Contemporary Review," the International Monthly," the "Atlantic Monthly," and other magazines must have been impressed with his clear vision on the subject of the drama in general, but of modern methods of conducting theaters in particular. In his recently published volume on "The Stage in America"1 the most important chapter seems to us that in which he gives his views on what really makes a theater worth while. This judgment must be depressing to those who, like Mr. Hapgood, would presumably rather talk and read about Shakespeare and Schiller, Rostand and Ibsen, than to talk and read about the methods of stage production. Much as we like the chapters in the present volume on classic and contemporary dramatists, full as they are of The Stage in America: 1897-1900. By Norman Hapgood. The Macmillan Company, New York. original comment and criticism, we turn to the chapter entitled "Our Only HighClass Theater," feeling that, at the present juncture, it contains more timeliness than all the others combined. According to Mr. Hapgood, and according to many other lovers of the drama, "our only high-class theater" is the Irving Place Theater in New York City, commonly called the German Theater, now that the old Thalia is given over to Yiddish plays and Yiddish audiences. At the Irving Place Theater may be seen, in German, more classics than those given by any of our English-speaking companies. And at this theater the drama in general is on a higher plane than it is in any other theater in the metropolis. It is even on a higher plane than was drama at Daly's Theater during the lifetime of Mr. Daly. With the breaking up of the Daly company, the last of the old "stock companies was dissolved. Wallack's, that other almost equally well-known company across the street, had disappeared a decade ago, and the less known but really better Boston Museum company had been dissolved earlier still. It is interesting to note, however, that the German Theater does not represent the only stock company now playing in New York City. At the Murray Hill Theater may be found a company which varies its bill frequently and follows stock-company methods. We hope that it may be the beginning of a great American company, just as we hope that Mr. Benson's ven ture in England may be the beginning of a great English company which shall continue to revive the better class of English acting. Already it has brought back to the stage dramas unknown to the present generation of London playgoers. Mr. Hapgood points out several causes for the superiority of the Irving Place Theater. First, not only is the German taste more serious, but as, in general, German-Americans represent no large floating population (an important element in the support of the Broadway theaters), changes of bills are more compulsory. Of course, this theater does not make as much money as a good many of the Broadway houses make. Mr. Conried, its Director, said the other day that, if he were simply looking for business, he could find a better business than running a theater, but he thinks (and this is what distinguishes him from some of his contemporaries) that running a theater ought to be taken more as an art than as a trade. In furtherance of this aim, Mr. Conried has been endeavoring to extend his influence among those classes of people who want to see the very best that can be put on the stage. In this respect he hopes much from the professors and students of our colleges. To stimulate them he has given lectures at some of our leading universities, and he has also given performances at colleges at his own expense. He reasons correctly that young men. who have gained some smattering of German at college, and have thus early had their attention called to an opportunity of continually adding to their knowledge of dramatic literature, will be guided by it, not only in their own habits, but also in those of their children. It is such an earnest purpose as this of Mr. Conried's, impressively emphasized by Mr. Hapgood, that we are glad to note with special emphasis. The present degenerate and deplorable condition of American theaters, but especially of those in New York City, is only too evident. The one way to redeem these theaters is to return to the earlier, healthier, and more stimulating plan of the stock companies. Such a plan does not rule out star rôles. As we have seen at the German Theater this winter, and at other theaters, single actors and actresses have been permitted to join these stock companies as stars, and during such an engagement the plays given are naturally those deemed suitable alike for stars and for stock actors. The friendliness between audience and actor, however, which has existed for scores of years at the Théâtre Français in Paris, and which is beginning to exist at the Irving Place Theater in New York City, ought to be repeated in many an American city. It is true that the unvarying personality of certain actors may be accurately displayed in one or two plays, and that they may acquire just renown thereby; but what the great public admires in an actor is versatility, and they love to see a great favorite like the late Got, for instance, now as a patriarch, now as a brigand, now as a lover. The principal reason, however, for the formation of stock companies is for the education of the public, not merely for their diversion. It is impossible to see a farce put on at the stages of the Comédie Française in Paris or the Burg Theater in Vienna or the Irving Place Theater in New York City without long ing to see how a classic drama would be presented, and thus the man who is merely drawn to one of these theaters to be amused comes again to be instructed. The believer in idealism thus finds that he has some practical chance, because art, not merely "business," is emphasized. Not until the theater becomes a representative of art, not until the theater manager has some art ambition, can we hope for a theater which will be really creditable to either manager, actors, or the supporting audience. Wasted Courage Courage is one of the prime qualities in strong character. Without it, no man can command either his own respect or the respect of others; with it, the greatest faults are in a sense redeemed and smaller faults obliterated. One great act of courage sometimes atones for the weaknesses of a lifetime, and, like a splendid mantle, covers many deformities. But courage divorced from duty is often mere rashness, idle braggadocio, inexcusable waste of strength, opportunity, and sometimes of life. No man has a right to jeopardize himself or the things which are precious to him unless some worthy end is to be served. To put everything at the disposal of a great occasion or a great duty is to evidence one's devotion to some noble cause or some great ideal, but to jeopardize all one's fortunes for mere caprice or display, or in a foolhardy mood, is to gamble with the things which are most precious. William of Orange never lacked that cool courage which is the very highest form of a great quality. On one occasion on a battlefield in Flanders when, under a heavy fire of bullets, he was giving orders to the members of his staff, he discovered near him the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, drawn to the place by mere curiosity. The King said to him sharply, Sir, you ought not to run these hazards; you are not a soldier; you are of no use to us here." "I run no more hazard than your Majesty," the man answered. "Not so," said the King; "I am here where it is my duty to be, and I may without presumption commit my life to God's keeping, but you-" The sentence was left incomplete because the man fell dead at the King's feet. It was a foolish courage and it cost a life. No good end was served; the man gambled with that which did not belong to him and lost it by a throw of the iron dice of war. William, on the other hand, lived in constant peril, but that peril was a part of his work; and when he fell at last by the hand of a cowardly assassin in the little narrow hallway at the foot of the staircase in the old palace at Delft, he fell in the place to which the hand of God had led him; that is to say, at the identical spot where he ought to have been in the discharge of his duty. The greatest risks are justified when they are taken as a part of one's work; but no man has a right to brave them simply as a matter of indifference to danger, or as an occasion for the display of a foolhardy courage. Life is too precious to be wasted in sham battles. The Divinity of Christ The letter from a correspondent, which we print on another page, affords a curious illustration of the infelicities of theological controversy. The Outlook has never intimated that the story of the Virgin birth is a myth, or that the worship of Christ is man-worship, or that he is not the supreme Son of God in a sense not shared by our common humanity, or that he is not to be the object of our faith in himself as a divine being, or that he is simply a great prophet born of an earthly father. We reaffirm here the faith which The Outlook, in all its teaching, ethical and spiritual, assumes, and we reaffirm it substantially as it was affirmed in the editorial which our correspondent has apparently read with so little care and to so little purpose: We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the express image of his person; that God was in Christ and that Christ was God manifest in the flesh; and we believe that this was true in such a sense that he who has seen, that is, known, Christ, has seen, that is, known, the Father. Or, if this is not plain enough, we will state it in the exact words of John in the prologue to his Gospel:"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth." Or we will state it in the words of Augustine, whose orthodoxy our correspondent will probably not question: "The Son of God is both understood to be equal to the Father according to the form of God in which he is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which he took." Or we will state it in the words of a modern theologian, Dr. William Newton Clarke, of Colgate University, whose "Outline of Christian Theology" we regard as the most spiritual treatise on systematic theology we have ever seen: "Christ is the gift of the heart of God who desires to save the world. He comes to make known to men their true God, to infuse spirituality into their being and thus give to them eternal life." And we also reaffirm the declaration of the editorial that " Jesus Christ is not a substitute for God; he is access to God; and we are to bring to God all our love and all our worship and all our surrender, because we no longer worship an unknown. God, but God made known to us through his Son;" and we repeat, condensing it, the further declaration that to do this it is not necessary to believe that Christ's unity with the Father is a metaphysical unity, or to know what the phrase metaphysical unity means, or to form any intellectual conception of the nature of the unity between Jesus Christ and his Father. Mrs. L. P. Broad has written and the Kansas Congregational Home Missionary Society has published the following little story; hundreds of thousands of copies of it have been distributed; and it is reported, apparently authentically, that this little story has led hundreds to begin a Christian life: Wi-yu's father and mother were pagans. She was a little Indian girl. She never heard a word about Jesus until she came to the mission. We were glad to take the children of pagans, even while both parents were living. One day Wi-yu walked up to me and said: "I want to give myself away to you." I was much surprised, but looked into the little girl's black eyes and said: "Why does Wi-yu wish to give herself to me?" "Because," said she simply, "I love you." After this, they all called Wi-yu my little girl. One day while Wi-yu sat by my side learning how to hem a pocket handkerchief neatly, I asked her if she loved Jesus, of whom I had been talking to her. "No," she said, “I do not; but I want to. I want to be a Christian, but I'm too little. “But Jesus says. ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me.' "I don't know how to go to him; I don't know what to do," said she. 46 'Wi-yu," said I, "you must give yourself away to him.” She looked at me in surprise. How can I do that?" she exclaimed. 66 "How did you give yourself away to me?" because I love you." "I came to you and asked you to take me, "Why do you love me, dear?" She hesitated a moment, and then answered, “I think it must be because you love me." “Yes, Wi-yu, that's just the reason. Now, Jesus has been loving you all this time, while you have not been caring in the least for him." She stopped sewing and sat very still awhile, thinking. I did not say a word, because Í knew the Holy Spirit was teaching her. At last she said: 66 Would Jesus be willing for me to give myself away to him just as I did to you?" Certainly, my dear child; that is exactly what he wants you to do. He wants all of you, too. He wants your little feet to run for him, your lips and tongue to speak for him, and your whole heart to love him." After some more quiet thinking, Wi-yu knelt by my side and said: "My dear Jesus, I give myself away to you. I give you my hands, my feet, my mouth, my tongue, and my heart; I give you all of myself. Please take me, dear Jesus." She arose and said: "Do you think he heard me ?" "I am sure of it," said I; “and you will find his answer in your little Testament." Together we found these precious words in her Indian Testament: "Any one that cometh unto me, I will not thrust aside." Believing that Jesus meant just what he said, she from this moment knew that she was his own, dear, saved child. If no one can be a Christian unless he believes that Jesus Christ is truly God, and that the unity of Christ with his Father was a metaphysical unity, then Mrs. Broad seriously erred. She should have explained to Wi-yu what the phrase "metaphysical unity " means—if she nerself knew; we somewhat doubt whether any one does-and should have explained to Wi yu that she could not be a Christian until she understood. We think that Mrs. Broad was right in her interpretation of Christianity, and that Mrs. Parish is wrong. We do not criticise or controvert Mrs. Parish's theories; we simply regard |