(C) Akers Airphoto Corp. AN AIRPLANE VIEW OF THE NITRATE PLANT AT MUSCLE SHOALS plants will be operated at full capacity. This means an annual production of 132,000 tons of ammonium nitrate, which is equivalent to 38,500 tons of nitrogen. What would be the effect of this production on permanent agriculture? There were produced in the United States in 1920 something over 3,000,000,000 bushels of corn. Since a bushel of corn contains about a pound of nitrogen, the corn crop alone (grain only) removed from the soil around 1,500,000 tons of nitrogen, or about forty times as much as could be produced at Muscle Shoals if both plants ran at full capacity. It is thus seen, without considering other crops, that the maximum production of nitrogen at Muscle Shoals is of negligible importance from the standpoint of permanent agriculture. Fortunately, however, in a permanent system of soil fertility the nitrogen content of the soil can be profitably maintained solely by the use of legume crops, such as clover and alfalfa. These plants contain bacteria which convert or fix nitrogen of the air into forms that plants can use, just as the nitrate plants at Muscle Shoals convert the air nitrogen into fertilizer. Not only are legume crops valuable from the standpoint of fertility, but their use is justified in a proper crop rotation from the standpoint of hay production alone. It is not necessary to use all the legume crops grown in grain farming for fertilizing purposes, while in the case of live-stock farming all the crop may be fed and the nitrogen returned to the soil in the form of barnyard manure. Commercial nitrogen is consequently unimportant in grain and live-stock farming. The bulk of the nitrogen fertilizer used at present is consumed by the cotton growers of the South. It is that section of the country which has suffered most from the one-crop system. Diversification, or crop rotation, has long been the battle-cry of the Southern Agricultural Experiment Station workers. It has often been said that the boll weevil will eventually prove a blessing in disguise to the cotton farmer, as it will force him to diversify his crops, thereby affording a practical demonstration of the value of crop rotation which could not be shown under other conditions. One of the chief arguments offered in favor of crop rotation has rightly been that of obtaining part of the nitrogen requirements of crops through legumes. Any hope, false or otherwise, of cheaper nitrogen will tend again to encourage the one-crop system. And if all the nitrogen which can be produced at Muscle Shoals were used on an average cotton crop of our Southern States it would return only a fraction of the nitrogen removed by the cottonseed alone. The tobacco farmer, also a heavy user of nitrogenous fertilizers, needs the lesson of diversification and permanent soil improvement no less than the cotton farmer. That the tobacco and cotton farmer, as well as the producer of many other special cash crops, can use commercial nitrogen profitably cannot be denied, and it follows that cheaper nitrogen would be of immediate benefit to them. And it may be that Mr. Ford, by the use of free water power and other favorable terms, may be able to sell nitrates more cheaply than they are now obtainable, although it is by no means certain that he will do so. Mr. Ford is now reported to be ready to guarantee a certain minimum production of fertilizer to sell at a profit not exceeding eight per cent. He has not yet, so far as can be learned, guaranteed to sell fertilizer at a lower figure than that at which it is now obtainable. In other words, the farmer is not positively guaranteed any actual benefit whatever in either the original offer or any of its modifications. The farmer can get plenty of nitrogen, but what he is demanding is cheaper nitrogen. And it must be emphasized that if everything were done that Mr. Ford claims might be done the effect on building up and maintaining the fertility of American soils would be negligible. Of the elements needed for building up soils, the Muscle Shoals plant can produce only one, and that the only one which can be produced on the farm. What is needed far more than cheaper nitrogen by cotton farmers and by all other farmers as well as by the whole American people is a recognition of the obligation which rests upon them to leave the soil in as good a condition as it was received, and even to increase its productiveness. Fortunately, this can be done without interfering with the fullest and most economical crop production. The practicability of a permanent system of agriculture in the corn belt has been fully demonstrated by the late Dr. Hopkins and his co-workers, and modifications of this system can undoubtedly be adapted to all other sections of the country. If it is true that the nitrate plant can be merely maintained for a war emergency and the power leased for other purposes at better financial advantage to the Government than the acceptance of the Ford offer, then it would be far better, from the standpoint of permanent American agriculture and the future welfare and prosperity of the American people, that the former alternative be adopted and that the money thus saved be appropriated to a special fund, the income from this fund to be used for studying the best systems of permanent agriculture to meet different conditions in different sections of the country and for propaganda to urge adoption of these systems. T CHRIST IN MODERN THOUGHT BY LYMAN ABBOTT HESE three writers (Mr. Irvine, Professor Vedder, and Professor Drown) represent with much force and entire candor three schools of modern thought concerning Christ: Christ and no Theology; Christ and New Theology; and Christ discoverable in and emerging from the Old Theology. There are also some schools of theologians who think that the whole of Christianity is to be found in the Old Theology, as, for example, in the Nicene Creed, as the bird is found in the egg and the oak is found in the acorn. But they would be quick to resent the title "modern. thought" applied to their philosophy. That a spiritual genius speaking to all classes of society and to all serious religious thinkers throughout all future ages should be misunderstood and misinterpreted was to be expected. It is clear from the history that he was misunderstood and minisinterpreted even by his devoted followers. Ever since his time men have formed their own moral and religious ideals and then have gone to the New Testament, not to find out what Jesus taught, but to see what they could find in his teaching to confirm their views. Protestants have gone there to find support for Protestantism and Roman Catholics for Catholicism, Churchmen for Apostolic authority and Congregationalists for Independency, conservatists for current thought and radicals for revolutionary thought. Irvine follows the fashion and, quite unconsciously, goes to the Gospels to find support for semi-Socialistic doctrines. That is the one fatal defect in what is in many respects a suggestive and valuable interpretation. For example: Mr. The author rightly affirms that Jesus did not come to support or supplement the laws of Moses with a new system of legalism, and yet he proceeds to interpret Christ's teaching as laws for the regulation of conduct to which his followers must yield unquestioning obedience. He thinks that it is necessary to qualify Christ's command, "Judge not," because it is not practicable to omit. all judgments of men from social intercourse or human organizations, but he resents the idea that "Resist not evil" may, for the same reason, be qualified. He argues that the disciples of Christ may not defend themselves by force against wrong-doers, but he does not even so much as consider the question whether they may by force defend the defenseless intrusted to their protection. He gives the impression that in most of the giving of modern times we sound trumpets to make known our benefactions. "Our trumpets are newspapers 1 The Carpenter and His Kingdom. By Alexnder Irvine. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. $1.50. and our alms are universities, libraries, church windows, and organs." He apparently does not know that many of our largest givers take every pains to keep their benefactions out of the newspapers, partly because they do not wish to be flooded with letters asking for gifts; and that a very considerable number of our churches are supported wholly by voluntary contributions, through what is known as an envelope fund, one characteristic of which is that the donors' names are never printed. He declares dogmatically that "the rich and the powerful, the parasite and the exploiters, are now in full possession of the machinery of whatever religion the world possesses." He does not know that the church which is reported to have the largest Sunday school of any church in New York City, with three well-attended services on Sunday and a parish house of varied activities open and at work every day in the year, is a free church, is supported by voluntary contributions from both rich and poor, and is attended both in the church ser vices and in the Sunday school by a population drawn apparently in about equal numbers from the most aristocratic and one of the least aristocratic sections of the city. Though this church has an unusual history, its spirit is to be found in an increasing number of churches throughout the country. Jesus never addressed classes as classes. He never treated rich men as criminals or poor men as saints. He dealt with men as men. In fact, both riches and poverty are sometimes the result of wrong-doing, sometimes the result of right-doing. Christianity is not the religion of a class and gives no warrant for a teaching which defames one class or glorifies another. The best way to show that the teachings of Jesus Christ are practical is by showing that when they have been practiced the result has been peace and happiness. There is much of truth in Mr. Irvine's criticisms of modern society, including modern churches, and we profoundly regret that he has so written as to awaken just resentment by his unconscious partialities. We regret this the more because this volume has some excellent qualities. Chief of these is its realism. Too frequently Christ has been set apart and his life so portrayed as to produce the impression that it is a kind of fairy tale. The world which Mr. Irvine describes is a real world; the people are real people; Jesus is a real teacher; his ideals are presented as real ideals. The book is almost as human as Renan's "Life of Jesus," though without Renan's charm of style and poetic and pictorial imagination. It presents an aspect of Christ's teaching to which the Church in the past has paid scant attention. To the student of the teachings of Christ it will render valuable service; but he who simply reads it must read it with caution. There has within the last decade appeared in the Evangelical churches a school of thinkers who call themselves "Fundamentalists." They hold that such doctrines as the Infallibility of the Bible, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Fall of Man, the Vicarious Sacrifice, are fundamental to Christianity. True, not one of these doctrines is referred to by Jesus Christ, but, in their opinion, they are all implicit, if not in his teaching, at least in his subsequent work through his Church, which is the "body of Christ." Professor Vedder's volume is written in reply to the attacks which these somewhat combative Evangelicals have made on their dissenting brethren. Professor Vedder sees in the Church two forms of Christianity, one dogmatic derived from Paul, the other vital derived from Jesus Christ. His book represents a school popular in current thought, especially among the laity. It voices a very much needed reaction against traditional dogma, but, like all reactions, is partial. According to Professor Vedder, Jesus Christ is neither a philosopher nor a moralist, but a poet. He was a prophet and teacher, "the Supreme Teacher of his time and of all time," and as prophet and teacher he had imagination, wit, and humor, and his real meaning. therefore, is lost by the literalist. The Christianity which he preached is "a social ideal, a vision of a reconstructed world, a new human society, composed of regenerated men, a society of which good, will to others, mutual service and helpfulness, was to be the law." Christianity is not merely a preparation for death and a future world. "If Jesus can do no more than make a dying bed Feel soft as downy pillows are, he is out of date. It is help in life, not death, for which the hard-beset man of to-day is looking and longing; and no religion that does not offer this has the slightest chance of acceptance with him." "What is Christianity? Is it a form of worship, or a form of sound words, or a form of polity, or a form of ministering sacraments? If it is none of these things, but the negation of forms, a thing of the spirit and not of the letter, where shall we look for Christianity to-day? . . . If men must choose between the dryness of anarchism that goes by the name of Protestantism, and the paralyzing spiritual despotism called Catholicism, they will assuredly choose -neither." We dissent entirely from Professor Vedder's interpretation of Paul's religion as one of dogma, and we wonder if 702 he has ever seen Jowett's commentary What are the Higher Powers? them? The answer to these two questions, given alike by Christ and by Paul, are the Fundamentals of Christianity. 3 Professor Drown agrees with Mr. Irvine and Professor Vedder in believing that our problem is the social problem: "How shall society be built on the foundation of righteousness, justice, and love?" Christ, because he is the Man of the ages, is the Man for this age. him is to be found the solution of our In social problems. But whereas Mr. Irvine ignores theology and studies, not the life, but the precepts and principles of the Great Teacher, and Professor Vedder suggests radical reconstructions in theology in the belief that a new age requires a new philosophy of religion, Professor Drown endeavors to reconcile by interpretations the Old Theology with the new ideas of a new age. He sometimes seems to us to be attempting the impossible task of pouring new wine into old bottles. He is, however, in these lectures speaking to the students of an Episcopal Theological Seminary, and recognizes a real danger lest by separating them from ancient theology he may separate them from the modern Church. That the Old Theology is not of itself sufficient for the demands of the present time he frankly affirms. "Orthodoxy," he says, "that is concerned only * The Creative Christ "The Macmillan Company, New York By Edward S Drown. $1.25. THE OUTLOOK with the past is an orthodoxy that is T 26 April till they present themselves in a living personal Being who secures the righteousness of the universe and seeks the sanctification of each heart." In this faith Professor Drown and Professor Vedder are in essential agreement. In the thought of the modern Church Jesus Christ is more than an inspired teacher and Christianity is more than a system of philosophy. It is eternally true that life is the light of men. Christ in modern thought is a life-giver and Christian faith is a faith that there is in the world to-day, unseen but not unrealized, the same spirit which was enbodied in Jesus, and which in his loyal disciples gives them something of the transforming power of their Master. HOW NOT TO APPROACH AN EDITOR BY HAROLD T. PULSIFER HERE are two kinds of advice which are likely to cause considerable trouble for the adviser. Advice that is asked and advice that is unasked. It is therefore with some trepidation that I approach the task of telling poets what not to do with their wares. For some years now I have been both For nearly ten years most of the verse Editors are, contrary to the opinions Let them One of the best ways not to tickle an indirectly, that the writer whose work editor is to tell him, either directly or is about to be, ushered into his presence is a great and unappreciated poet. There are degrees and kinds of such self-adulation, and they are all equally effective in creating a wrong psychological atmosphere. One poet recently sent me a quatrain with a letter which began: "Dear Mr. Pulsifer, here is something ultimate." The poem did not appear to me to be even antepenultimate. But I am sure that I would have read it with more patience had it come without so florid an introduction. There are poets, more modest than this particular gentleman, who indulge in no self-adulation, but who shrinkingly confine themselves to quoting the opinions of others. These introductions range in character from letters which begin, "Dear Mr. Editor, I have shown this poem to my Sunday school superintendent and he assures me that it will lished in your magazine," to letters of do a great deal of GOOD if it is pubmore successful though equally ingenuous writers whose poems are not infrequently accompanied by long quotations from reviews of their work. From bitter experience, I have learned to doubt the literary judgments of the average Sunday school superintendent. From equally bitter experience, I have learned to expect that most verse which seems to its author to need a flourishing introduction will be ponderously academic. Such poets should revise a certain pre-prohibition adage and inscribe over their desks, "Good verse needs no bush." Likewise, it may be said that good explanation seems desirable to the poet, verse needs no explanation. Even where he should bear in mind the fact that editors cannot send explanations of published poems to each of their readers. What good can an explanation do if it cannot be passed along to the ultimate consumer of poetry? If you would compliment the intelligence of the editor to whom you are submitting your work, let your poems stand on their own feet. There is one way of commenting upon sultingly. When a poem rejected of one publication is accepted by another, it seems to be the natural and normal reaction on the part of the poet promptly to write editor number one concerning the discrimination and perspicacity of editor number two. If the poet writes: "You will be glad to know that the poem that you could not make a place for in your publication has finally found a home in the 'Monthly Brainfood,'" all is well and good and no one's feelings are hurt. If he approaches editor number one with a chip on his shoulder, an expression on his face similar to that of the small boy ejaculating "Yaaah" and words to the effect that the action of editor number two has proved that the intellect of editor number one is to be found in the sub-normal class, the general effect upon editor number one is not so good. The poet may be entirely right, but whether he is right or wrong has little bearing upon the judiciousness of such a letter. Perhaps the best way of all not to approach an editor is the method which may be described as the "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" introduction. It is seldom bluntly done, but it is, when used, none the less obvious. An example of this method of approach which may illustrate the point appeared in my mail within the last few weeks. It happens, as may be inferred from my previous remarks, that I occasionally publish verse of my own. It happens also that I am a graduate of Harvard. Few people are aware of these dark truths, but I chance to know that they have been brought to the attention of a certain poet. Not long since this poet sent me some of his work with a selfcongratulatory introduction of some length. To it, if I remember correctly, he appended a postscript to the effect that he was about to compile an anthology of poems by Harvard graduates. I thought nothing more of the postscript than that the candidate for admission to The Outlook was sending me an interesting item of news. Some weeks later a second poem followed with a letter ending with a repeated statement concerning the proposed anthology. The coincidence of the repeated news struck me as odd, but nothing more. When, however, a third poem arrived bearing the information that the poet was still considering the preparation of his Harvard anthology, my ire mounted to such a point that I nearly bit a perfectly innocent boy who happened at that unfortunate time to bring me a proof from The Outlook's composing-room. That poet might very easily have been hanged for inciting me to mayhem, and, in consideration of the non-nourishing quality of printer's ink, he might have spoiled my digestion for weeks. The saddest part of all was the fact that I did not dare verbally to chastise the erring would-be contributor. The obvious retort, "You may be a Harvard man, but FICTION where did you get the idea that you were a poet?" would lie so neatly at his hand that I had to refuse to extend the point of my chin for the reception of that missile. But I still think that he thought that I might think . . .! Please do not infer from what I have said, O poets, that all verse should be submitted without any accompanying letter, but there are letters and letters. Some that have come to me with poems I have remembered with pleasure and gratitude for many days. After all, it should be confessed, extraneous introductions and misguided explanations do not count heavily against any work of real merit. The judgment of verse is, at best, a difficult personal problem. When a poem arrives of definite distinction, it is a red-letter day for any editor. He is willing to wade through oceans of mediocre verse if occasionally he may run across a poem wherein the gleam is manifest. BOOKS RECEIVED By LOST HORIZON (THE). By G. Colby Borley. |