range of his vision of the fortunes of men the rigid and fixed bounds set to moral responsibility by sectarian moralists of every school lost their authority; the vast complexity of experience, the immense range of conditions, the influence of institutions on character, the pathetic and often tragic enfolding of a soul by circumstances which leave their stain and stamp upon it, the antagonistic elements which are at war in the noblest character-all these things touched Shakespeare's judg ments with a great compassion, and, while unflinching in his disclosure of the penalty which lies in the heart of the evil deed, made him slow to measure out moral condemnation to the evil-doer. He could not fail to be aware, with all men of imagination and insight, of the vaster movement which enfolds the obvious ethical order of life. Like Goethe in "Faust," and Hawthorne in "The Marble Faun," he had glimpses of "a soul of goodness in things evil," divinations of a diviner reconciliation between conflicting elements than is accomplished on the narrow stage of the world. This deep mystery he could not probe; no man has sounded it; it enfolds us like an element of which we suspect the existence, but which our instruments of observation are not sensitive enough to discover. Its presence does not diminish the authority of the ethical order under which we live and from which no man escapes, but it ought to make us more tolerant, compassionate, and patient in judgment and in punish ment. "The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together," says the dramatist in one of the group of plays which are most perplexing to the moralist who lacks this vision of a larger order; "our virtues would be proud if our faults whipped them not; and our crimes would despair if they were not cherished by our virtues." This largeness of view gave Shakespeare the highest insight of the great tragic writer: the clear perception of the presence of a mediating element in life. Without this perception the highest form of tragedy is impossible of realization; for tragedy is not only an exhibition of tragic events, but an interpretation of their significance. Without this interpretation these events are blind happenings; mere brutalities of fate, without order, meaning, or impressiveness. If Shakespeare's view of life was too broad to permit of a judgment of men from the standpoint of conventional morality, his insight was too deep and searching to rest in the violent collisions of contending principles, forces, and persons. He could not stop short of some kind of harmony; violence in its destructive aspect had only a minor interest for him; he cared for the storm because it cleared the air and prepared the way for a new and higher order of things. The deed reacts on the doer and brings doom with it, but the penalty is not inflicted as a matter of vengeance; it opens the door to a reorganization of character. For the evil-doer, the violator of the order of society, the real tragedy is to be found in the offense, not in the penalty; and the greatest disaster comes not when the punishment is borne, but when it is evaded. In this consistent representation of the inevitableness and necessity of the tragic disaster Shakespeare is in harmony with the soundest religious view of life and with the most intelligent psychology. As soon as personality is set free in society, directed by inward intelligence, will, or impulse, put under the necessity of subordinating impulse to intelligence, appetite to law, individual desire to the good of society, a series of tragic collisions is set in motion and a world of conflict rises into view. These conflicts are precipitated when individual passion, preference, or love is set in opposition to the family, as in "Romeo and Juliet" and "King Lear;" and when individual will, interest, or passion is set in opposition to the State, as in the historical plays, and in “Coriolanus,” "Julius Caesar," and "Macbeth." These are the two great classes of tragic conflict with which Shakespeare deals; and his point of view is consistent throughout, Society is striving, in a rude and halting fashion, toward the attainment of harmony; its institutions are often based on unrighteousness, they are perverted in their uses or they are outgrown; in each case some kind of conflict is inevitable, and that conflict takes a tragic form. These institutions impose order upon society; to that order each individual must adjust himself and in it he must find his place; if he sets his will against the general will as organized in these institutions, he precipitates a conflict and becomes a of the tragic collisions of society. It is the clearness with which Shakespeare sees and represents this principle of mediation, this process of reconciliation, which gives the Tragedies their authority as works of art and sets the dramatist among the masters of the knowledge of life. The Temperance Text-Books [The following official reply to a review in The Outlook of November 17 last of Dr. Jerome Walker's "Anatomy, Physiology, and Hygiene" was formally adopted by the Woman's Christian Temperance Union at its annual Convention at Washington week before last. We speak of this subject editorially on another page.—THE EDITORS.] T HE OUTLOOK of November 17 contains an article entitled "The Temperance Text-Books," in which a review of a Physiology by Dr. Walker is used as a text for criticising the laws requiring the study of that subject in the public schools. The conclusions of that article are summed up under the following heads: First. The content of all teaching should be the truth-not the opinions of a faction, but the testimony of the whole body of reputable experts. should be taught (if taught at all) as physiology, and, on the other hand, temperance reform should be excluded, with all other reforms, from the public schools. what he claims, but instead show that alcohol acted more like a protoplasmic poison than a food. Opposed to Professor Atwater's claim, in the October "Harper's Monthly," of food value for alcohol because it protects fat, are the recent statements of Professor Max Kassowitz, an expert physiologist of Vienna, who says: "It is inappropriate to speak of a protection of fat by alcohol, and there is still less sense in regarding a substance as a Second. On the one hand, physiology food because the protoplasm destroyed by it is no longer capable of participating in the vital processes and the oxidation intimately connected with the same. . . . Our final sentence against alcohol is that for the animal and human organism it is not both a food and a poison, but a poison only." Third. Teaching moral reform, either by temperance text-books or by any other means, is not a function of the public school; that function consists in mental and moral education. To the first of these propositions we heartily assent; but The Outlook elsewhere says: The question as to the content of these scientific temperance text-books has been the one oftenest raised in discussing them. In our judgment, it has been unduly emphasized. In view of the outcome of the discussion of the contents of the text-books, it is not surprising that The Outlook makes this concession. The attempt to prove the indorsed physiologies inaccurate because of the claim that Professor Atwater's experiments proved alcohol a food and not a poison, resulted in some of the most distinguished scientists in our country testifying that Professor Atwater's own figures in his Bulletin 69 do not prove 1 See scientific testimony in "An Appeal to Truth." Á second unsuccessful attempt to prove the indorsed physiologies inaccurate illustrates the failure of such efforts.1 Two medical men known as opponents to this instruction secured from a State medical society in 1895 the appointment of a committee, of which they, of course, were members, to examine and report on these text-books. Four years after, this committee published a list of seven "sample statements found in from twenty to thirty books. Five of these "sample were shown to be supported statements' by standard medical authorities. The other two, only one of which was about alcohol, were not sufficiently guarded, and had escaped the scrutiny of authors and editors. These inadvertences were im mediately corrected. That only two such 1 See " An Open Letter to the Physicians of Massachusetts." were found in some thirty books, after the prolonged search of four years by active opposers, is itself evidence of the reliability of this indorsed school literature. Four years ago the friends of this education submitted all the indorsed physiologies to a company of distinguished scientists and medical men, asking them to point out any errors needing correction. Not one of these men reported finding such errors. Constant search for the latest truth is kept up by the Scientific Department of the World's and National Woman's Christian Temperance Union. These truths are quickly incorporated into this instruction for the children of this country. In view of this, it is not strange that The Outlook says in the following paragraph, from its November 17th article: It is conceivable that a book accurate and balanced in its separate statements should use the facts in a way to give pupils wholly false impressions, and mislead them by emphasizing certain facts out of all due proportion. Facts ought not to mislead, nor give a false impression. The Outlook says they do this by being "emphasized" "out of all due proportion." The Outlook does not The Outlook does not deny the accuracy of the "separate statements." Is its complaint that too much truth is told? What shall be left out? We do not know a truth that could be omitted without risk of loss to some one among the millions of future citizens who are reached by this form of education. The last point made under both the second and third heads of The Outlook's summary is this: Temperance reform should be excluded, with all other reforms, from the public schools. The public-school study of physiology, which includes with other laws of health those which relate to alcoholic drinks and other narcotics, is not a "reform" measure. It aims at prevention, or the formation of habits that will make reformation unnecessary. The children in our public schools are in the habit-forming period of llfe, and the American people have said that during that period they shall be taught the laws of health as stated above, with physiology enough to make these laws intelligible. But, according to The Outlook's philosophy, if a school-boy has commenced the use of cigarettes, all information con cerning the character and effects of nicotine should be withheld from him by the school, as such information might lead to "reform," which, The Outlook asserts, "is not the function of the public school." Congress and the Legislatures of fortythree States make no such distinction. They say, "The nature and effects of alcoholic drinks and other narcotics shall be taught, with other laws of health, all pupils in all schools under State control," and then it leaves the truth to do its own work of formation or reformation, as the case may demand. The Outlook's distinction between "moral education" and "moral reform" as the function of the public school might be maintained with angels as pupils or with beings without consciences, but not otherwise; for let the duty of truth-telling, respect for the property rights of others, or any other moral obligation be impressed upon public-school children, and such instruction will cut across the conscience of some of the untruthful or peculating young offenders, and "moral reform," which we are told is not the function of the public school, will be in danger of following. "Morals" cannot be taught to beings capable of something better without "moral reform" being liable to follow. A government in which the people makes the laws must have men and women able to comprehend questions touching the public good, or it will perish. Therefore such a government, in selfprotection, not only provides free elementary education for all its children, but makes such education compulsory, and taxes the people for its support. The State would have no right to tax one man for the education of another's children if universal education were not essential to the public good. The State has need of strong, sober men and women. Therefore it provides that its schools shall teach the physiological and hygienic facts which show the conditions of such strength and sobriety. Having done that, the pupil is left free as the air to act or not on that knowledge. But the hope of all education is the fact that the human mind is so constituted that early information does influence subsequent action. Among the representatives of seventy three and one-half million people of this country who have enacted these laws have been some of the great men of our Nation and times-such men as Senators Evarts and Warner Miller, of New York; Colquitt, of Georgia; Edmunds and Morrill, of Vermont; Frye, of Maine; Hawley, of Connecticut; Sherman, of Ohio; Blair, of New Hampshire; Hoar and Dawes, of Massachusetts; William McKinley, President of the United States; John D. Long, Secretary of the Navy; Thomas B. Reed, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, and a long list of other noble men. These men were familiar with the relation of popular education to the strength and perpetuity of the Republic and with the rights and duties of the State in demanding and specifying the topics that shall be embraced in such education. The Outlook complains that "the New York law requires not only that a certain proportion of every text-book shall deal with the physiological effects of alcohol and other narcotics, but that the space so devoted shall be distributed through the book." It is clear that if the law did not specify the quantity of this matter, and The Outlook had its way, there would be none at all in those books, for in this very article it says that "physiology should be taught (if taught at all) as physiology." In other words, The Outlook would teach only the facts of structure and function, with no hygiene, especially that relative to the use of alcoholic drinks and narcotics. The Outlook's objection to having temperance matter distributed through the book is another evidence of the wisdom of that legal requirement, for it is equally clear that The Outlook, if unable to abolish it altogether, would put all temperance matter at the end of the book, where it could be easily neglected. The Professor quoted as saying, "Such a treatise as the New York law contemplates cannot be written by scientific men," needs to read further, and he will then see that the only rational way to teach the effect of any substance upon, the various organs of the body in a school physiology is to do it in connection with the functions of the organs described. When the boy learns of the structure of his brain and its use, then and in that connection he should learn its hygiene, or what is good or bad for the brain. scientific, and established by precedent. Nor does it, as The Outlook charges, necessitate "continual nagging" nor "wearying reiteration," any more than does the properly graded study of mathematics, geography, or history. This order is logical, The Outlook charges that the "temperance physiology" laws "were pushed through the various Legislatures by persons who have not even a pretense to any knowledge of pedagogy," and "were devised in ignorance and made compulsory for other purposes than education." These wholesale assertions show profound ignorance of the facts in the case. The special features of these laws have been devised and drafted with the advice and co-operation of committees on education in Congress and State Legislatures. These Legislatures appoint members who have had educational experience on their committees of education. Hence, men of sound pedagogical knowledge as lawmakers have scores of times weighed all such objections as The Outlook presents and have examined the time-worn insinuations against motives, and, sweeping them all aside as not valid, have passed the laws with the hearty approval of the people. Up to date the pupil whose moral sense, according to The Outlook, is threatened by this instruction has not appeared. Instead, men of science, who as physicians are well qualified to judge, say:1 The people of the present day exhibit more intelligent interest in the discussion of sanitary problems, both public and private, including the alcohol question, than any preceding generation, and this interest appears to be steadily increasing. As to the cause of this gratifying interest, a large share, in our opinion, of this country may with justice be attributed to the systematic study of physiology and hygiene, including the scientific temperance instruction which has for some years been a part of the regular course of study for all pupils in our public schools. The Outlook states that Dr. Walker's Physiology, by its moderation in statements, has very generally avoided the danger of presenting opinions as facts, "but that it has at the same time failed to receive the indorsement of the scientific department of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and is not published by the instigation of the same." These facts, The 1 Journal of American Medical Association, March 31, 1900. Outlook fears, "are more than a coincidence." We should be glad to agree with The Outlook that Dr. Walker's book presents only facts. Unfortunately, however, it contains statements about alcohol that are absolute errors, and others so incomplete as to be practically errors. Example of the first is the following, page 202: "In a small amount it [alcohol] may act as a partial food, like starch, sugar, and fat, by affording energy." Starch, sugar, and fat yield their energy without acting injuriously upon the nerves, while "any small production of energy resulting from the oxidation of alcohol is more than counterbalanced by its deleterious influence upon the tissue elements, especially upon the nervous system" (Schaffer's Text-book of Physiology, latest edition). If alcohol is a food because through oxidation it yields energy, then carbolic acid, muscarine, and many other poisonous drugs are foods-which is absurd. Another example of error in Walker's Physiology is the following statement quoted from Professor Atwater's report as one of the results of his experiments: "The body, whether at work or rest, held its own just as well with the alcohol a part of the diet as it did with a diet with out alcohol." Professor Atwater's tables show just the opposite of this; viz., that in both of the alcohol experiments the body lost nitrogen-its most valuable tissue element. This has been clearly shown by the testimony of scientific experts published in "An Appeal to Truth," while the same criticism of this conclusion has been made repeatedly by leading medical journals both editorially and in contributions from professors in various medical schools. One of the latest expressions on this point occurs in a report upon the progress of physiological chemistry in the Boston "Medical and Surgical Journal" of September 6, 1900, which upon proteid metabolism is obviously slight, fails to spare the proteid tissues. Thus the statement of Dr. Walker's book is in direct opposition to the facts and to the consensus of expert medical opinions that represent a comprehensive study of the matter. It does not even represent the opinion of a faction. An example of statements so incomplete as to be practical errors is the following from page 21" In small quantities the effects of alcohol are temporary stimulation and excitation, followed by depression when taken in quantities beyond what for each individual may be termed his physiological limit." "In larger amounts it produces acute alcoholism," etc. Exact observation of the after effects of those small amounts of alcohol which cause temporary increase of heart-beat and flushing of the face show a degree of nerve and muscle power below the normal, which continues for some time. It is not correct, therefore, to state only the first half of the effects of a small amount and there leave it; nor is it correct to speak of the first effect as an actual" stimulation," because its true effect is that of paralysis of nerve control in the higher centers. The so-called "stimulation" is only an apparent indirect result which veils the true effects from the superficial observer. Referring to the second factor in the "coincidence to which The Outlook refers, we make no apology for "instigating" the publication of books which contain the whole truth and only the truth on this topic, nor for opposing books that fail to teach the whole truth. It is one of the blessings of this altruistic age and the hope of the civilization of the future that almost every form of need and wrong has appealed to somebody to work and write for its prevention. The literature thus called out, although criticised by the votaries of the evils it rebukes, has enriched the world. In conclusion, we quote from the speech in Congress of the Hon. Byron M. Cutch«Temperance education is a remedy— eon on the passage of the National law: peaceable, philosophical, radical, far reaching. It trenches on no man's rights. It appeals only to the power of truth. It is the echo of God's primordial decree, Let there be light.'* |