Orders in the Diocese of Llandaff, wherein aspirants for the ministry are examined by the author of this interesting book. Comparison with a recent and scientific hand-book such as Garvie's Apologetics will show that Dr. Harris, though well-read, sincere, and open-minded, belongs to the older school of "defence" rather than to the present-day school of "persuasion." For instance, our author devotes one hundred and twenty pages to "proofs" of the existence and attributes of God, whereas Garvie practically ignores the subject and takes God for granted. Nevertheless, the older treatment is by no means antiquated, especially for readers, whether would-be clerics, working ministers, or the traditional "intelligent layman," that have had no preparation in philosophy. It is interesting to note that Garvie has several paragraphs devoted to "heaven," whereas Harris uses the word only once, and then in a footnote. On the other hand, our author, having left "hell" out of his text, has a canny second thought, and devotes to Hell a sort of "verbiform" appendix at the end of one of his chapters. Since Garvie recognizes the recent tendency toward emphasizing the apocalyptic element of the gospel, he too may have to take more stock of "hell" if his book comes to a second edition.

Useful and readable as Pro Fide is, we must note a few of its shortcomings. Take a sample (p. 439): "There is a certain presumption against miracles arising from the general uniformity of Nature, and a certain presumption in their favor arising from the known character of God, and the need of a revelation. These opposite presumptions balance one another, and there the matter is left to be determined by the evidence." Here we have "Nature" opposed to "God" (à la mode Huxley), the assumption that God's "character" is "known," the further assumption that there is a "need of revelation," and, most questionable of all, the assumption that men who believe in the uniformity of nature are going to accept "evidence" from witnesses who lived in a non-scientific age and evidence that cannot be divorced from dogmatic presumptions. The "sceptic" of to-day may accept evidence for certain happenings regarded as miracles at the time of their occurrence, on account of his accepting the historic Christ, but he will not feel called on to

1

deduce miracles from the character of God, nor will he admit that the signs and wonders wrought by Jesus in close association with spiritual conditions need necessarily violate the principle of the uniformity of nature.

Among other evidences of the author's lack of adequate equipment for scientific work in apologetics are: (1) His failure to appreciate the internal difficulties of the Fourth Gospel; (2) His question-begging citation of texts favorable to the omnipotence and omnipresence of Jesus; (3) His failure to call attention to the great importance of recent work in psycho-pathology, though he purports to give a summary statement, in his new and useful introductory chapter, of the latest scientific work bearing on apologetics.

The bibliographical lists and references are full and helpful (for the general reader), and constitute one of the best features of the book. T. P. BAILEY.

STORIES OF RED HANRAHAN, THE SECRET Rose, RosA ALCHEMICA. By W. B. Yeats. New York: The Macmillan Company.

This is a volume of short stories, seventeen in all, divided by the author into three sections. The tales of the first part deal with the adventures of Hanrahan, a vagabond poet and scholar, and are laid in Ireland; those of the second group, "The Secret Rose," are varied, but for the most part tell of monks and are allegories of spiritual things; and the last story in the book, which takes up the entire division, narrates the mystical experiences of an alchemist and visionary. The volume possesses the fine qualities which we associate with Mr. Yeats's prose. It has grace, charm, a subtle humor which sometimes is keen enough to give an edge to poignant satire, and touched throughout with an air of magic and faery. An artist can perhaps set himself no more difficult task than try to convey to others singular experiences of his own in which he seems to become aware of some over-world of supramundane things. Mr. Yeats is less successful in performing this feat when, as in "Rosa Alchemica," he turns his back on reality and flings verisimilitude away, than when, as in some of Hanrahan's adventures, he mingles the

mystical and the realistic and lets his other world float beyond its borders into this. But the book has certain other qualities, too. For one thing, it has a technical interest in the happy use, made in the first group of tales, of what is called, after the name of Lady Gregory's little history, "Kiltartan English." Heretofore the best English has generally been written by those whose culture was based on the Greek or Roman classics; the Kiltartan style is developed from the English of those who know nothing of the classics but are familiar with the Gaelic language. As a consequence this style has a peculiar novelty and freshness, and Mr. Yeats turns it to his purpose in these tales with exquisite felicity. What is more, he writes here with a certain strength which we have not noted before. His English has always been elegant, but here we are impressed for the first time with a sinewy, athletic element in the style, a virility in the tone. The stories, as well as the style, are the better for this quality; and Red Hanrahan seems to us to contain the best tales, as well as the best prose, which Mr. Yeats has yet given us.

GEORGE TOWNSHEND.

AUS DEUTSCHEN DÖRFERN. By Menco Stern and Robert Arrowsmith. Cincinnati and New York: American Book Company.

A collection of twenty short stories, intended to stimulate in American students interest in and love for the German village and its people.

G. M. B.

The theory of the separation of powers holds a prominent place in American political philosophy. That legislative, judicial, and executive functions should be carefully distinguished and entrusted to agents quite independent of each other, has been more or less the aim of our constitution-makers, and has been generally approved by thinkers and writers upon our political institutions.

But what, precisely, does this theory affirm? Its earnest advocates have always held that it is against the interests of liberty for any two of these elementary functions to be performed by the same person; but there have always been those who have seemed to believe its true meaning to be that no person who performs one of these functions shall influence or even in any way participate in, however remotely, the performance of either of the other two. This extreme form of the principle is generally associated with criticism of some public official who is being charged with acting outside of his legitimate powers; or else it is invoked in answer to some reformer who is urging further political adjustment with a view to closer coöperation between the legislative and executive departments in their relation to the initiation of legislation.

It is this second attitude toward the doctrine of the separation of powers which lies at the base of much of the criticism incurred. of late by President Wilson. One of his political opponents declared in the United States Senate recently that every measure

of general interest, except the tariff bill, since the beginning of his administration, had been initiated in the White House or in the office of one of his cabinet. "Somehow," he said, "the spirit of our institutions has been transformed and the legislative branch of the government has become a mere recorder. What the President really wants is a journal clerk instead of a Congress. As a legislative body we have for the time being passed out of existence." Of course there is some spite and some partisanship in this statement; but it probably would not have been made had not the speaker felt able to count upon a widespread conviction that any President's activity in such matters must be contrary to the fundamental principles of our government.

To a less explicit, but no less real, adherence to such a view is due the fact that Mr. Wilson has been severely criticized for following the example of Washington and Adams in addressing the Congress in person instead of sending them written messages, as though the former method were less of an interference with the complete liberty of the law-making body. The fact is likely to be overlooked that he is only reviving the custom originally followed by Washington and Adams. It was Thomas Jefferson who began the custom of sending messages, and that not because of any theory of the separation of powers but simply because he was an indifferent speaker and disliked to make public addresses. His practice became a custom through its imitation by Madison and Monroe, his faithful followers; and the custom has been retained because of inertia, and consecrated by that amusing conservatism so apt to prevail in political and ecclesiastical trifles. A quaint manifestation of it is referred to in Mr. Roosevelt's complaint that senators object to his sending his messages to them in print and were disposed to insist that he write them out in manuscript. His rejoinder is characterestic of that aggressive executive: "Whether I communicate with Congress in writing or by word of mouth or whether I write them by a machine or a pen are equally and absolutely unimportant matters. The importance lay in what I said and in the heed. paid to what I said." An abrupt way of defending the executive's power of initiation; but the provocation was doubtless great and persistent.