NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2428, 6 April 1915, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY

The_ people of Kawhia do not believe in doing things by halves. H hen they see sea-serpents, it is seaserpents and ho mistake. Hitherto when these monsters of - the vasty deep have disported themselves on the surface it has been singly and with intervals of years between each recorded appearance. Off Kawhia, however, sea-serpents threaten to become as common as herrings. In the very remarkable narrative we repaint this morning from the Kawhia Settler, we have them in shoals reaching "as far as the eye could see." There is no solitary observer recording the appearance of a dubious something that might have been anything, but "about seven persons" watching the exhibition through field glasses "for fully twenty minutes.'' Tho serpents are described as dark in colour, ranging in length from 150 feet to TOO feet, with enormous bodies, "about as thick as a small vessel" and tapering towards the head Rnd tail, and were making through the water at a rate of about ten 'miles an hour. When first teen the sea-ser-pents were three-quarters of ,a mile distant and when the darkness made it impossible to watch them further they were stated to be about two miles away. The hour at which the fish were seen was about forty-five minutes after sundown, and tho observers would be looking across a calm sea towards the sunset.

From the Kawhia newspaper's circumstantial account—unless the whole thing is an April Fool's Day hoax—there is no reason t6 doubt that Mr.' Wodldes and his family did see something in the sea, The question is, what was it? The seaserpent is a very old friend figuring in the pages of the Roman historians and_ well known to the early Norse writers. In those days it was apparently accepted as a " normal nslcand peril of the seas on a voyage in northern waters to have a seasnapped up, off the deck by a passing sea-serpent. Later ages became more sceptical, and the existence of these marine monsters has been generally regarded as a myth. Various explanations havo been offered of the phenomena described from time to time. It has been suggested that many of the supposed sea-serpents have been merely lines of porpoises swimming in single file through the water. These fish by their habit of half-emerging from* the water during respiration wmild readily produce the appearance of the undulations of a long snake if seen under favourable circumstances, such as in the deceptive half-light in the evening after sunsot. It is very probable that this is what was really seen in the present case. The 'existence of a giant cuttle-fish with arms thirty and forty or mgre feet in length is generally admitted, and is supposed to be the basis of many sea-serpent stories. Dr. Oudemans, of The Hague, who, in 1892, compiled in a nig book practically all the recorded appearances of the seaserpent up to that date,.is, however, of opinion _ that the cuttle-fish and other theories do not satisfactorily account for all of them. His belief is that somewhere in the depths of the ocean there still lingers a gigantic mammal with small head,'serrate teeth, long neck and huge more or less whale-like body._ If this monster exists, a last survivor from ; the nightmare world of the Tertiary Period, it will require a' good deal to convince people that it has appeared in shoals at Kawhia or anywhere else

The controversy between the Anglican Bishop of Zanzibar (Dr. Weston) and the Bishop of Hereford (Dr. Percival), referred to in our cable columns on Saturday, is not of great importance in itself. Its main interest lies, in the fact that it is a topical episode in the great conflict between the Conservative and Modernist elements, in the Church. De, Weston declares that he will cease to' have communion with Dr. Percival itt sacred things because the latter has appointed the Rev. B. H. Streeter to a canonry of Hereford Cathedral. The. cause of the trouble is a book called Foundations which was published towards the end of 1912. It'consists of essays by seven Oxford men, one of whom is Mr. Streeter. The book has evoked much criticism, the attack oenbring upon oer-ta-in views regarding the nature of the Resurrection of Christ. In his essay Me. Streeter points out the difficu l tifes < of the theory that the actual physical body laid in the'tomb was raised up. He fully accepts the fact of the Resurrection, and expressly states that the story of tomb rests on adequate historical evidence; but as regards the' method of the Resurrection he is personally satisfied with the conviction that tho Master was "able to convince His disciples of His victory over death by some adequate manifestation." His view seems to lie somewhere between _ the traditional and , "subjective vision" theories. Foundations has not created anything like the excitement produced by Essays and Reviews or Lftx Mundi■ Essays and Review •made its appearance in 1860. It contained some very advanced opinions. The Rev. F. Temple, who afterwards became Archbishop of Canterbury, was one of tho contributors. His essay on The Education of the World was not a startling pronouncement, but it was severely criticised for tlw company it kept. Lux, Mundi, which was published in 1890, van through twelve editions in a little over a year. Dr. Gore's contribution to this Scries of essays crcatcd great cxcitcment in the Conservative camp, and , he was denounced by one Hi.t?h Church extremist as "infidel Gore." Ho has since become Bishop of Oxford, and he is now one of the foremost critics of some of the views expressed by Mn. Streeter in Foundations. It is interesting to note that one of the tatttfihntovt Fruindri'hitf is tbfi |»IP« -MB Si

late Archbishop Temple, who was so severely criticised half a oontury ago for his conncction with Essays and Reviews.