The excerpts read by Hays made no appreciable impact within the courtroom. They laid out the case for evolution in great detail but were ill-suited for recitation on a hot summer day. In all, eight scientists provided written statements on evolution: the anthropologist Fay Cooper Cole, the psychologist Charles Hubbard Judd, and the zoologist Horatio H. Newman, all from the University of Chicago; the University of Missouri zoologist Winterton C. Curtis; the Rutgers agronomist Jacob G. Lipman; the Harvard geologist Kirtley F. Mather; the Johns Hopkins zoologist Maynard M. Metcalf; and the state geologist Hubert A. Nelson of Tennessee, who the defense added to its witness list after Bryan began criticizing its reliance on out-of-state experts. In their statements, Curtis, Mather, and Metcalf also sought to reconcile the theory of evolution with the biblical account of creation, as did testimony submitted from four religion experts: Shailer Mathews; Herman Rosenwasser (a Hebrew Bible scholar who appeared in Dayton without invitation but quickly impressed defense counsel); and two Tennessee modernists, the Methodist minister Herbert E. Murkett of Chattanooga and the Episcopal priest Walter C. Whitaker of Knoxville.
50
The jury heard none of it.
When court reconvened following lunch, Darrow interrupted the presentation of testimony to apologize for his comments on Friday. Townspeople had treated him courteously, Darrow cooed, and he should not have responded to the court as he did. “One thing slipped out after another,” Darrow explained, “and I want to apologize to the court for it.” Rising to his feet, Raulston dismissed the contempt citation with words that amazed the defense. After discussing the honor of Tennessee, he recited from memory a long religious poem about forgiveness and accepted Darrow’s apology in the name of Christ. “We forgive him,” the judge said of Darrow in a voice shaking with emotion, “and we command him to go back home and live in his heart the words of the Man who said: ‘If you thirst come unto Me and I will give thee life.”
51
Christianity represented more than civil religion in this court.
Raulston shifted his concern to the crowd that overflowed the courtroom. A rumor spread that cracks had appeared in the ceiling downstairs. Scopes thought it was simply “the man-killing heat.”
52
Most likely, the judge thought that little remained except closing arguments and wanted to give everyone an opportunity to see them. Whatever the reason, he moved the proceedings to the speaker’s platform on the courthouse lawn. “It was a striking scene. Judge Raulston sat at a little wooden table in the center, with the States attorneys at his left and the defense at his right,” wrote one observer. “In front was a sea of upturned faces, waiting for what they presumed would be an ordinary argument, faces which became eager when Mr. Darrow announced that he would call Mr. Bryan as a witness for the defense.”
53
In fact it was Hays who summonsed Bryan, but only after finishing the witness statements. Next, Darrow objected to a Read Your Bible banner hanging on the courthouse near the makeshift jury box. Bryan conceded that the sign might appear prejudicial and it was taken down. Then, with the jury still excused, Hays called Bryan as the defense’s final expert on the Bible and the Commoner again proved cooperative. Up to this point, Stewart had masterfully confined the proceedings and, with help from a friendly judge, controlled his wily opponents. Indeed, Governor Peay had just wired the young prosecutor, “You are handling the case like a veteran and I am proud of you.”
54
Yet Stewart could not control his impetuous co-counsel and the judge seemed eager to hear the Peerless Leader defend the faith. “All the lawyers leaped to their feet at once,” Scopes recalled.
55
Ben McKenzie objected. Stewart seethed with anger. Bryan consented solely on condition that he later get to interrogate Darrow, Malone, and Hays. “All three at once?” Darrow asked. As Bryan explained early in his testimony, “They did not come here to try this case, ... They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it, and they can ask me any questions they please.”
56
Darrow did just that.
The crowd swelled as word of the encounter spread. From the 500 persons who evacuated the courtroom, the number rose to an estimated 3,000 people sprawled across the lawn—nearly twice the town’s normal population. “The spectators, however, instead of being only men, were men, women, and children, and among them here and there a negro,” the
New York Times
reported. “Small boys went through the crowd selling bottled pop. Most of the men wore hats and smoked.”
57
The
Nashville Banner
added, “Then began an examination which has few, if any, parallels in court history. In reality, it was a debate between Darrow and Bryan on Biblical history, on agnosticism and belief in revealed religion.”
58
Darrow posed the well-worn questions of the village skeptic, much like his father would have asked in Kinsman, Ohio, fifty years earlier: Did Jonah live inside a whale for three days? How could Joshua lengthen the day by making the sun (rather than the earth) stand still? Where did Cain get his wife? In a narrow sense, as Stewart persistently complained, Darrow’s questions had nothing to do with the case because they never inquired about human evolution. In a broad sense, as Hays repeatedly countered, they had everything to do with it because they challenged biblical literalism. Best of all for Darrow, no good answers existed to them. They compelled Bryan “to choose between his crude beliefs and the common intelligence of modern times,” Darrow later observed, or to admit ignorance.
59
Bryan tried all three approaches at different times during the afternoon, without appreciable success.
Darrow questioned Bryan as a hostile witness, peppering him with queries and giving him little chance for explanation. At times it became like a firing line:
“You claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?”
“I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively.... ”
“But when you read that ... the whale swallowed Jonah ... how do you literally interpret that?”
“... I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both of them do what he pleases.... ”
“But do you believe he made them—that he make such a fish and it was big enough to swallow Jonah?”
“Yes sir. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe as another.”
“It is for me ... just as hard.”
“It is hard to believe for you, but easy for me.... When you get beyond what man can do, you get within the realm of miracles; and it is just as easy to believe the miracle of Jonah as any other miracle in the Bible.”
60
Such affirmations undercut the appeal of fundamentalism. On the stump, Bryan effectively championed the cause of biblical faith by addressing the great questions of life: The special creation of humans in God’s image gave purpose to every person and the bodily resurrection of Christ gave hope to believers for eternal life. Yet Darrow did not inquire about these grand miracles. For many Americans, laudable simple faith became laughable crude belief when applied to Jonah’s whale, Noah’s Flood, and Adam’s rib. Yet the Commoner acknowledged accepting each of these biblical miracles on faith and professed that all miracles were equally easy to believe.
Bryan fared little better when he tried to rationalize two of the biblical passages raised by Darrow. In an apparent concession to modern astronomy, Bryan suggested that God extended the day for Joshua by stopping the earth rather than the sun; similarly, in line with nineteenth-century evangelical scholarship, Bryan affirmed his understanding that in Genesis, days of creation represented periods of time, which led to the following exchange:
“Have you any idea of the length of these periods?”
“No; I don’t.”
“Do you think the sun was made on the fourth day?”
“Yes.”
“And they had evening and morning without the sun?”
“I am simply saying it is a period.”
“They had evening and morning for four periods without the sun, do you think?”
“I believe in creation as there told, and if I am not able to explain it I will accept it.”
61
Although Bryan had not ventured far beyond the bounds of biblical literalism, the defense made the most of it. “Bryan had conceded that he interpreted the Bible,” Hays gloated. “He must have agreed that others have the same right.”
62
Furthermore, Scopes observed, “The Bible literalists who came to cheer Bryan were surprised, ill content, and disappointed that Bryan gave ground.”
63
As Darrow pushed various lines of questioning, increasingly Bryan came to admit that he simply did not know the answers. He had no idea what would happen to the earth if it stopped moving, or about the antiquity of human civilization, or even about the age of the earth. “Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?” Darrow asked. “No sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her,” came the bittersweet reply.
64
“Mr. Bryan’s complete lack of interest in many of the things closely connected with such religious questions as he had been supporting for many years was strikingly shown again and again by Mr. Darrow,” the
New York Times
reported.
65
Stewart tried to end the two-hour interrogation at least a dozen times, but Bryan refused to step down. “I am simply trying to protect the word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States,” he shouted, pounding his fist in rage. “I want the papers to know I am not afraid to get on the stand in front of him and let him do his worst.”
66
The crowd cheered this outburst and every counterthrust attempted by the Commoner. Darrow received little applause but inflicted the most jabs. “The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur the Bible, but I will answer his questions,” Bryan exclaimed at the end. “I object to your statement,” Darrow shouted back, both men now standing and shaking their fists at each other. “I am examining your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes.”
67
Raulston finally had heard enough and abruptly adjourned court for the day.
Darrow’s supporters rushed forward to congratulate their hero. Bryan was left virtually alone with his thoughts. Reporters rushed out to transmit the news. “Men who have written descriptions of great battles,” one journalist commented, “were overwhelmed with their responsibility to give their papers an account of the two sessions of court Monday in a light which will depict truly its immensity.”
68
Newspapers throughout the country printed the complete transcript. The Memphis
Commercial Appeal
concluded: “It was not a contest. Consequently there was no victory. Darrow succeeded in showing that Bryan knows little about the science of the world. Bryan succeeded in bearing witness bravely to the faith which he believes transcends all the learning of men.”
69
Most papers were not so kind to Bryan. That night, Stewart delivered the word to Bryan: he should neither resume his testimony nor call defense counsel to the stand. At first Bryan protested, but Stewart stated that if Bryan demanded to go forward either the judge would forbid it or the state would dismiss the case. Darrow shortly wrote to Mencken about the examination of Bryan, “I made up my mind to show the country what an ignoramus he was and I succeeded.”
70
A light rain fell in Dayton on Tuesday morning, forcing the trial back inside and cutting the number of spectators. The judge started the proceedings a few minutes early, before Darrow and Stewart arrived. As counsel for both sides hurried to their places, Raulston took it upon himself to bar further examination of Bryan and to order the Commoner’s prior testimony expunged from the record. “I feel that the testimony of Mr. Bryan can shed no light upon any issue that will be pending before the higher court,” the judge ruled; “the issue now is whether or not Mr. Scopes taught that man descended from a lower order of animals.”
71
With this ruling, Darrow called it quits. “We have no witnesses to offer, no proof to offer on the issues that the court has laid down here,” he declared. “I think to save time we will ask the court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty.” Stewart immediately agreed: “We are pleased to accept the suggestion of Mr. Darrow.” This final ploy by the defense deprived Bryan of the chance to deliver his closing argument, and also averted the risk of a hung jury, which would have frustrated defense plans to challenge the constitutionality of the antievolution statute in a higher court. Bryan accepted the inevitable. “I shall have to trust to the justness of the press, which reported what was said yesterday, to report what I will say, not to the court, but to the press in answer,” he told the court, “and I shall also avail myself of the opportunity to give to the press, not to the court, the questions that I would have asked had I been permitted to call the attorneys on the other side.”
72