Must Be a Mystery

There are two letters in the “Clarion” this week which in various ways interest me very much.  One is concerned to defend Darwin against the scientific revolt against him that was led by Samuel Butler, and among other things it calls Bernard Shaw a back number.  Well, most certainly “The Origin of Species” is a back number, in so far as any honest and interesting book ever can be; but in pure philosophy nothing can be out of date, since the universe must be a mystery even to the believer.  There is, however, one condition of things in which I do call it relevant to describe somebody as behind the times.  That is when the man in question, thinking of some state of affairs that has passed away, is really helping the very things he would like to hinder.  The principles cannot alter, but the problems can.  Thus, I should call a man behind the times who, in the year 1872, pleaded for the peaceful German peasants against the triumphant militarism of Napoleon.  Or I should call a man out of date who, in the year 1892, wished for a stronger Navy to compete with the Navy of Holland, because it had once swept the sea and sailed up the Thames.  And I certainly call a man or a movement out of date that, in the year 1914, when we few are fighting a giant machine, strengthened with all material wealth and worked with all the material sciences, thinks that our chief danger is from an excess of moral and religious responsibility.  He reminds me of Mr. Snodgrass, who had the presence of mind to call out “Fire!” when Mr. Pickwick fell through the ice.

The other letter consists of the usual wiredrawn argument for fatalism.  Man cannot imagine the universe being created, and therefore is “compelled by his reason” to think the universe without beginning or end, which (I may remark) he cannot imagine either.  But the letter ends with something much more ominous than bad metaphysics.  Here, in the middle of the “Clarion,” in the centre of a clean and combative democratic sheet, I meet again my deplorable old acquaintance, the scientific criminologist.  “The so-called evil-doer should not be punished for his acts, but restrained.”  In forty-eight hours I could probably get a petition to that effect signed by millionaires.  A short time ago a Bill was introduced to hold irresponsible and “restrain” a whole new class of people, who were “incapable of managing their affairs with prudence.”  Read the supporters’ names on the back of that Bill, and see what sort of democrats they were.

Now, clearing our heads of what is called popular science (which means going to sleep to a lullaby of long words), let us use our own brains a little, and ask ourselves what is the real difference between punishing a man and restraining him.  The material difference may be any or none; for punishment may be very mild, and restraint may be very ruthless.  The man, of course, must dislike one as much as the other, or