X i t e r a r ^ ( S u t b e

AND RATIONALIST REVIEW,

[ESTABLISHED 1885.]

N o . 38. (N ew Series.)

AUGUST i , 1899.

Monthly ; T wopence.

Contents.

rAfiE

Is Nature Cr u e l ? By Charles T. Gorham . .113 Impersonal Deities. By Joseph McCabe . ! 114 Lord Reay. By F. J. Gould . . . .115 A Mysterious Lull in A nti-Ritualism. By J. S. ■ Laurie . . . . . . . .116 T iie Wise Men of the East . . , .116 T he Savage Parentage of Myths . . .118 Ingersoll. Iiy F. J. G. . . . . .119 A n A ppeal for a T housand Pounds . . .120 Random Jottings . . . . . ' , , , T he F atal Rainiiow . . . _ .122 S igns and Warnings (gleaned ' rom the Religious

P ress . . . . .

j 23

Rationalism in the Magazines , . .124 S hort Notices . . . . _ ’ J25 T h e 'O dium A nti-Theologicum . ’ ’ OUR LETTER-BOX . . . . ' .lie

30 mature Cruel ? T he question of the alleged cruelty o f nature lias recently Been dealt with in a little book under the above title, by a Mr. J. Crowther Hirst, who claims to show that a verdict of “ Not proven ” may fairly be given. The writer brings forward evidence to show that animals which form the prey of stronger animals feel little or no pain in the process of destruction. This evidence is strengthened by various recitals o f encounters in which even so highly organized a being as man has survived severe injuries inflicted by ferocious beasts, and has furnished distinct testimony as to the absence of suffering. The instance of Dr. Livingstone in the jaws of the. lion may be taken as an example typical of a large number of cases. I f this absence of pain may be taken as a practically universal feature of the attacks of wild beasts, Mr. Hirst asks if the scheme of nature is not thereby relieved from the charge of cruelty which Mr. John Stuart Mill and many others have brought against her methods. Death is a necessity to provide for the continuance of life, and, if there js reason to believe that death is usually painless, the order o f nature is seen to be not cruel, but comparatively beneficent. Nature, even if “ red in tooth and claw,” is not in the habit o f inflicting unnecessary suffering.

Now this answer appears to be fair and just as far as it goes ; but it does not cover the whole ground. Mr. Hirst puts it forward as only a “ partial answer,” and partial it certainly is. In the first place, it is by a mere figure of speech that we attribute personality to nature. It is convenient to speak of the phenomena of animal life as if they were under the guidance o f a conscious will possessing moral, intellectual, ¿nd emotional qualities. But we must recognize that these qualities are not centred in a personal being called Nature. Nature is neither cruel nor kind, neither bloodthirsty nor beneficent. By “ nature ” we, of course, mean the sum-total of material forces and phenomena. Man himself is a part o f nature, and a mass of granite rock is a part of nature. Cruelty may, and does, exist in man, and we often attribute cruelty to certain animals, or even to the inanimate forces which underlie material phenomena ; but we are. usually quite conscious that in doing so we are applying the phraseology of conscious volition to that which does not possess it.

This by way of preface. But we still have to face the question whether the processes ofi nature do not cause a terrible amount of unnecessary suffering, and whether this does not constitute a grave difficulty in holding to the theory that the operations of nature have been directly instituted by a benevolent deity, and are under his constant supervision. We must at once remark that it is not sufficient to prove the total quantity of suffering to be less than has sometimes been supposed. The difficulty remains, how to account for the suffering that does exist. Much of it appears to be perfectly needless, much of it productive of no good or useful result. With this kind of suffering Mr. Hirst does not deal. The suffering caused by the attacks of carnivorous animals is but a part, though certainly a considerable part, of the whole, and even there it must be said that the answer given is not absolutely final. As Mr. Hirst admits, cases have been known in which intense suffering has accompanied the wild beasts’ onslaught, and even where pain has not been experienced at the time it has, where the victim has survived, been felt afterwards. An account appeared a short time ago in the Wide World Magazine, the writer of which had been snatched from his tent by a lion, and portions of his body reduced almost to pulp by the animal’s bites. The unfortunate man felt no pain whatever at the time, but his sufferings afterwards were perfectly appalling. In regard to such cases one fails to see that the order of nature is justified merely by the fact that the pain is delayed, since by being prolonged as well as intensified the total agony must be out of all proportion greater than if death had followed immediately. In order to prove that nature’s processes are not accompanied by needless pain, it is necessary not to confine ourselves to one class of phenomena, but to examine the whole. We shall proceed to show that instances may readily be found in which suffering is not merely an accompaniment, but an essential feature, of the process ; indeed, it appears to be involved in the very structure of certain organisms, and to be the main purpose for which they exist. I f we take the case of painful diseases, of cancer, hydrophobia, and other horrors, we shall soon see cause to question the leniency of nature’s methods. True, these are abnormal manifestations of life; they are rather manifestations of death; but death itself is nature’s normal contrivance for making room for more individuals. It cannot be denied that the penalties she inflicts for violations of her laws (it is convenient to drop into the language of personality) are often enormously in excess of the fault, nor can it for one moment be claimed that they always fall on the right person.

However, granting that Mr. Hirst has made a good case in favour of the' carnivora, we would prefer to base any arraignment of nature on the peculiarities of lower forms of life, and on the suffering caused by the catastrophes connected with inanimate forms of matter. An avalanche, for instance, sweeps down a mountain side and crushes a village out of existence, and maims, kills, or ruins half a hundred people. A sudden flood, or a fall of earth, imprisons men in a mine where they die in the slow agonies of starvation. Storms, earthquakes, fires, pestilences, with all their vast total of human and animal suffering, must not be left out of sight when we examine the scheme of nature. But, though they form part of nature’s operations, we do not call them “ cruel ” except as a conscious use of rhetorical language.

Trivial though it may sound, one of the phenomena of nature most difficult to explain is that of the suffering due to insects. Think of the wanton agony caused by mosquitoes, or by the swarms of leeches that infest some marshy districts. Consider the ways of the Chigoe, which enters the living flesh, and quickly becomes distended with eggs to one hundred times its own size. Reflect upon the tsetse fly of