TH

A Knotty Problem.

HE hard thing about evolution is that it must account for everything. If the good has been evolved, why, then, so has been the bad. Whatever is must come under the one common law. All of the aspects of nature and of life must be explained and justified as well as some; but to attempt to justify all revolts us. It would seem that our ethical nature is satisfied to accept evolutionary results and the law by which they come so long as they harmonize with our moral sense. But if any of the results do not harmonize, if they jar and offend, we reject them and seek some other law. For this reason we divide all things natural and spiritual into two classes, following the one and spurning the other. We note with pleasure the unfolding of the beautiful parts of nature and of life, but shrink from the unfolding of the ugly and the unclean.

This discriminating sense which we bear in virtue of our nature must itself be a result of evolution or else there is no evolution at all. That is, one evolutionary result turns upon another result of the same law and cries out in deadly antagonism against it. Acting under the force within we try to amend conditions without, accepting some and rejecting others. The ethical result of evolution in man makes war on the moral results of the evolution outside of him. Aye more; the war goes on within as well as without. One half of the man-house rises against the other half, and the rebellion is often successful to the extent of putting down the government.

How can these things be? Why should there be such contradiction and battle in the soul and substance of things? Why should one half of nature and of life be in insurrection against the other half? If one law be over all, why should the results of it be heterogenous and irreconcilable? It is impossible for us to agree that everything is good. It is absurd to aver that everything is beautiful and true. What,

therefore, can evolution signify in the production of the abhorrent and the vile-at the same time producing in us a sense to be revolted with evil and uncleanness? There must be some meaning or none to this deep-down paradox of the universe.

We cannot believe that there is no meaning at all in nature and in life. If it were clearly seen that the evolution of the good goes on more easily, more naturally, more successfully than does the evolution of the evil, we might conclude that the bad is simply subservient to the good until what time it may be extinguished. But it does actually appear that the law is rather the other way. It seems to be the order of the universe that good has to be promoted, while evil takes care of itself. The good must be barricaded with all manner of militant care, and stimulated with every fertilizing expedient in order that it may grow or even survive. But the bad flourishes without barricade or care, and even against the enmity and skill of the better parts of intelligent nature.

That philosopher who can tell us why the American Beauty requires to be produced with so much artifice and culture, while the burdock flourishes in sardonic triumph and sheer spite of the elements would be a philosopher indeed. He who can tell why rags and tatters and dirt and misery and crime prevail without assistance, while flowers — both natural and artificial and beauty and cleanness and art and perfection of life have to be promoted with the immeasurable expenditure of physical power and nerve virtue, would be the Socrates of the century; and we are not sure that his fame would not outlast the fame of the other. And we are not sure that, should he come, society would not have the hemlock ready; for the teaching of truth and the distillation of the hemlock still go together as in the ancient days. It may be that the bowl and the decoction and the hand of Crito are not so plainly seen, but the potion is just as fatal as that which was drunk by the son of Sophroniscus, sitting on the edge of his couch.

It may be that the explanation of the universal paradox is that nature is not a moral fact. Man is a moral fact, but not the natural world. The spiritual evolution has thus brought

forth a sense in man that runs counter to the material machine. This is a possible thing. On the whole we must allow that the principle of morality does not exist, or at least does not display itself, in the material world, but only in the the soul of man. Ethics is in us, and nowhere else. Our view of nature, therefore, discovers a fact which is seemingly the product of the swirl and swish of fatea fact that is neither moral or immoral, but merely neutral and indifferent. This fact offends the inner sense, and war breaks out the moment that man peers forth and discovers what is around him. This implies that evolution has not gone on pari passu in the material and in the spiritual world. The rectifying advantage of evil is still necessary in nature, but no longer necessary in the soul. Thus the spirit of man, observing the vicissitudes of the brutal battle going on in material nature, complains that it is immoral, and seeks to rectify a condition that can only rectify itself by warring and wasting and devouring until the unfit parts are consumed and obliterated. But it is a knotty question.

A Case of Prevision.

One of my friends, Professor L- is a man of science. He has both the nature and the attainments of a true scientific man. He has in his specialty a reputation that is more than national. His literary fame, also, is climbing to the fore. The remarkable case of prevision which I shall here record, my friend gave me in a personal narrative when we were alone this summer at the Warsaw Lakes. Since then, in order to make assurance doubly sure, I have asked him to write out for me with the care of a man of science, the exact facts in the case narrated. The following communication is his response. The case I conceive to be one of the most remarkable, as it is clearly one of the most authentic, instances of prevision on record.

MY DEAR DR. RIDPATH:

N

July 26, 1897.

In accordance with your request, I submit herewith an authentic account of the case of prevision related to you during our

outing at Eagle Lake. You will remember that the paper of the French astronomer, Camille Flammarion, on "Prevision of the Future," published in the March ARENA was the occasion of our conversation and of the following statement.

Thursday, October 10, 1895. When I reached home Mrs. L- — informed me that our son, eleven years of age, had said to her, on his return from school, "Professor F- [our school principal] came into our room this afternoon and told the children that a lady had lost a gold locket in N [our village], and that if any of us should find it, we should bring it to him. He said that we should tell our parents that the locket was a square gold locket set with diamonds."

On returning from business the next afternoon, Mrs. L informed me that walking along H

Avenue she had found

the locket that the lady had lost, and that it was exactly as Mr. had described it. It was a square gold locket set with

F

a row of diamonds across the face, a valuable jewel. in an envelope and send it to-morrow to Mr. Fchild," I said, and dismissed the subject.

"Seal it

by the

On my return the next afternoon, Mrs. L- - informed me that the boy had brought the locket home again, with the following statement: "I carried the envelope to Mr. F- -and told him that Mamma had found the locket. He looked at me and said, What locket?' The locket the lady lost, and which you told us children about day before yesterday.'" "My boy," said Mr. F"I know nothing about any lost locket."

"But, Mr. F

6

you came into our room and told us children that a lady had lost a gold locket in the village, and that if any of us found it, we should bring it to you." "No; this is the first I have heard of any lost locket; take it home," was the reply of the principal.

Troubled very much, the boy insisted [to his mother] that Mr. F had come into the room, spoken to the children, described the locket as a square gold locket set with diamonds, and asked that it be brought to him in case any of the children or their parents should find it. But neither the children in the school, the teacher, nor the principal had heard anything about the occurrence! To the present day, however, the boy is firm in his impressions that Mr. Fcame to the room and told

about the locket.

Somewhat perplexed I advertised in the T

S

of C

that a piece of jewelry had been found by us, and the very next day the lady who had dropped it [a friend of a neighbor of ours] called and described the lost locket. It was a jewel much valued in her family.

Now comes the strangest part of the record: the locket had been lost by the lady only half an hour previous to its discovery by Mrs. L It was both lost and found about twenty-four hours after the child had described the locket to his mother who found it!

The case seemed so extraordinary that I recorded the facts as now given. I told a few friends about the occurrence, but for reasons that need not be discussed have given the matter, until now, no further publicity.

Concerning Eternity.

J. U. L.

I have noticed of late a peculiar repugnance to eternity. The sentiment shows itself in a half-expressed wish that eternity should not exist. Not a few are disposed to say that eternity is too long that the thought of it may well make us shudder. And this is said, I believe, with little respect to the prospective immortality of the soul; albeit, one can not logically object to eternity if the abstract notion of it be considered apart from our personal concern therein. For if we are not to live forever, why should we trouble ourselves that something else shall still continue forever without us?

As a matter of fact, eternity exists, and it can neither be abolished nor obviated; it can neither be modified nor abridged. Eternity is the only fact which, if abrogated, would continue as before! Here is an infinite paradox: If God should destroy eternity it would be there still! If He himself should perish out of the universe, eternity would remain unchanged and unchangeable; all this for the reason that only things can be abolished, and eternity is not a thing. Even if God should be not, eternity would still be! We may admit that the thought is appalling.

But why should anyone dread eternity? It would appear that the human mind is changing its point of observation. To some it is beginning to seem undesirable that anything should continue forever. Many minds waver: sometimes eternal