IN THE SHETLANDS 355 
exchange. But if we are justified in watching a 
certain act of nature’s drama, in the field or the forest, 
why should we not, also, watch it under conditions 
which may, alone, make it possible for us to do so? 
The thing is not the worse because it is thus trans- 
ported to another spot on earth; and the same snake 
that in captivity eats but once in a month or so, were 
it at liberty, would have a much better appetite. 
Therefore, when we keep snakes, and let them eat in 
the way that is natural to them, and which, not to the 
naturalist merely, but to every thinking man, should 
be full of interest, we do not increase the sum of 
misery which this earth contains, but, rather, take 
away from it. What we see, under these conditions, 
we do not create, any more than if we came upon it 
by chance, during a walk. We are spectators merely; 
and spectators of nature I hold that we have a right 
to be. If not, the very breath of his life is stifled in 
the naturalist’s nostrils. He is strangled. He ceases 
to exist. 
But there is a test and guiding path of reason and 
morality, here as in other matters. Whether it is 
right or wrong that a snake should feed in captivity, 
as it does when at large, depends, in my opinion, on 
the similarity, or otherwise, of the essential conditions 
in each case. In nature the victim is at some point 
taken unawares by the snake, and it is only after 
that, if at all, that it suffers any pain of apprehension.! 
1 But this is begging the question of the so-called power of fascination said to 
be possessed by some snakes, and for which, I think, there is some evidence. 
