i88i.J 
337 
The Philosophy of Pain. 
To criticise this theory is scarcely possible except we pos- 
sessed the power of projecting our consciousness into the 
inner life of those who make this assertion. Possibly they 
may, from some constitutional peculiarity, have less sensitive 
nerves than their neighbours. Perhaps they may be able, 
by the mere force of will, to throw themselves into a state 
resembling catalepsy. We read of men who in the olden 
time were submitted to torture “for their souls’ health,” but 
who whilst on the rack seemed unconscious of what they 
were undergoing. But it seems to me that all immunity 
from pain due to such causes, as well as to delirium, drun- 
kenness, violent passion, and the like, must be merely tem- 
porary. I have indeed known persons who had embraced, 
verbally at least, this stoical theory, found themselves yet 
unable to dispense with medical aid when suffering, e.g. f 
from tooth-ache or from neuralgia. It is therefore but fair 
to infer that what exceptional persons may possibly have 
once and again accomplished, in some state of exceptional 
excitement, signifies little for the mass of mankind. To 
them pain is a reality, to be dealt with by physical means 
only, and no more to be overcome by any psychic effort than 
are hunger and thirst. 
The favourite theory concerning pain is due to the so- 
called “ natural theologians.” It views pain as a necessary 
evil, depending on the constitution of man and of the uni- 
verse, and as being in its purpose benevolent. It is not a 
random, purposeless torment ; still less is it punitive or 
vindidtive. It is a self-acting natural contrivance for warning 
man — or rather animated nature altogether — against what- 
ever might imperil the health or the life of the individual, 
and in consequence lessen the probability of the race or the 
species. Without its beneficent guidance we should rush to 
destruction. 
These views were expounded with some wealth of illus- 
tration in a work which in its day was considered as 
heterodox enough, the “ Constitution of Man,” by G. 
Combe. They are adopted, with some slight transposition, 
by not a few Evolutionists, who, whilst denying purposive- 
ness in the universe, seem to work round in an indirect 
manner to what is substantially the same thing. 
Let us now examine this “ warning ” theory. It is the 
part of an efficient watchman to raise the alarm on the 
approach of any and every kind of danger ; to let his 
warnings be proportionate in their urgency to the magnitude 
of the approaching mischief, not to raise a startling outcry 
if he espies a mouse entering the premises, and merely utter 
