when i wrote a little volume on my friend mr. bernard shaw, it is needless to say that he reviewed it. i naturally felt tempted to answer and to criticise the book from the same disinterested and impartial standpoint from which mr. shaw had criticised the subject of it. i was not withheld by any feeling that the joke was getting a little obvious; for an obvious joke is only a successful joke; it is only the unsuccessful clowns who comfort themselves with being subtle. the real reason why i did not answer mr. shaw’s amusing attack was this: that one simple phrase in it surrendered to me all that i have ever wanted, or could want from him to all eternity. i told mr. shaw (in substance) that he was a charming and clever fellow, but a common calvinist. he admitted that this was true, and there (so far as i am concerned) is an end of the matter. he said that, of course, calvin was quite right in holding that “if once a man is born it is too late to damn or save him.” that is the fundamental and subterranean secret; that is the last lie in hell.
the difference between puritanism and catholicism is not about whether some priestly word or gesture is significant and sacred. it is about whether any word or gesture is significant and sacred. to the catholic every other daily act is dramatic dedication to the service of good or of evil. to the calvinist no act can have that sort of solemnity, because the person doing it has been dedicated from eternity, and is merely filling up his time until the crack of doom. the difference is something subtler than plum-puddings or private theatricals; the difference is that to a christian of my kind this short earthly life is intensely thrilling and precious; to a calvinist like mr. shaw it is confessedly automatic and uninteresting. to me these threescore years and ten are the battle. to the fabian calvinist (by his own confession) they are only a long procession of the victors in laurels and the vanquished in chains. to me earthly life is the drama; to him it is the epilogue. shavians think about the embryo; spiritualists about the ghost; christians about the man. it is as well to have these things clear.
now all our sociology and eugenics and the rest of it are not so much materialist as confusedly calvinist, they are chiefly occupied in educating the child before he exists. the whole movement is full of a singular depression about what one can do with the populace, combined with a strange disembodied gayety about what may be done with posterity. these essential calvinists have, indeed, abolished some of the more liberal and universal parts of calvinism, such as the belief in an intellectual design or an everlasting happiness. but though mr. shaw and his friends admit it is a superstition that a man is judged after death, they stick to their central doctrine, that he is judged before he is born.
in consequence of this atmosphere of calvinism in the cultured world of to-day, it is apparently necessary to begin all arguments on education with some mention of obstetrics and the unknown world of the prenatal. all i shall have to say, however, on heredity will be very brief, because i shall confine myself to what is known about it, and that is very nearly nothing. it is by no means self-evident, but it is a current modern dogma, that nothing actually enters the body at birth except a life derived and compounded from the parents. there is at least quite as much to be said for the christian theory that an element comes from god, or the buddhist theory that such an element comes from previous existences. but this is not a religious work, and i must submit to those very narrow intellectual limits which the absence of theology always imposes. leaving the soul on one side, let us suppose for the sake of argument that the human character in the first case comes wholly from parents; and then let us curtly state our knowledge rather than our ignorance.
