a treatise on parents and children-第19部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



which　spurious　family　sentiment　is　stoked　up。　　We　are；　after　all；

sociable　animals；　and　if　we　are　let　alone　in　the　matter　of　our

affections；　and　well　brought　up　otherwise；　we　shall　not　get　on　any　the

worse　with　particular　people　because　they　happen　to　be　our　brothers

and　sisters　and　cousins。　　The　danger　lies　in　assuming　that　we　shall

get　on　any　better。



The　main　point　to　grasp　here　is　that　families　are　not　kept　together　at

present　by　family　feeling　but　by　human　feeling。　　The　family　cultivates

sympathy　and　mutual　help　and　consolation　as　any　other　form　of　kindly

association　cultivates　them；　but　the　addition　of　a　dictated　compulsory

affection　as　an　attribute　of　near　kinship　is　not　only　unnecessary；　but

positively　detrimental；　and　the　alleged　tendency　of　modern　social

development　to　break　up　the　family　need　alarm　nobody。　　We　cannot　break

up　the　facts　of　kinship　nor　eradicate　its　natural　emotional

consequences。　　What　we　can　do　and　ought　to　do　is　to　set　people　free　to

behave　naturally　and　to　change　their　behavior　as　circumstances　change。

To　impose　on　a　citizen　of　London　the　family　duties　of　a　Highland

cateran　in　the　eighteenth　century　is　as　absurd　as　to　compel　him　to

carry　a　claymore　and　target　instead　of　an　umbrella。　　The　civilized　man

has　no　special　use　for　cousins；　and　he　may　presently　find　that　he　has

no　special　use　for　brothers　and　sisters。　　The　parent　seems　likely　to

remain　indispensable；　but　there　is　no　reason　why　that　natural　tie

should　be　made　the　excuse　for　unnatural　aggravations　of　it；　as

crushing　to　the　parent　as　they　are　oppressive　to　the　child。　　The

mother　and　father　will　not　always　have　to　shoulder　the　burthen　of

maintenance　which　should　fall　on　the　Atlas　shoulders　of　the　fatherland

and　motherland。　　Pending　such　reforms　and　emancipations；　a　shattering

break…up　of　the　parental　home　must　remain　one　of　the　normal　incidents

of　marriage。　　The　parent　is　left　lonely　and　the　child　is　not。　　Woe　to

the　old　if　they　have　no　impersonal　interests；　no　convictions；　no

public　causes　to　advance；　no　tastes　or　hobbies！　　It　is　well　to　be　a

mother　but　not　to　be　a　mother…in…law；　and　if　men　were　cut　off

artificially　from　intellectual　and　public　interests　as　women　are；　the

father…in…law　would　be　as　deplorable　a　figure　in　popular　tradition　as

the　mother…in…law。



It　is　not　to　be　wondered　at　that　some　people　hold　that　blood

relationship　should　be　kept　a　secret　from　the　persons　related；　and

that　the　happiest　condition　in　this　respect　is　that　of　the　foundling

who；　if　he　ever　meets　his　parents　or　brothers　or　sisters；　passes　them

by　without　knowing　them。　　And　for　such　a　view　there　is　this　to　be

said：　　that　our　family　system　does　unquestionably　take　the　natural

bond　between　members　of　the　same　family；　which；　like　all　natural

bonds；　is　not　too　tight　to　be　borne；　and　superimposes　on　it　a　painful

burden　of　forced；　inculcated；　suggested；　and　altogether　unnecessary

affection　and　responsibility　which　we　should　do　well　to　get　rid　of　by

making　relatives　as　independent　of　one　another　as　possible。







The　Fate　of　the　Family



The　difficulty　of　inducing　people　to　talk　sensibly　about　the　family　is

the　same　as　that　which　I　pointed　out　in　a　previous　volume　as　confusing

discussions　of　marriage。　　Marriage　is　not　a　single　invariable

institution：　　it　changes　from　civilization　to　civilization；　from

religion　to　religion；　from　civil　code　to　civil　code；　from　frontier　to

frontier。　　The　family　is　still　more　variable；　because　the　number　of

persons　constituting　a　family；　unlike　the　number　of　persons

constituting　a　marriage；　varies　from　one　to　twenty：　　indeed；　when　a

widower　with　a　family　marries　a　widow　with　a　family；　and　the　two

produce　a　third　family；　even　that　very　high　number　may　be　surpassed。

And　the　conditions　may　vary　between　opposite　extremes：　　for　example；

in　a　London　or　Paris　slum　every　child　adds　to　the　burden　of　poverty

and　helps　to　starve　the　parents　and　all　the　other　children；　whereas　in

a　settlement　of　pioneer　colonists　every　child；　from　the　moment　it　is

big　enough　to　lend　a　hand　to　the　family　industry；　is　an　investment　in

which　the　only　danger　is　that　of　temporary　over…capitalization。　　Then

there　are　the　variations　in　family　sentiment。　　Sometimes　the　family

organization　is　as　frankly　political　as　the　organization　of　an　army　or

an　industry：　　fathers　being　no　more　expected　to　be　sentimental　about

their　children　than　colonels　about　soldiers；　or　factory　owners　about

their　employees；　though　the　mother　may　be　allowed　a　little　tenderness

if　her　character　is　weak。　　The　Roman　father　was　a　despot：　　the　Chinese

father　is　an　object　of　worship：　　the　sentimental　modern　western　father

is　often　a　play…fellow　looked　to　for　toys　and　pocket…money。　　The

farmer　sees　his　children　constantly：　　the　squire　sees　them　only　during

the　holidays；　and　not　then　oftener　than　he　can　help：　　the　tram

conductor；　when　employed　by　a　joint　stock　company；　sometimes　never

sees　them　at　all。



Under　such　circumstances　phrases　like　The　Influence　of　Home　Life；　The

Family；　The　Domestic　Hearth；　and　so　on；　are　no　more　specific　than　The

Mammals；　or　The　Man　In　The　Street；　and　the　pious　generalizations

founded　so　glibly　on　them　by　our　sentimental　moralists　are　unworkable。

When　households　average　twelve　persons　with　the　sexes　about　equally

represented；　the　results　may　be　fairly　good。　　When　they　average　three

the　results　may　be　very　bad　indeed；　and　to　lump　the　two　together　under

the　general　term　The　Family　is　to　confuse　the　question　hopelessly。

The　modern　small　family　is　much　too　stuffy：　　children　〃brought　up　at

home〃　in　it　are　unfit　for　society。　　But　here　again　circumstances

differ。　　If　the　parents　live　in　what　is　called　a　garden　suburb；　where

there　is　a　good　deal　of　social　intercourse；　and　the　family；　instead　of

keeping　itself　to　itself；　as　the　evil　old　saying　is；　and　glowering　at

the　neighbors　over　the　blinds　of　the　long　street　in　which　nobody　knows

his　neighbor　and　everyone　wishes　to　deceive　him　as　to　his　income　and

social　importance；　is　in　effect　broken　up　by　school　life；　by

out…of…door　habits；　and　by　frank　neighborly　intercourse　through　dances

and　concerts　and　theatricals　and　excursions　and　the　like；　families　of

four　may　turn　out　much　less　barbarous　citizens　than　families　of　ten

which　attain　the　Boer　ideal　of　being　out　of　sight　of　one　another's

chimney　smoke。



All　one　can　say　is；　roughly；　that　the　homelier　the　home；　and　the　more

familiar　the　family；　the　worse　for　everybody　concerned。　　The　family

ideal　is　a　humbug　and　a　nuisance：　　one　might　as　reasonably　talk　of　the

barrack　ideal；　or　the　forecastle　ideal；　or　any　other　substitution　of

the　machinery　of　social　organization　for　the　end　of　it；　which　must

always　be　the　fullest　and　most　capable　life：　　in　short；　the　most　godly

life。　　And　this　significant　word　reminds　us　that　though　the　popular

conception　of　heaven　includes　a　Holy　Family；　it　does　not　attach　to

that　family　the　notion　of　a　separate　home；　or　a　private　nursery　or

kitchen　or　mother…in…law；　or　anything　that　constitutes　the　family　as

we　know　it。　　Even　blood　relationship　is　miraculously　abstracted　from

it；　and　the　Father　is　the　father　of　all　children；　the　mother　the

mother　of　all　mothers　and　babies；　and　the　Son　the　Son　of　Man　and　the

Savior　of　his　brothers：　　one　whose　chief　utterance　on　the　subject　of

the　conventional　family　was　an　invitation　to　all　of　us　to　leave　our

families　and　follow　him；　and　to　leave　the　dead　to　bury　the　dead；　and

not　debauch　ourselves　at　that　gloomy　festival　the　family　funeral；　with

its　sequel　of　hideous　mourning　and　grief　which　is　either　affected　or

morbid。







Family　Mourning



I　do　not　know　how　far　this　detestable　custom　of　mourning　is　carried　in

France；　but　judging　from　the　appearance　of　the　French　people　I　should

say　that　a　Frenchwoman　goes　into　mourning　for　her　cousins　to　the

seventeenth　degree。　　The　result　is　that　when　I　cross　the　Channel　I

seem　to　have　reached　a　country　devastated　by　war　or　pestilence。　　It　is

really　suffering　only　from　the　family。　　Will　anyone　pretend　that

England　has　not　the　best　of　this　striking　difference？　　Yet　it　is　such

senseless　and　unnatural　conventions　as　this　that　make　us　so　impatient

of　what　we　call　family　feeling。　　Even　apart　from　its　insufferable

pretensions；　the　family　needs　hearty　discrediting；　for　there　is　hardly

any　vulnerable　part　of　it　that　could　not　be　amputated　with　advantage。







Art　Teaching



By　art　teaching　I　hasten　to　say　that　I　do　not　mean　giving　children

lessons　in　freehand　drawing　and　perspective。　　I　am　simply　calling

attention　to　the　fact　that　fine　art　is　the　only　teacher　except

torture。　　I　have　already　pointed　out　that　nobody；　except　under　threat

of　torture；　can　read　a　school　book。　　The　reason　is　that　a　school　book

is　not　a　work　of　art。　　Similarly；　you　cannot　listen　to　a　lesson　or　a

sermon　unless　the　teacher　or　the　preacher　is　an　artist。　　You　cannot

read　the　Bible　if　you　have　no　sense　of　literary　art。　　The　reason　why

the　continental　European　is；　to　the　Englishman　or　American；　so

surprisingly　ignorant　of　the　Bible；　is　that　the　authorized　English

version　is　a　great　work　of　literary　art；　and　the　continental　versions

are　comparatively　artless。　　To　read　a　dull　book；　to　listen　to　a

tedious　play　or　prosy　sermon　or　lecture；　to　stare　at　uninteresting

pictures　or　ugly　buildings：　　nothing；　short　of　disease；　is　more

dreadful　than　this。　　The　violence　done　to　our　souls　by　it　leaves

injuries　and　produces　subtle　maladies　which　have　never　been　properly

studied　by　psycho…pathologists。　　Yet　we　are　so　inured　to　it　in　school；

where　practically　all　the　teachers　are　bores　trying　to　do　the　work　of

artists；　and　all　the　books　artless；　that　we　acquire　a　truly　frightful

power　of　enduring　boredom。　　We　even　acquire　the　notion　that　fine　art

is　lascivious　and　destructive　to　the　character。　　In　church；　in　the

House　of　Commons；　at　public　meetings；　we　sit　solemnly　listening　to

bores　and　twaddlers　be