a treatise on parents and children-第2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！



designed　to　prevent　parents　from　using　their　children　ruthlessly　to

make　money　for　the　household。　　Such　legislation　has　always　been

furiously　resisted　by　the　parents；　even　when　the　horrors　of　factory

slavery　were　at　their　worst；　and　the　extension　of　such　legislation　at

present　would　be　impossible　if　it　were　not　that　the　parents　affected

by　it　cannot　control　a　majority　of　votes　in　Parliament。　　In　domestic

life　a　great　deal　of　service　is　done　by　children；　the　girls　acting　as

nursemaids　and　general　servants；　and　the　lads　as　errand　boys。　　In　the

country　both　boys　and　girls　do　a　substantial　share　of　farm　labor。

This　is　why　it　is　necessary　to　coerce　poor　parents　to　send　their

children　to　school；　though　in　the　relatively　small　class　which　keeps

plenty　of　servants　it　is　impossible　to　induce　parents　to　keep　their

children　at　home　instead　of　paying　schoolmasters　to　take　them　off

their　hands。



It　appears　then　that　the　bond　of　affection　between　parents　and

children　does　not　save　children　from　the　slavery　that　denial　of　rights

involves　in　adult　political　relations。　　It　sometimes　intensifies　it；

sometimes　mitigates　it；　but　on　the　whole　children　and　parents　confront

one　another　as　two　classes　in　which　all　the　political　power　is　on　one

side；　and　the　results　are　not　at　all　unlike　what　they　would　be　if

there　were　no　immediate　consanguinity　between　them；　and　one　were　white

and　the　other　black；　or　one　enfranchised　and　the　other

disenfranchised；　or　one　ranked　as　gentle　and　the　other　simple。　　Not

that　Nature　counts　for　nothing　in　the　case　and　political　rights　for

everything。　　But　a　denial　of　political　rights；　and　the　resultant

delivery　of　one　class　into　the　mastery　of　another；　affects　their

relations　so　extensively　and　profoundly　that　it　is　impossible　to

ascertain　what　the　real　natural　relations　of　the　two　classes　are　until

this　political　relation　is　abolished。







What　is　a　Child？



An　experiment。　　A　fresh　attempt　to　produce　the　just　man　made　perfect：

that　is；　to　make　humanity　divine。　　And　you　will　vitiate　the　experiment

if　you　make　the　slightest　attempt　to　abort　it　into　some　fancy　figure

of　your　own：　　for　example；　your　notion　of　a　good　man　or　a　womanly

woman。　　If　you　treat　it　as　a　little　wild　beast　to　be　tamed；　or　as　a

pet　to　be　played　with；　or　even　as　a　means　to　save　you　trouble　and　to

make　money　for　you　（and　these　are　our　commonest　ways）；　it　may　fight

its　way　through　in　spite　of　you　and　save　its　soul　alive；　for　all　its

instincts　will　resist　you；　and　possibly　be　strengthened　in　the

resistance；　but　if　you　begin　with　its　own　holiest　aspirations；　and

suborn　them　for　your　own　purposes；　then　there　is　hardly　any　limit　to

the　mischief　you　may　do。　　Swear　at　a　child；　throw　your　boots　at　it；

send　it　flying　from　the　room　with　a　cuff　or　a　kick；　and　the　experience

will　be　as　instructive　to　the　child　as　a　difficulty　with　a

short…tempered　dog　or　a　bull。　　Francis　Place　tells　us　that　his　father

always　struck　his　children　when　he　found　one　within　his　reach。　　The

effect　on　the　young　Places　seems　to　have　been　simply　to　make　them　keep

out　of　their　father's　way；　which　was　no　doubt　what　he　desired；　as　far

as　he　desired　anything　at　all。　　Francis　records　the　habit　without

bitterness；　having　reason　to　thank　his　stars　that　his　father　respected

the　inside　of　his　head　whilst　cuffing　the　outside　of　it；　and　this　made

it　easy　for　Francis　to　do　yeoman's　service　to　his　country　as　that　rare

and　admirable　thing；　a　Freethinker：　　the　only　sort　of　thinker；　I　may

remark；　whose　thoughts；　and　consequently　whose　religious　convictions；

command　any　respect。



Now　Mr　Place；　senior；　would　be　described　by　many　as　a　bad　father；　and

I　do　not　contend　that　he　was　a　conspicuously　good　one。　　But　as

compared　with　the　conventional　good　father　who　deliberately　imposes

himself　on　his　son　as　a　god；　who　takes　advantage　of　childish　credulity

and　parent　worship　to　persuade　his　son　that　what　he　approves　of　is

right　and　what　he　disapproves　of　is　wrong；　who　imposes　a　corresponding

conduct　on　the　child　by　a　system　of　prohibitions　and　penalties；

rewards　and　eulogies；　for　which　he　claims　divine　sanction：　　compared

to　this　sort　of　abortionist　and　monster　maker；　I　say；　Place　appears

almost　as　a　Providence。　　Not　that　it　is　possible　to　live　with　children

any　more　than　with　grown…up　people　without　imposing　rules　of　conduct

on　them。　　There　is　a　point　at　which　every　person　with　human　nerves　has

to　say　to　a　child　〃Stop　that　noise。〃　　But　suppose　the　child　asks　why！

There　are　various　answers　in　use。　　The　simplest：　　〃Because　it

irritates　me；〃　may　fail；　for　it　may　strike　the　child　as　being　rather

amusing　to　irritate　you；　also　the　child；　having　comparatively　no

nerves；　may　be　unable　to　conceive　your　meaning　vividly　enough。　　In　any

case　it　may　want　to　make　a　noise　more　than　to　spare　your　feelings。

You　may　therefore　have　to　explain　that　the　effect　of　the　irritation

will　be　that　you　will　do　something　unpleasant　if　the　noise　continues。

The　something　unpleasant　may　be　only　a　look　of　suffering　to　rouse　the

child's　affectionate　sympathy　（if　it　has　any）；　or　it　may　run　to

forcible　expulsion　from　the　room　with　plenty　of　unnecessary　violence；

but　the　principle　is　the　same：　　there　are　no　false　pretences　involved：

the　child　learns　in　a　straightforward　way　that　it　does　not　pay　to　be

inconsiderate。　　Also；　perhaps；　that　Mamma；　who　made　the　child　learn

the　Sermon　on　the　Mount；　is　not　really　a　Christian。







The　Sin　of　Nadab　and　Abihu



But　there　is　another　sort　of　answer　in　wide　use　which　is　neither

straightforward；　instructive；　nor　harmless。　　In　its　simplest　form　it

substitutes　for　〃Stop　that　noise；〃　〃Dont　be　naughty；〃　which　means　that

the　child；　instead　of　annoying　you　by　a　perfectly　healthy　and　natural

infantile　procedure；　is　offending　God。　　This　is　a　blasphemous　lie；　and

the　fact　that　it　is　on　the　lips　of　every　nurserymaid　does　not　excuse

it　in　the　least。　　Dickens　tells　us　of　a　nurserymaid　who　elaborated　it

into　〃If　you　do　that；　angels　wont　never　love　you。〃　　I　remember　a

servant　who　used　to　tell　me　that　if　I　were　not　good；　by　which　she

meant　if　I　did　not　behave　with　a　single　eye　to　her　personal

convenience；　the　cock　would　come　down　the　chimney。　　Less　imaginative

but　equally　dishonest　people　told　me　I　should　go　to　hell　if　I　did　not

make　myself　agreeable　to　them。　　Bodily　violence；　provided　it　be　the

hasty　expression　of　normal　provoked　resentment　and　not　vicious

cruelty；　cannot　harm　a　child　as　this　sort　of　pious　fraud　harms　it。

There　is　a　legal　limit　to　physical　cruelty；　and　there　are　also　human

limits　to　it。　　There　is　an　active　Society　which　brings　to　book　a　good

many　parents　who　starve　and　torture　and　overwork　their　children；　and

intimidates　a　good　many　more。　　When　parents　of　this　type　are　caught；

they　are　treated　as　criminals；　and　not　infrequently　the　police　have

some　trouble　to　save　them　from　being　lynched。　　The　people　against　whom

children　are　wholly　unprotected　are　those　who　devote　themselves　to　the

very　mischievous　and　cruel　sort　of　abortion　which　is　called　bringing

up　a　child　in　the　way　it　should　go。　　Now　nobody　knows　the　way　a　child

should　go。　　All　the　ways　discovered　so　far　lead　to　the　horrors　of　our

existing　civilizations；　described　quite　justifiably　by　Ruskin　as　heaps

of　agonizing　human　maggots；　struggling　with　one　another　for　scraps　of

food。　　Pious　fraud　is　an　attempt　to　pervert　that　precious　and　sacred

thing　the　child's　conscience　into　an　instrument　of　our　own

convenience；　and　to　use　that　wonderful　and　terrible　power　called　Shame

to　grind　our　own　axe。　　It　is　the　sin　of　stealing　fire　from　the　altar：

a　sin　so　impudently　practised　by　popes；　parents；　and　pedagogues；　that

one　can　hardly　expect　the　nurserymaids　to　see　any　harm　in　stealing　a

few　cinders　when　they　are　worrited。



Into　the　blackest　depths　of　this　violation　of　children's　souls　one　can

hardly　bear　to　look；　for　here　we　find　pious　fraud　masking　the

violation　of　the　body　by　obscene　cruelty。　　Any　parent　or　school

teacher　who　takes　a　secret　and　abominable　delight　in　torture　is

allowed　to　lay　traps　into　which　every　child　must　fall；　and　then　beat

it　to　his　or　her　heart's　content。　　A　gentleman　once　wrote　to　me　and

said；　with　an　obvious　conviction　that　he　was　being　most　reasonable　and

high　minded；　that　the　only　thing　he　beat　his　children　for　was　failure

in　perfect　obedience　and　perfect　truthfulness。　　On　these　attributes；

he　said；　he　must　insist。　　As　one　of　them　is　not　a　virtue　at　all；　and

the　other　is　the　attribute　of　a　god；　one　can　imagine　what　the　lives　of

this　gentleman's　children　would　have　been　if　it　had　been　possible　for

him　to　live　down　to　his　monstrous　and　foolish　pretensions。　　And　yet　he

might　have　written　his　letter　to　The　Times　（he　very　nearly　did；　by　the

way）　without　incurring　any　danger　of　being　removed　to　an　asylum；　or

even　losing　his　reputation　for　taking　a　very　proper　view　of　his

parental　duties。　　And　at　least　it　was　not　a　trivial　view；　nor　an　ill

meant　one。　　It　was　much　more　respectable　than　the　general　consensus　of

opinion　that　if　a　school　teacher　can　devise　a　question　a　child　cannot

answer；　or　overhear　it　calling　omega　omeega；　he　or　she　may　beat　the

child　viciously。　　Only；　the　cruelty　must　be　whitewashed　by　a　moral

excuse；　and　a　pretence　of　reluctance。　　It　must　be　for　the　child's

good。　　The　assailant　must　say　〃This　hurts　me　more　than　it　hurts　you。〃

There　must　be　hypocrisy　as　well　as　cruelty。　　The　injury　to　the　child

would　be　far　less　if　the　voluptuary　said　frankly　〃I　beat　you　because　I

like　beating　you；　and　I　shall　do　it　whenever　I　can　contrive　an　excuse

for　it。〃　　But　to　represent　this　detestable　lust　to　the　child　as　Divine

wrath；　and　the　cruelty　as　the　beneficent　act　of　God；　which　is　exactly

what　all　our　floggers　do；　is　to　add　to　the　torture　of　the　body；　out　of

which　the　flogger　at　least　gets　some　pleasure；　the　maiming　and

blinding　of　the　child's　soul；　which　can　bring　nothing　but　horror　to

anyone。