{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_72445/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_72445","id":"gutenberg_72445","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72445","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Parenthood & Family Relations","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Teaching & Education","Child rearing","Education -- Parent participation"],"text":"PARENTS AND CHILDREN\n\n\n\n\n +--------------------------------------------------------------+\n | _BY THE SAME AUTHOR_ |\n | |\n | HOME EDUCATION: A Course of Lectures to Ladies. By |\n | CHARLOTTE M. MASON. Second Edition, Revised and |\n | Enlarged. Demy 8vo, 6s. |\n | |\n | STUDIES IN ENGLISH FOR THE USE OF MODERN SCHOOLS. By H. C. |\n | BOWEN. Eleventh Thousand. Small crown 8vo, 1s. 6d. |\n | |\n | SIMPLE ENGLISH POEMS. English Literature for Junior |\n | Classes. By H. C. BOWEN. 3s. Parts I., II., and III. |\n | 6d. each. Part IV. 1s. |\n | |\n | ENGLISH GRAMMAR FOR BEGINNERS. By H. C. BOWEN. Fcap. 8vo, |\n | 1s. |\n | |\n | ON THE STUDY OF WORDS. By the late Archbishop TRENCH. |\n | Revised by A. L. MAYHEW. Twenty-fifth Edition. Fcap. |\n | 8vo, 5s. |\n | |\n | ENGLISH PAST AND PRESENT. By the late Archbishop TRENCH. |\n | Revised by A. L. MAYHEW. Fifteenth Edition. Fcap. 8vo, |\n | 5s. |\n | |\n | THE MODERN FRENCH READER. Edited by C. CASSAL, LL.D., and |\n | THEODORE KARCHER, LL.B. Junior Course. Nineteenth |\n | Edition. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. Senior Course. Seventh |\n | Edition. Crown 8vo, 4s. Senior Course and Glossary, |\n | in One Vol. Crown 8vo, 6s. |\n | |\n | PRACTICAL FRENCH GRAMMAR. By MORTIMER DE LARMOYER, |\n | Professor of the French Language and Literature at the |\n | Crystal Palace School. Crown 8vo. New Edition, in One |\n | Vol., 3s. 6d. Two Parts, 2s. 6d. each. |\n | |\n | LONDON: KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TR\u00dcBNER & CO. L\u1d57\u1d48 |\n +--------------------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n\n PARENTS AND CHILDREN\n\n\n A SEQUEL TO\n\n \u201cHOME EDUCATION\u201d\n\n\n\n\n BY\n\n CHARLOTTE M. MASON\n\n\n\n\n LONDON\n KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TR\u00dcBNER & CO. L\u1d40\u1d30\n PATERNOSTER HOUSE, CHARING CROSS ROAD\n 1897\n\n\n\n\n _The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved._\n\n\n\n\n _Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.\n _At the Ballantyne Press_\n\n\n\n\n TO THE MEMBERS OF\n\n THE PARENTS\u2019 NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL UNION\n\n _THIS VOLUME_\n\n IS INSCRIBED BY THE AUTHOR\n AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE AFFECTION AND\n REVERENCE WITH WHICH THEIR\n EFFORTS INSPIRE HER\n\n\n\n\n AMBLESIDE,\n _November 1896_.\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nThe following essays have appeared in the _Parents\u2019 Review_, and were\naddressed, from time to time, to a body of parents who are making a\npractical study of the principles of education--the \u201cParents\u2019 National\nEducational Union.\u201d The present volume is a sequel to _Home Education_\n(Kegan Paul & Co.), a work which was the means of originating this\nUnion of Parents. It is not too much to say that the Parents\u2019 Union\nexists to advance, with more or less method and with more or less\nsteadfastness, a definite school of educational thought of which the\ntwo main principles are--the recognition of the physical basis of\nhabit, _i.e._ of the material side of education; and of the inspiring\nand formative power of the Idea, _i.e._ of the immaterial, or\nspiritual, side of education. These two guiding principles, covering\nas they do the whole field of human nature, should enable us to deal\nrationally with all the complex problems of education; and the object\nof the following essays is, not to give an exhaustive application of\nthese principles--the British Museum itself would hardly contain all\nthe volumes needful for such an undertaking--but to give an example or\na suggestion, here and there, as to how such and such an habit may be\nformed, such and such a formative idea be implanted and fostered. The\nintention of the volume will account to the reader for what may seem a\nwant of connected and exhaustive treatment of the subject, and for the\niteration of the same principles in various connections. The author\nventures to hope that the following hints and suggestions will not\nprove the less practically useful to busy parents, because they rest on\nprofound educational principles.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n BOOK I\n\n _THEORY_\n\n CHAPTER I\n PAGE\n THE FAMILY 3\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n PARENTS AS RULERS 12\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n PARENTS AS INSPIRERS (PART I) 20\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n PARENTS AS INSPIRERS (PART II) 29\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n PARENTS AS INSPIRERS (PART III) 39\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n PARENTS AS INSPIRERS (PART IV) 48\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n THE PARENT AS SCHOOLMASTER 58\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n THE CULTURE OF CHARACTER (PART I) 66\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n THE CULTURE OF CHARACTER (PART II) 79\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n BIBLE LESSONS 88\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n FAITH AND DUTY (PART I) 96\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n FAITH AND DUTY (PART II) 111\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n FAITH AND DUTY (PART III) 122\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n THE HEROIC IMPULSE 134\n\n\n CHAPTER XV\n\n IS IT POSSIBLE? 143\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n\n DISCIPLINE 160\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n\n SENSATIONS AND FEELINGS (PART I) 169\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n\n SENSATIONS AND FEELINGS (PART II) 181\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n\n \u201cWHAT IS TRUTH?\u201d 192\n\n\n CHAPTER XX\n\n SHOW CAUSE WHY 201\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n\n HERBARTIAN PEDAGOGICS 211\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII\n\n THE TEACHING OF THE \u201cPARENTS\u2019 NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL\n UNION\u201d (PART I) 220\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n\n THE TEACHING OF THE \u201cPARENTS\u2019 NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL\n UNION\u201d (PART II) 228\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV\n\n WHENCE AND WHITHER (PART I) 242\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV\n\n WHENCE AND WHITHER (PART II) 250\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI\n\n THE GREAT RECOGNITION 260\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVII\n\n THE ETERNAL CHILD 271\n\n\n BOOK II\n\n _ESSAYS IN PRACTICAL EDUCATION_\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n THE PHILOSOPHER AT HOME 283\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n \u201cATTENTION\u201d 303\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIMENT 312\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n DOROTHY ELMORE\u2019S ACHIEVEMENT: A FORECAST 320\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n CONSEQUENCES 346\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n MRS. SEDLEY\u2019S TALE 355\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n ABILITY 367\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n POOR MRS. JUMEAU! 376\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n \u201cA HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO YOU!\u201d 386\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n PARENTS IN COUNCIL (PART I) 395\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n PARENTS IN COUNCIL (PART II) 405\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER 413\n\n\n NOTE 429\n\n\n\n\n BOOK I\n\n _THEORY_\n\n\n\n\n PARENTS AND CHILDREN\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n _THE FAMILY_\n\n \u201cThe family is the unit of the nation.\u201d--F. D. MAURICE.\n\n\nIt is probable that no other educational thinker has succeeded in\naffecting parents so profoundly as did Rousseau. _Emile_ is little\nread now, but how many current theories of the regimen proper for\nchildren have there their unsuspected source? Everybody knows--and his\ncontemporaries knew it better than we--that Jean Jacques Rousseau had\nnot enough sterling character to warrant him to pose as an authority\non any subject, least of all on that of education. He sets himself\ndown a poor thing, and we see no cause to reject the evidence of his\n_Confessions_. We are not carried away by the charm of his style; his\n\u201cforcible feebleness\u201d does not dazzle us. No man can _say_ beyond that\nwhich he _is_, and there is a want of grit in his philosophic theories\nthat removes most of them from the category of available thought.\n\nBut Rousseau had the insight to perceive one of those patent truths\nwhich, somehow, it takes a genius to discover; and, because truth is\nindeed prized above rubies, the perception of that truth gave him rank\nas a great teacher. \u201cIs _Jean Jacques_ also among the prophets?\u201d people\nasked, and ask still; and that he had thousands of fervent disciples\namongst the educated parents of Europe, together with the fact that\nhis teaching has filtered into many a secluded home of our own day,\nis answer enough. Indeed, no other educationalist has had a tithe of\nthe influence exercised by Rousseau. Under the spell of his teaching,\npeople in the fashionable world, like that Russian Princess Galitzin,\nforsook society, and went off with their children to some quiet corner\nwhere they could devote every hour of the day, and every power they\nhad, to the fulfilment of the duties which devolve upon parents.\nCourtly mothers retired from the world, sometimes even left their\nhusbands, to work hard at the classics, mathematics, sciences, that\nthey might with their own lips instruct their children. \u201cWhat else am\nI for?\u201d they asked; and the feeling spread that the bringing up of the\nchildren was the one work of primary importance for men and women.\n\nWhatever extravagance he had seen fit to advance, Rousseau would still\nhave found a following, because he had chanced to touch a spring\nthat opened many hearts. He was one of the few educationalists who\nmade his appeal to the parental instincts. He did not say, \u201cWe have\nno hope of the parents, let us work for the children!\u201d Such are the\nfaint-hearted and pessimistic things we say to-day. What he said was,\nin effect, \u201cFathers and mothers, this is your work, and you only can do\nit. It rests with you, parents of young children, to be the saviours\nof society unto a thousand generations. Nothing else matters. The\navocations about which people weary themselves are as foolish child\u2019s\nplay compared with this one serious business of bringing up our\nchildren in advance of ourselves.\u201d\n\nPeople listened, as we have seen; the response to his teaching was\nsuch a letting out of the waters of parental enthusiasm as has never\nbeen known before nor since. And Rousseau, weak and little worthy, was\na preacher of righteousness in this, that he turned the hearts of the\nfathers to the children, and so far made ready a people prepared for\nthe Lord. But alas! having secured the foundation, he had little better\nthan wood, hay, and stubble to offer to the builders.\n\nRousseau succeeded, as he deserved to succeed, in awaking many parents\nto the binding character, the vast range, the profound seriousness of\nparental obligations. He failed, and deserved to fail, as he offered\nhis own crude conceits by way of an educational code. But his success\nis very cheering. He perceived that God placed the training of every\nchild in the hands of two, a father and a mother; and the response to\nhis teaching proved that, as the waters answer to the drawing of the\nmoon, so do the hearts of parents rise to the idea of the great work\ncommitted to them.\n\nThough it is true, no doubt, that every parent is conscious of\nunwritten laws, more or less definite and noble according to his own\nstatus, yet an attempt, however slight, to codify these laws may be\ninteresting to parents.\n\n\u201cThe family is the unit of the nation.\u201d This pregnant saying suggests\nsome aspects of the parents\u2019 calling. From time to time, in all ages of\nthe world, communistic societies have arisen, sometimes for the sake of\nco-operation in a great work, social or religious, more recently by way\nof protest against inequalities of condition; but, in every case, the\nfundamental rule of such societies is, that the members shall have all\nthings in common. We are apt to think, in our careless way, that such\nattempts at communistic association are foredoomed to failure. But that\nis not the case. In the United States, perhaps because hired labour\nis less easy to obtain than it is with us, they appear to have found\na congenial soil, and there many well-regulated communistic bodies\nflourish. There are failures, too, many and disastrous, and it appears\nthat these may usually be traced to one cause, a government enfeebled\nby the attempt to combine democratic and communistic principles, to\ndwell together in a common life, while each does what is right in his\nown eyes. A communistic body can thrive only under a vigorous and\nabsolute rule.\n\nA favourite dream of socialism is--or was until the idea of\ncollectivism obtained--that each State of Europe should be divided into\nan infinite number of small self-contained communes. Now, it sometimes\nhappens that the thing we desire is already realised, had we eyes to\nsee. The family is, practically, a commune. In the family the undivided\nproperty is enjoyed by all the members in common, and, in the family\nthere is equality of social condition, with diversity of duties. In\nlands where patriarchal practices still obtain, the family merges into\nthe tribe, and the head of the family is the chief of the tribe--a very\nabsolute sovereign indeed. In our own country, families are usually\nsmall, parents and their immediate offspring, with the attendants and\nbelongings which naturally gather to a household, and, let it not be\nforgotten, _form part of the family_. The smallness of the family tends\nto obscure its character, and we see no force in the phrase at the head\nof this chapter; we do not perceive that, if the unit of the nation\nis the natural commune, the family, then is the family the social\nmicrocosm, pledged to carry on within itself all the functions of the\nState, with the delicacy, precision, and fulness of detail proper to\nwork done on a small scale.\n\nIt by no means follows from this communistic view of the family that\nthe domestic policy should be a policy of isolation; on the contrary,\nit is not too much to say, that a nation is civilised in proportion\nas it is able to establish close and friendly relations with other\nnations, and that, not with one or two, but with many; and, conversely,\nthat a nation is barbarous in proportion to its isolation; and does not\na family decline in intelligence and virtue when from generation to\ngeneration it \u201ckeeps itself to itself\u201d?\n\nAgain, it is probable that a nation is healthy in proportion as it\nhas its own proper outlets, its colonies and dependencies, which it\nis ever solicitous to include in the national life. So of the nation\nin miniature, the family; the struggling families at \u2018the back,\u2019 the\norphanage, the mission, the necessitous of our acquaintance, are they\nnot for the sustenance of the family in the higher life?\n\nBut it is not enough that the family commune maintain neighbourly\nrelations with other such communes, and towards the stranger within\nthe gates. The family is the unit of the nation; and the nation is\nan organic whole, a living body, built up, like the natural body, of\nan infinite number of living organisms. It is only as it contributes\nits quota towards the national life that the life of the family is\ncomplete. Public interests must be shared, public work taken up, the\npublic welfare cherished--in a word, its integrity with the nation\nmust be preserved, or the family ceases to be part of a living whole,\nand becomes positively injurious, as decayed tissue in the animal\norganism.\n\nNor are the interests of the family limited to those of the nation.\nAs it is the part of the nation to maintain wider relations, to be in\ntouch with all the world, to be ever in advance in the great march of\nhuman progress, so is this the attitude which is incumbent on each unit\nof the nation, each family, as an integral part of the whole. Here is\nthe simple and natural realisation of the noble dream of _Fraternity_:\neach individual attached to a family by ties of love where not of\nblood; the families united in a federal bond to form the nation; the\nnations confederate in love and emulous in virtue, and all, nations\nand their families, playing their several parts as little children\nabout the feet and under the smile of the Almighty Father. Here is the\ndivine order which every family is called upon to fulfil; a little\nleaven leaveneth the whole lump, and, therefore, it matters infinitely\nthat every family should realise the nature and the obligations of the\nfamily bond. As water cannot rise above its source, neither can we live\nat a higher level than that of the conception we form of our place\nand use in life. Let us ask the question--has this, of regarding all\neducation and all civil and social relations from the standpoint of\nthe _family_, any practical outcome? So much so, that perhaps there is\nhardly a problem of life for which it does not contain the solution.\nFor example:--What shall we teach our children? Is there one subject\nthat claims our attention more than another? Yes, there is a subject\nor class of subjects which has an imperative _moral_ claim upon us. It\nis the duty of the nation to maintain relations of brotherly kindness\nwith other nations; therefore, it is the duty of every family, as\nan integral part of the nation, to be able to hold brotherly speech\nwith the families of other nations as opportunities arise; therefore,\nto acquire the speech of neighbouring nations is not only to secure\nan inlet of knowledge and a means of culture, but is a duty of that\nhigher morality (the morality of the family) which aims at universal\nbrotherhood; therefore, every family would do well to cultivate two\nlanguages besides the mother tongue, even in the nursery.\n\nAgain; a fair young Englishwoman was staying with her mother at a\nGerman _Kurhaus_. They were the only English people present, and\nprobably forgot that the Germans are better linguists than we.\nThe young lady sat through the long meals with her book, hardly\ninterrupting her reading to eat, and addressing no more than one or\ntwo remarks to her mother, as--\u201cI wonder what that mess is!\u201d or, \u201cHow\nmuch longer shall we have to sit with these tiresome people?\u201d Had she\nremembered that no family can live to itself, that she and her mother\nrepresented England, _were_ England for that little German community,\nshe would have imitated the courteous greetings which the German ladies\nbestowed on their neighbours.\n\nBut we must leave further consideration of this great subject, and\nconclude with a striking passage from Mr. Morley\u2019s \u2018Appreciation\u2019 of\n_Emile_. \u201cEducation slowly came to be thought of in connection with\nthe family. The improvement of ideas upon education was only one phase\nof the great general movement towards the restoration of the family,\nwhich was so striking a spectacle in France after the middle of the\ncentury. Education now came to comprehend the whole system of the\nrelations between parents and their children, from earliest infancy to\nmaturity. The direction of such wider feeling about these relations\ntended strongly towards an increased closeness in them, more intimacy,\nand a more continuous suffusion of tenderness and long attachment.\u201d\nHis labours in this great cause, \u201cthe restoration of the family,\u201d give\nRousseau a claim upon the gratitude and respect of mankind. It has\nproved a lasting, solid work. To this day, family relations in France\nare more gracious, more tender, more close and more inclusive, than\nthey are with us. They are more expansive too, leading to generally\nbenign and friendly behaviour; and so strong and satisfying is the\nfamily bond, that the young people find little necessity to \u2018fall in\nlove.\u2019 The mother lays herself out for the friendship of her young\ndaughters, who respond with entire loyalty and devotion; and, Zola\nnotwithstanding, French maidens are wonderfully pure, simple, and\nsweet, because their affections are abundantly satisfied.\n\nPossibly \u201cthe restoration of the family\u201d is a labour that invites us\nhere in England, each within the radius of our own hearth; for there\nis little doubt that the family bond is more lax amongst us than it\nwas two or three generations ago. Perhaps nowhere is family life of\nmore idyllic loveliness than where we see it at its best in English\nhomes. But the wise ever find some new thing to learn. Though a nation,\nas an individual, must act on the lines of its own character, and we\nare, on the whole, well content with our English homes, yet we might\nlearn something from the inclusiveness of the French family, where\nmother-in-law and father-in-law, aunt and cousins, widow and spinster,\nare cherished, and a hundred small offices devised for dependants who\nwould be in the way in an English home. The result is that the children\nhave a wider range for the practice of the thousand sweet attentions\nand self-restraints which make home life lovely. No doubt the medal has\nits obverse; there is probably much in French home life which we should\nshrink from; nevertheless, it offers object lessons which we should do\nwell to study. Again, where family life is most beauteous with us, is\nnot the family a little apt to become self-centred and self-sufficient,\nrather than to cultivate that expansiveness towards other families\nwhich is part of the family code of our neighbours?\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n _PARENTS AS RULERS_\n\n\nLet us continue our consideration of the family as the nation in\nminiature, with the responsibilities, the rights, and the requirements\nof the nation. The parents represent the \u201cGovernment\u201d; but, here, the\ngovernment is ever an absolute Monarchy, conditioned very loosely by\nthe law of the land, but very closely by that law more or less of which\nevery parent bears engraved on his conscience. Some attain the levels\nof high thinking, and come down from the Mount with beaming countenance\nand the tables of the law intact; others fail to reach the difficult\nheights, and are content with such fragments of the broken tables as\nthey pick up below. But be his knowledge of the law little or much, no\nparent escapes the call to rule.\n\nNow, the first thing we ask for in a ruler is, \u201cIs he able to rule?\nDoes he know how to maintain his authority?\u201d A ruler who fails to\ngovern is like an unjust judge, an impious priest, an ignorant\nteacher, that is, he fails in the essential attribute of his office.\nThis is even more true in the family than in the State; the king may\nrule by deputy; but, here we see the exigeant nature of the parent\u2019s\nfunctions; he can have no deputy. Helpers he may have, but the moment\nhe makes over his functions and authority to another, the rights of\nparenthood belong to that other, and not to him. Who does not know of\nthe heart-burnings that arise when Anglo-Indian parents come home, to\nfind their children\u2019s affections given to others, their duty owing to\nothers; and they, the parents, sources of pleasure like the godmother\nof the fairy tale, but having no authority over their children? And all\nthis, nobody\u2019s fault, for the guardians at home have done their best to\nkeep the children loyal to the parents abroad.\n\nHere is indicated a rock upon which the heads of families sometimes\nmake shipwreck. They regard parental authority as inherent in them, a\nproperty which may lie dormant, but is not to be separated from the\nstate of parenthood. They may allow their children from infancy upwards\nto do what is right in their own eyes; and then, Lear turns and makes\nhis plaint to the winds, and cries--\n\n \u201cSharper than a serpent\u2019s tooth it is\n To have a thankless child!\u201d\n\nBut Lear has been all the time divesting himself of the honour and\nauthority that belong to him, and giving his rights to the children.\nHere he tells us why; the biting anguish is the \u201c_thankless_\u201d child. He\nhas been laying himself out for the thanks of his children. That they\nshould think him a fond father, has been more to him than the duty he\nowes them; and in proportion as he omits his duty are they oblivious of\ntheirs. Possibly the unregulated love of approbation in devoted parents\nhas more share in the undoing of families than any other single cause.\nA writer of to-day represents a mother as saying--\n\n\u201cBut you are not afraid of me, Bessie?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo indeed; who could be afraid of a dear, sweet, soft, little mother\nlike you?\u201d\n\nAnd such praise is sweet in the ears of many a fond mother hungering\nfor the love and liking of her children, and not perceiving that words\nlike these in the mouth of a child are as treasonable as words of\ndefiance.\n\nAuthority is laid down at other shrines than that of popularity.\nProspero describes himself as,\n\n \u201call dedicate\n To study, and the bettering of my mind.\u201d\n\nAnd, meantime, the exercise of authority devolves upon Antonio; is it\nany wonder that the habit of authority fits the usurper like a glove,\nand that Prospero finds himself ousted from the office he failed to\nfill? Even so, the busy parent, occupied with many cares, awakes to\nfind the authority he has failed to wield has dropped out of his hands;\nperhaps has been picked up by others less fit, and a daughter is given\nover to the charge of a neighbouring family, while father and mother\nhunt for rare prints.\n\nIn other cases, the love of an easy life tempts parents to let things\ntake their course; the children are good children, and won\u2019t go far\nwrong, we are told; and very likely it is true. But however good the\nchildren be, the parents owe it to society to make them better than\nthey are, and to bless the world with people, not merely good-natured\nand well-disposed, but good of set purpose and endeavour.\n\nThe love of ease, the love of favour, the claims of other work,\nare only some of the causes which lead to a result disastrous to\nsociety--the _abdication of parents_. When we come to consider the\nnature and uses of the parents\u2019 authority, we shall see that such\nabdication is as immoral as it is mischievous. Meantime, it is well\nworth while to notice that the causes which lead parents to resign the\nposition of domestic rulers are resolvable into one--the office is too\ntroublesome, too laborious. The temptation which assails parents is the\nsame which has led many a crowned head to seek ease in the cloister--\n\n \u201cUneasy lies the head that wears a crown,\u201d\n\nif it be the natural crown of parenthood.\n\nThe Apostolic counsel of \u201cdiligence\u201d in ruling throws light upon the\nnature and aim of authority: it is no longer a matter of personal\nhonour and dignity; authority is for use and service, and the honour\nthat goes with it is only for the better service of those under\nauthority. The arbitrary parent, the exacting parent, who claims this\nand that of deference and duty because he is a parent, all for his own\nhonour and glory, is more hopelessly in the wrong than the parent who\npractically abdicates; the majesty of parenthood is hedged round with\nobservances only because it is good for the children to \u201cfaithfully\nserve, honour, and humbly obey\u201d their natural rulers. Only at home can\nchildren be trained in the chivalrous temper of \u201cproud submission and\ndignified obedience;\u201d and if the parents do not inspire and foster\ndeference, reverence, and loyalty, how shall these crowning graces of\ncharacter thrive in a hard and emulous world?\n\nIt is perhaps a little difficult to maintain an attitude of authority\nin these democratic days, when even educationalists counsel that\nchildren be treated on equal terms from the very beginning; but the\nchildren themselves come to our aid; the sweet humility and dependence\nnatural to them fosters the gentle dignity, the _soup\u00e7on_ of reserve,\nwhich is becoming in parents. It is not open to parents either to lay\naside or to sink under the burden of the honour laid upon them; and,\nno doubt, we have all seen the fullest, freest flow of confidence,\nsympathy, and love between parent and child, where the mother sits as a\nqueen among her children and the father is honoured as a crowned head.\nThe fact that there are two parents, each to lend honour to the other,\nyet free from restraint in each other\u2019s presence, makes it the easier\nto maintain the impalpable \u201cstate\u201d of parenthood. And the presence of\nthe slight, sweet, undefined feeling of dignity in the household is the\nvery first condition for the bringing up of loyal, honourable men and\nwomen, capable of reverence and apt to win respect.\n\nThe foundation of parental authority lies in the fact that parents\nhold office as deputies; and that, in a twofold sense. In the first\nplace, they are the immediate and personally appointed deputies of the\nAlmighty King, the sole Ruler of men; they have not only to fulfil\nHis counsels regarding the children, but to represent His Person; his\nparents are as God to the little child, and, yet more constraining\nthought, _God is to him what his parents are_; he has no power to\nconceive a greater and lovelier personality than that of the royal\nheads of his own home; he makes his first approach to the Infinite\nthrough them; they are his measure for the highest; if the measure be\neasily within his small compass, how shall he grow up with the reverent\ntemper which is the condition of spiritual growth?\n\nMore; parents hold their children in trust for society. \u201cMy own child\u201d\ncan only be true in a limited sense; the children are held as a public\ntrust to be trained as is best for the welfare of the community; and\nin this sense, also, the parents are persons in authority, with the\ndignity of their office to support, and are even liable to deposition.\nThe one State whose name has passed into a proverb, standing for a\ngroup of virtues which we have no other word to describe, is a State\nwhich practically deprived parents of the functions which they failed\nto fulfil to the furtherance of public virtue. No doubt the State\nreserves to itself virtually the power to bring up its own children\nin its own way, with the least possible co-operation of parents.\nEven to-day, a neighbouring nation has elected to charge itself with\nthe training of its infants. So soon as they can crawl, or sooner,\nbefore ever they run or speak, they are to be brought to the \u201cMaternal\nSchool,\u201d and carefully nurtured, as with mother\u2019s milk, in the virtues\nproper for a citizen. The scheme is as yet but in the experimental\nstage, but will doubtless be carried through, because the nation in\nquestion has long ago discovered--and acted consistently upon the\ndiscovery--that what you would have the man become, that you must train\nthe child to be.\n\nPerhaps such public deposition of parents is the last calamity that\ncan befall a nation. These poor little ones are to grow up in a world\nwhere the name of God is not to be named; to grow up, too, without the\ntraining in filial duty and brotherly love and neighbourly kindness\nwhich falls to the children of all but the few unnatural parents. They\nmay be returned to their parents at certain hours or after certain\nyears; but once alienation has been set up, once the strongest and\nsweetest tie has been loosened and the parents have been publicly\ndelivered from their duty, the desecration of the home is complete;\nand we shall have the spectacle of a people growing up orphaned\nalmost from their birth. This is a new thing in the world\u2019s history,\nfor even Lycurgus left the children to their parents for the first\nhalf-dozen years of life. Certain newspapers commend the example for\nour imitation, but God forbid that we should ever lose faith in the\nblessedness of family life. Parents who hold their children as, at\nthe same time, a public trust and a divine trust, and who recognise\nthe authority they hold as _deputed_ authority, not to be trifled\nwith, laid aside, or abused--such parents preserve for the nation the\nimmunities of home, and safeguard the privileges of their order.\n\nHaving seen that it does not rest with the parents to use, or to forego\nthe use of, the authority they hold, let us examine the limitations and\nthe scope of this authority. In the first place, it is to be maintained\nand exercised solely for the advantage of the children, whether in\nmind, body, or estate. And here is room for the nice discrimination,\nthe delicate intuitions, with which parents are blessed. The mother,\nwho makes her growing-up daughter take the out-of-door exercise she\nneeds, is acting within her powers. The father of quiet habits,\nwho discourages society for his young people, is considering his\nown tastes, and not their needs, and is making unlawful use of his\nauthority.\n\nAgain, the authority of parents, though the deference it begets remain\nto grace the relations of parents and child, is itself a provisional\nfunction, and is only successful as it encourages the _autonomy_, if\nwe may call it so, of the child. A single decision made by the parents\nwhich the child is, or should be, capable of making for itself, is an\nencroachment on the rights of the child, and a transgression on the\npart of the parents.\n\nOnce more, the authority of parents rests on a secure foundation only\nas they keep well before the children that it is deputed authority; the\nchild who knows that he is being brought up for the service of the\nnation, that his parents are acting under a Divine commission, will not\nturn out a rebellious son.\n\nFurther, though the emancipation of the children is gradual, they\nacquiring day by day more of the art and science of self-government,\nyet there comes a day when the parents\u2019 right to rule is over; there\nis nothing left for the parents but to abdicate gracefully, and leave\ntheir grown-up sons and daughters absolutely free agents, even though\nthese still live at home; and although, in the eyes of their parents,\nthey are not fit to be trusted with the ordering of themselves: if\nthey fail in such self-ordering, whether as regards time, occupations,\nmoney, friends, most likely their parents are to blame for not having\nintroduced them by degrees to the full liberty which is their right as\nmen and women. Anyway, it is too late now to keep them in training; fit\nor unfit, they must hold the rudder for themselves.\n\nAs for the employment of authority, the highest art lies in ruling\nwithout seeming to do so. The law is a terror to evil-doers, but for\nthe praise of them that do well; and in the family, as in the State,\nthe best government is that in which peace and happiness, truth and\njustice, religion and piety, are maintained without the intervention of\nthe law. Happy is the household that has few rules, and where \u201cMother\ndoes not like this,\u201d and \u201cFather wishes that,\u201d are all-constraining.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n _PARENTS AS INSPIRERS_\n\n PART I\n\n\nM. Adolf Monod claims that the child must owe to his mother a second\nbirth--the first into the natural, the second into the spiritual life\nof the intelligence and moral sense. Had he not been writing of women\nand for women, no doubt he would have affirmed that the long travail\nof this second birth must be undergone equally by both parents. Do we\nask how he arrives at this rather startling theory? He observes that\ngreat men have great mothers; mothers, that is, blest with an infinite\ncapacity for taking pains with their work of bringing up children.\nHe likens this labour to a second bearing which launches the child\ninto a higher life; and as this higher life is a more blessed life,\nhe contends that every child has a right to this birth into completer\nbeing _at the hands of his parents_. Did his conclusions rest solely\nupon the deductive methods he pursues, we might afford to let them\npass, and trouble ourselves very little about this second birth, which\nparents may, and ofttimes do, withhold from their natural offspring.\nWe, too, could bring forward our contrary instances of good parents\nwith bad sons, and indifferent parents with earnest children; and,\npat to our lips, would come the _Cui bono?_ which absolves us from\nendeavour.\n\nBe a good mother to your son because great men have good mothers, is\ninspiring, stimulating; but is not to be received as the final word.\nFor an appeal of irresistible urgency, we look to natural science with\nher inductive methods; though we are still waiting her last word,\nwhat she has already said is law and gospel for the believing parent.\nThe parable of Pandora\u2019s box is true to-day; and a woman may in her\nheedlessness let fly upon her offspring a thousand ills. But is there\nnot also \u201ca glass of blessings standing by,\u201d into which parents may\ndip, and bring forth for their children health and vigour, justice and\nmercy, truth and beauty?\n\n\u201cSurely,\u201d it may be objected, \u201cevery good and perfect gift comes\nfrom God above, and the human parent sins presumptuously who thinks\nto bestow gifts divine.\u201d Now this lingering superstition has no part\nnor lot with true religion, but, on the contrary, brings upon it the\nscandal of many an ill-ordered home and ill-regulated family. When\nwe perceive that God uses men and women, parents above all others,\nas vehicles for the transmission of His gifts, and that it is in the\nkeeping of His law He is honoured--more than in the attitude of the\ncourtier waiting for exceptional favours--then we shall take the\ntrouble to comprehend the law, written not only upon tables of stone\nand rolls of parchment, but upon the fleshly tablets of the living\norganisms of the children; and, understanding the law, we shall see\nwith thanksgiving and enlargement of heart in what _natural_ ways God\ndoes indeed show mercy unto thousands of them that love Him and keep\nHis commandments.\n\nBut His commandment is exceeding broad; becomes broader year by year\nwith every revelation of science; and we had need gird up the loins\nof our mind to keep pace with this current revelation. We shall be at\npains, too, to keep ourselves in that attitude of expectant attention\nwherein we shall be enabled to perceive the unity and continuity of\nthis revelation with that of the written Word of God. For perhaps it\nis only as we are able to receive the two, and harmonise the two in a\nwilling and obedient heart, that we shall enter on the heritage of glad\nand holy living which is the will of God for us.\n\nLet us, for example, consider, in the light of current scientific\nthought, the processes and the methods of this second birth, which,\naccording to M. Monod, the child claims at the hands of his parents.\n\u201cTrain up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he\nwill not depart from it,\u201d is not only a pledge, but is a statement\nof a result arrived at by deductive processes. The writer had great\nopportunities for collecting data; he had watched many children\ngrow up, and his experience taught him to divide them into two\nclasses--the well-brought up, who turned out well; and the ill-brought\nup, who turned out ill. No doubt, then, as now, there were startling\nexceptions, and--the exception proves the rule.\n\nBut, here as elsewhere, the promises and threatenings of the Bible\nwill bear the searching light of inductive processes. We may ask, Why\nshould this be so? and not content ourselves with a general answer,\nthat this is natural and right: we may search until we discover that\nthis result is inevitable, and no other result conceivable (except for\nalien influences), and our obedience will be in exact proportion to our\nperception of the inevitableness of the law.\n\nThe vast sum of what we understand by heredity is not to be taken\ninto account in the consideration of this second birth; by the first\nnatural birth it is, that \u201chis father and mother, his grandfather and\ngrandmother, are latent or declare themselves in the child; and it is\non the lines thus laid down in his nature that his development will\nproceed. It is not by virtue of education so much as by virtue of\ninheritance that he is brave or timid, generous or selfish, prudent\nor reckless, boastful or modest, quick or placid in temper; the\nground tone of his character is original in him, and it colours all\nthe subsequently formed emotions and their sympathetic ideas.... The\ninfluence of systematic culture upon any one is no doubt great, but\nthat which determines the limit, and even in some degree the nature of\nthe effects of culture, that which forms the foundations upon which all\nthe modifications of art must rest, is the inherited nature.\u201d\n\nIf heredity means so much, if, as would seem at the first glance,\nthe child comes into the world with his character ready-made, what\nremains for the parents to do but to enable him to work out his own\nsalvation without let or hindrance of their making, upon the lines of\nhis individuality? The strong naturalism, shall we call it, of our\nday, inclines us to take this view of the objects and limitations of\neducation; and without doubt it is a gospel; it is the truth; but it\nis not the whole truth. The child brings with him into the world, not\ncharacter, but disposition. He has tendencies which may need only to\nbe strengthened, or, again, to be diverted, or even repressed. His\ncharacter--the efflorescence of the man wherein the fruit of his life\nis a-preparing--character is original disposition, modified, directed,\nexpanded by education, by circumstances, later, by self-control and\nself-culture, above all, by the supreme agency of the Holy Ghost, even\nwhere that agency is little suspected, and as little solicited.\n\nHow is this great work of character-making--the single effectual labour\npossible to human beings--to be carried on? We shall rest our inquiries\non a physiological basis; the lowest, doubtless, but therefore the\nfoundation of the rest. The first-floor chambers of the psychologist\nare pleasant places, but who would begin to build with the first\nfloor? What would he rear it upon? Surely the arbitrary distinction\nbetween the grey matter of the brain and the \u201cmind\u201d (or thoughts or\nfeelings) which plays upon it, even as the song upon the vocal chords\nof the singer, is more truly materialistic than is the recognition of\nthe pregnant truth that the brain is the mere organ of the spiritual\npart, registering and effecting every movement of thought and feeling,\nwhether conscious or unconscious, by appreciable molecular movement,\nand sustaining the infinite activities of mind by corresponding\nenormous activity and enormous waste; that it is the organ of mind,\nwhich, under present conditions, is absolutely inseparable from, and\nindispensable to, the quickening spirit. Once we recognise that in the\nthinking of a thought there is as distinct motion set up in some tract\nof the brain as there is in the muscles of the hand employed in writing\na sentence, we shall see that the behaviour of the grey nerve-substance\nof the cerebrum should afford the one possible key to certitude and\nsystem in our attempts at education, using the word in the most worthy\nsense--as its concern is the formation of character.\n\nHaving heard Dr. Maudsley on the subject of heredity, let us hear him\nagain on this other subject, which practically enables us to define the\npossibilities of education.\n\n\u201cThat which has existed with any completeness in consciousness leaves\nbehind it, after its disappearance therefrom, in the mind or brain,\na functional disposition to its reproduction or reappearance in\nconsciousness at some future time. Of no mental act can we say that it\nis \u2018writ in water;\u2019 something remains from it, whereby its recurrence\nis facilitated. Every impression of sense upon the brain, every current\nof molecular activity from one to another part of the brain, every\ncerebral action which passes into muscular movement, leaves behind it\nsome modification of the nerve elements concerned in its function, some\nafter-effect, or, so to speak, memory of itself in them which renders\nits reproduction an easier matter, the more easy the more often it has\nbeen repeated, and makes it impossible to say that, however trivial, it\nshall not under some circumstances recur. Let the excitation take place\nin one of two nerve cells lying side by side, and between which there\nwas not any original specific difference, there will be ever afterwards\na difference between them. This physiological process, whatever be its\nnature, is the physical basis of memory, and it is the foundation of\nthe development of all our mental functions.\n\n\u201cThat modification which persists, or is retained, in structure after\nfunctions, has been differently described as a residuum, or relic,\nor trace, or disposition, or vestige; or again as potential, latent,\nor dormant idea. Not only definite ideas, but all affections of the\nnervous system, feelings of pleasure and pain, desire, and even its\noutward reactions, thus leave behind them their structural effects, and\nlay the foundation of modes of thought, feeling, and action. Particular\ntalents are sometimes formed quite, or almost quite, involuntarily;\nand complex actions, which were first consciously performed by dint\nof great application, become automatic by repetition; ideas which were\nat first consciously associated, ultimately coalesce and call one\nanother up without any consciousness, as we see in the quick perception\nor intuition of the man of large worldly experience; and feelings,\nonce active, leave behind them their large unconscious residua, thus\naffecting the generation of the character, so that, apart from the\noriginal or inborn nature of the individual, contentment, melancholy,\ncowardice, bravery, and even moral feeling are generated as the results\nof particular life-experiences.\u201d\n\nHere we have sketched out a magnificent educational charter. It is as\nwell, perhaps, that we do not realise the extent of our liberties; if\nwe did, it may be, such a fervour of educational enthusiasm would seize\nus, that we should behave as did those early Christians who every day\nexpected the coming of the Lord. How should a man have patience to buy\nand sell and get gain had it been revealed to him that he was able to\npaint the greatest picture ever painted? And we, with the enthralling\nvision of what our little child might become under our hands, how\nshould we have patience for common toils? That science should have\nrevealed the _rationale_ of education in our day is possibly the Divine\nrecognition that we have become more fit for the task, because we have\ncome to an increasing sense of moral responsibility. What would it be\nfor an immoral people to discern fully the possibilities of education?\nBut how slow we are! how--\n\n \u201cCustom lies upon us with a weight,\n Heavy as frost, and deep almost as life!\u201d\n\nIt is now more than five-and-twenty years since these words of Dr.\nMaudsley, and many of like force by other physiologists, were\npublished to the world. We have purposely chosen words that have stood\nthe test of time; for to-day a hundred eminent scientific men, at home\nand abroad, are proclaiming the same truths. Every scientist believes\nthem! And we? We go on after our use and wont, as if nothing had been\nsaid; dropping, hour by hour, out of careless hands, seeds of corn and\nhemlock, of bramble and rose.\n\nLet us run over the charter of our liberties, as Dr. Maudsley sums them\nup.\n\nWe may lay the physical basis of memory: while the wide-eyed babe\nstretches his little person with aimless kickings on his rug, he is\nreceiving unconsciously those first impressions which form his earliest\nmemories; and we can order those memories for him: we can see that the\nearliest sights he sees are sights of order, neatness, beauty; that\nthe sounds his ear drinks in are musical and soft, tender and joyous;\nthat the baby nostrils sniff only delicate purity and sweetness. These\nmemories remain through life, engraved on the unthinking brain. As we\nshall see later, memories have a certain power of accretion--where\nthere are some others of a like kind gather, and all the life is\nordered on the lines of these first pure and tender memories.\n\nWe may lay the foundation of the development of all the mental\nfunctions. Are there children who do not wonder, or revere, or care for\nfairy tales, or think wise child-thoughts? Perhaps there are not; but\nif there are, it is because the fertilising pollen grain has never been\nconveyed to the ovule waiting for it in the child\u2019s soul.\n\nThese are some of the things that--according to the citations we have\ngiven from Dr. Maudsley\u2019s _Physiology of Mind_--his parents may settle\nfor the future man, even in his early childhood:--\n\n His definite ideas upon particular subjects, as, for example, his\n relations with other people.\n\n His habits, of neatness or disorder, of punctuality, of moderation.\n\n His general modes of thought, as affected by altruism or egoism.\n\n His consequent modes of feeling and action.\n\n His objects of thought--the small affairs of daily life, the\n natural world, the operations or the productions of the human\n mind, the ways of God with men.\n\n His distinguishing talent--music, eloquence, invention.\n\n His disposition or tone of character, as it shows itself in and\n affects his family and other close relations in life--reserved\n or frank, morose or genial, melancholy or cheerful, cowardly or\n brave.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n _PARENTS AS INSPIRERS_\n\n PART II\n\n \u201cSow an act, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character;\n sow a character, reap a destiny.\u201d--THACKERAY.\n\n\nThe last chapter closed with an imperfect summary of what we may call\nthe educational functions of parents. We found that it rests with the\nparents of the child to settle for the future man his ways of thinking,\nbehaving, feeling, acting; his disposition, his particular talent;\nthe manner of things upon which his thoughts shall run. Who shall fix\nlimitations to the power of parents? The destiny of the child is ruled\nby his parents, because they have the virgin soil all to themselves.\nThe first sowing must be at their hands, or at the hands of such as\nthey choose to depute.\n\nWhat do they sow? _Ideas._ We cannot too soon recognise what is the\nsole educational instrument we have to work with, and how this one\ninstrument is to be handled. But how radically wrong is all our thought\nupon education! We cannot use the fit words because we do not think\nthe right thing. For example, an _idea_ is not an \u201cinstrument,\u201d but\nan agent; is not to be \u201chandled,\u201d but, shall we say, set in motion?\nWe have perhaps got over the educational misconception of the _tabula\nrasa_. No one now looks on the child\u2019s white soul as a tablet prepared\nfor the exercise of the educator\u2019s supreme art. But the conception\nwhich has succeeded this time-honoured heresy rests on the same false\nbases of the august office and the infallible wisdom of the educator.\nHere it is in its cruder form: \u201cPestalozzi aimed more at harmoniously\ndeveloping the faculties than at making use of them for the acquirement\nof knowledge; he sought to prepare the vase rather than to fill it.\u201d\nIn the hands of Froebel the figure gains in boldness and beauty; it\nis no longer a mere vase to be shaped under the potter\u2019s fingers; but\na flower, say, a perfect rose, to be delicately and consciously and\nmethodically moulded, petal by petal, curve and curl; for the perfume\nand living glory of the flower, why these will come; do you your part\nand mould the several petals; wait, too, upon sunshine and shower,\ngive space and place for your blossom to expand. And so we go to work\nwith a touch to \u201cimagination\u201d here, and to \u201cjudgment\u201d there; now, to\nthe \u201cperceptive faculties,\u201d now, to the \u201cconceptive;\u201d in this, aiming\nat the moral, and in this, at the intellectual nature of the child;\ntouching into being, petal by petal, the flower of a perfect life under\nthe genial influences of sunny looks and happy moods. This reading\nof the meaning of education and of the work of the educator is very\nfascinating, and it calls forth singular zeal and self-devotion on the\npart of those gardeners whose plants are the children. Perhaps, indeed,\nthis of the Kindergarten is the one vital conception of education we\nhave had hitherto.\n\nBut in these days of revolutionary thought, when all along the line--in\ngeology and anthropology, chemistry, philology, and biology--science\nis changing front, it is necessary that we should reconsider our\nconception of Education. We are taught, for example, that \u201cheredity\u201d is\nby no means the simple and direct transmission, from parent, or remote\nancestor, to child of power and proclivity, virtue and defect; and we\nbreathe freer, because we had begun to suspect that if this were so,\nit would mean to most of us an inheritance of exaggerated defects:\nimbecility, insanity, congenital disease--are they utterly removed from\nany one of us? So of education, we begin to ask, Is its work so purely\nformative as we thought? Is it directly formative at all? How much is\nthere in this pleasing and easy doctrine, that the drawing forth and\nstrengthening and directing of the several \u201cfaculties\u201d is education?\nParents are very jealous over the individuality of their children;\nthey mistrust the tendency to develop all on the same plan; and this\ninstinctive jealousy is right; for, supposing that education really\ndid consist in systematised efforts to draw out every power that is in\nus, why, we should all develop on the same lines, be as like as \u201ctwo\npeas,\u201d and (should we not?) die of weariness of one another! Some of\nus have an uneasy sense that things are tending towards this deadly\nsameness. But, indeed, the fear is groundless. We may believe that the\npersonality, the individuality, of each of us, is too dear to God,\nand too necessary to a complete humanity, to be left at the mercy of\nempirics. We are absolutely safe, and the tenderest child is fortified\nagainst a battering-ram of educational forces.\n\nThe problem of education is more complex than it seems at first sight,\nand well for us and the world that it is so. \u201cEducation is a life;\u201d you\nmay stunt and starve and kill, or you may cherish and sustain; but the\nbeating of the heart, the movement of the lungs, and the development\nof the faculties (are there any \u201cfaculties\u201d?) are only indirectly our\ncare. The poverty of our thought on the subject of education is shown\nby the fact that we have no word which at all implies the sustaining\nof a _life_: education (_e_, out, and _ducere_, to lead, to draw) is\nvery inadequate; it covers no more than those occasional gymnastics of\nthe mind which correspond with those by which the limbs are trained:\ntraining (_trahere_) is almost synonymous, and upon these two words\nrests the misconception that the development and the exercise of the\n\u201cfaculties\u201d is the object of education (we must needs use the word for\nwant of a better). Our homely Saxon \u201cbringing up\u201d is nearer the truth,\nperhaps because of its very vagueness; any way, \u201cup\u201d implies an _aim_,\nand \u201cbringing\u201d an _effort_.\n\nThe happy phrase of Mr. Matthew Arnold--\u201cEducation is an atmosphere,\na discipline, a life\u201d--is perhaps the most complete and adequate\ndefinition of education we possess. It is a great thing to have said\nit; and our wiser posterity may see in that \u201cprofound and exquisite\nremark\u201d the fruition of a lifetime of critical effort. Observe how\nit covers the question from the three conceivable points of view.\nSubjectively, in the child, education is a life; objectively, as\naffecting the child, education is a discipline; relatively, if we\nmay introduce a third term, as regards the environment of the child,\neducation is an atmosphere.\n\nWe shall examine each of these postulates later; at present we shall\nattempt no more than to clear the ground a little, with a view to the\nsubject of this paper, \u201cParents as Inspirers\u201d--not \u201cmodellers,\u201d but\n\u201cinspirers.\u201d\n\nIt is only as we recognise our limitations that our work becomes\neffective: when we see definitely what we are to do, what we can do,\nand what we cannot do, we set to work with confidence and courage; we\nhave an end in view, and we make our way intelligently towards that\nend, and a _way to an end_ is _method_. It rests with parents not only\nto give their children birth into the life of intelligence and moral\npower, but to sustain the higher life which they have borne. Now that\nlife, which we call education, receives only one kind of sustenance; it\ngrows upon _ideas_. You may go through years of so-called \u201ceducation\u201d\nwithout getting a single vital idea; and that is why many a well-fed\nbody carries about a feeble, starved intelligence; and no society for\nthe prevention of cruelty to children cries shame on the parents. Only\nthe other day we heard of a girl of fifteen who had spent two years\nat a school without taking part in a single lesson, and this by the\nexpress desire of her mother, who wished all her time and all her pains\nto be given to \u201cfancy needlework.\u201d This, no doubt, is a survival (not\nof the fittest), but it is possible to pass even the Universities\u2019\nLocal Examinations with credit, without ever having experienced that\nvital stir which marks the inception of an idea; and, if we have\nsucceeded in escaping this disturbing influence, why we have \u201cfinished\nour education\u201d when we leave school; we shut up our books and our\nminds, and remain pigmies in the dark forest of our own dim world of\nthought and feeling.\n\nWhat is an idea? A live thing of the mind, according to the older\nphilosophers, from Plato to Bacon, from Bacon to Coleridge. We say of\nan idea that it strikes us, impresses us, seizes us, takes possession\nof us, rules us; and our common speech is, as usual, truer to fact\nthan the conscious thought which it expresses. We do not in the least\nexaggerate in ascribing this sort of action and power to an idea. We\nform an _ideal_--a, so to speak, embodied idea--and our ideal exercises\nthe very strongest formative influence upon us. Why do you devote\nyourself to this pursuit, that cause? \u201cBecause twenty years ago such\nand such an idea _struck_ me,\u201d is the sort of history which might be\ngiven of every purposeful life--every life devoted to the working out\nof an idea. Now is it not marvellous that, recognising as we do the\npotency of an idea, both the word and the conception it covers enter so\nlittle into our thought of education?\n\nColeridge brings the conception of an \u201cidea\u201d within the sphere of the\nscientific thought of to-day; not as that thought is expressed in\n_Psychology_--a term which he himself launched upon the world with an\napology for it as an _insolens verbum_,[1] but in that science of the\ncorrelation and interaction of mind and brain, which is at present\nrather clumsily expressed in such terms as \u201cmental physiology\u201d and\n\u201cpsycho-physiology.\u201d\n\nIn his method he gives us the following illustration of the rise and\nprogress of an idea:--\n\n\u201cWe can recall no incident of human history that impresses the\nimagination more deeply than the moment when Columbus, on an unknown\nocean, first perceived that startling fact, the change of the magnetic\nneedle. How many such instances occur in history, when the ideas\nof nature (presented to chosen minds by a Higher Power than Nature\nherself) suddenly unfold, as it were, in prophetic succession,\nsystematic views destined to produce the most important revolutions in\nthe state of man! The clear spirit of Columbus was doubtless eminently\n_methodical_. He saw distinctly that great leading _idea_ which\nauthorised the poor pilot to become a \u2018promiser of kingdoms.\u2019\u201d\n\nNotice the genesis of such ideas--\u201cpresented to chosen minds by a\nHigher Power than Nature;\u201d notice how accurately this history of an\nidea fits in with what we know of the history of great inventions\nand discoveries, with that of the _ideas_ which rule our own lives;\nand how well does it correspond with that key to the origin of\n\u201cpractical\u201d ideas which we find elsewhere:--\n\n\u201cDoth the plowman plow continually to ... open and break the clods\nof his ground? When he hath made plain the face thereof, doth he not\ncast abroad the fitches, and scatter the cummin, and put in the wheat\nin rows, and the barley in the appointed place, and the spelt in the\nborder thereof? For his God doth instruct him aright, and doth teach\nhim....\n\n\u201cBread corn is ground; for he will not ever be threshing it.... This\nalso cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel\nand excellent in wisdom.\u201d[2]\n\nIdeas may invest as an atmosphere, rather than strike as a weapon. \u201cThe\nidea may exist in a clear, distinct definite form, as that of a circle\nin the mind of a geometrician; or it may be a mere instinct, a vague\nappetency towards something, ... like the impulse which fills the young\npoet\u2019s eyes with tears, he knows not why.\u201d To excite this \u201cappetency\ntowards something\u201d--towards things lovely, honest, and of good report,\nis the earliest and most important ministry of the educator. How shall\nthese indefinite ideas which manifest themselves in appetency be\nimparted? They are not to be given of set purpose, nor taken at set\ntimes. They are held in that thought-environment which surrounds the\nchild as an atmosphere, which he breathes as his breath of life; and\nthis atmosphere in which the child inspires his unconscious ideas of\nright living emanates from his parents. Every look of gentleness and\ntone of reverence, every word of kindness and act of help, passes into\nthe thought-environment, the very atmosphere which the child breathes;\nhe does not think of these things, may never think of them, but all\nhis life long they excite that \u201cvague appetency towards something\u201d out\nof which most of his actions spring. Oh! the wonderful and dreadful\npresence of the little child in the midst.\n\nThat he should take direction and inspiration from all the casual life\nabout him, should make our poor words and ways the starting-point from\nwhich, and in the direction of which, he develops--this is a thought\nwhich makes the most of us hold our breath. There is no way of escape\nfor parents; they must needs be as \u201cinspirers\u201d to their children,\nbecause about them hangs, as its atmosphere about a planet, the\nthought-environment of the child, from which he derives those enduring\nideas which express themselves as a life-long \u201cappetency\u201d towards\nthings sordid or things lovely, things earthly or divine.\n\nLet us now hear Coleridge on the subject of those _definite_ ideas\nwhich are not inhaled as air, but conveyed as meat to the mind:--[3]\n\n\u201cFrom the first, or initiative idea, as from a seed, successive ideas\ngerminate.\u201d\n\n\u201cEvents and images, the lively and spirit-stirring machinery of the\nexternal world, are like light, and air, and moisture to the seed of\nthe mind, which would else rot and perish.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe paths in which we may pursue a methodical course are manifold, and\nat the head of each stands its peculiar and guiding idea.\u201d\n\n\u201cThose ideas are as regularly subordinate in dignity as the paths to\nwhich they point are various and eccentric in direction. The world has\nsuffered much, in modern times, from a subversion of the natural and\nnecessary order of Science ... from summoning reason and faith to the\nbar of that limited physical experience to which, by the true laws of\nmethod, they owe no obedience.\u201d\n\n\u201cProgress follows the path of the idea from which it sets out;\nrequiring, however, a constant wakefulness of mind to keep it within\nthe due limits of its course. Hence the orbits of thought, so to speak,\nmust differ among themselves as the initiative ideas differ.\u201d\n\nHave we not here the corollary to, and the explanation of, that law of\nunconscious cerebration which results in our \u201cways of thinking,\u201d which\nshapes our character, rules our destiny? Thoughtful minds consider\nthat the new light which biology is throwing upon the laws of mind is\nbringing to the front once more the Platonic doctrine, that \u201cAn idea is\na distinguishable power, self-affirmed, and seen in its unity with the\nEternal Essence.\u201d\n\nThe whole subject is profound, but as practical as it is profound. We\nabsolutely must disabuse our minds of the theory that the functions\nof education are, in the main, gymnastic. In the early years of the\nchild\u2019s life it makes, perhaps, little apparent difference whether his\nparents start with the notion that to educate is to fill a receptacle,\ninscribe a tablet, mould plastic matter, or nourish a life; but in the\nend we shall find that only those _ideas_ which have fed his life are\ntaken into the being of the child; all the rest is thrown away, or\nworse, is like sawdust in the system, an impediment and an injury to\nthe vital processes.\n\nThis is, perhaps, how the educational formula should run: Education is\na life; that life is sustained on ideas; ideas are of spiritual origin;\nbut,\n\n \u201cGod has made us so,\u201d\n\nthat we get them chiefly as we convey them to one another. The duty of\nparents is to sustain a child\u2019s inner life with ideas as they sustain\nhis body with food. The child is an eclectic; he may choose this or\nthat; therefore, in the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening\nwithhold not thy hand, for thou knowest not which shall prosper,\nwhether this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.\n\nThe child has affinities with evil as well as with good; therefore,\nhedge him about from any chance lodgment of evil suggestion.\n\nThe initial idea begets subsequent ideas; therefore, take care that\nchildren get right primary ideas on the great relations and duties of\nlife.\n\nEvery study, every line of thought, has its \u201cguiding idea;\u201d therefore\nthe study of a child makes for living education, as it is quickened by\nthe guiding idea \u201cwhich stands at the head.\u201d\n\nIn a word, our much boasted \u201cinfallible reason\u201d--is it not the\ninvoluntary thought which follows the initial idea upon necessary\nlogical lines? Given, the starting idea, and the conclusion may be\npredicated almost to a certainty. We get into the _way_ of thinking\nsuch and such manner of thoughts, and of coming to such and such\nconclusions, ever further and further removed from the starting-point,\nbut on the same lines. There is structural adaptation in the brain\ntissue to the manner of thoughts we think--a plan and a way for them to\nrun in. Thus we see how the destiny of a life is shaped in the nursery,\nby the reverent naming of the Divine Name; by the light scoff at holy\nthings; by the thought of duty the little child gets who is made to\nfinish conscientiously his little task; by the hardness of heart that\ncomes to the child who hears the faults or sorrows of others spoken of\nlightly.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] \u201cWe beg pardon for the use of this _insolens verbum_,\n but it is one of which our language stands in great\n need.\u201d--S. T. COLERIDGE.\n\n [2] Isaiah xxviii.\n\n [3] _Method_--S. T. COLERIDGE.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n _PARENTS AS INSPIRERS_\n\n PART III\n\n\nIt is probable that parents as a class feel more than ever before the\nresponsibility of their prophetic office. It is as revealers of God to\ntheir children that parents touch their highest limitations; perhaps it\nis only as they succeed in this part of their work that they fulfil the\nDivine intention in giving them children to bring up--in the nurture\nand admonition of the Lord.\n\nHow to fortify the children against the doubts of which the air is\nfull, is an anxious question. Three courses are open--to teach as we of\nan older generation have been taught, and to let them bide their time\nand their chance; to attempt to deal with the doubts and difficulties\nwhich have turned up, or are likely to turn up; or, to give children\nsuch hold upon vital truth, and, at the same time, such an outlook\nupon current thought, that they shall be landed on the safe side of\nthe controversies of their day, open to truth, in however new a light\npresented, and safeguarded against mortal error.\n\nThe first course is unfair to the young: when the attack comes, they\nfind themselves at a disadvantage; they have nothing to reply; their\npride is in arms; they jump to the conclusion that there is no defence\npossible of that which they have received as truth; had there been,\nwould they not have been instructed to make it? They resent being made\nout in the wrong, being on the weaker side--so it seems to them,--being\nbehind their times; and they go over without a struggle to the side of\nthe most aggressive thinkers of their day.\n\nLet us suppose that, on the other hand, they have been fortified\nwith \u201cChristian Evidences,\u201d defended by bulwarks of sound dogmatic\nteaching. Religion without definite dogmatic teaching degenerates into\nsentiment, but dogma, as dogma, offers no defence against the assaults\nof unbelief. As for \u201cevidences,\u201d the _r\u00f4le_ of the Christian apologist\nis open to the imputation conveyed in the keen proverb, _qui s\u2019excuse,\ns\u2019accuse_; the truth by which we live must needs be self-evidenced,\nadmitting of neither proof nor disproof. Children should be taught\nBible history with every elucidation which modern research makes\npossible. But they should not be taught to think of the inscriptions on\nthe Assyrian monuments, for example, as _proofs_ of the truth of the\nBible records, but rather as illustrations, though they are, and cannot\nbut be subsidiary proofs.\n\nLet us look at the third course; and first, as regards the outlook\nupon current thought. Contemporary opinion is the fetish of the young\nmind. Young people are eager to know what to think on all the serious\nquestions of religion and life. They ask what is the opinion of this\nand that leading thinker of their day. They by no means confine\nthemselves to such leaders of thought as their parents have elected\nto follow; on the contrary, the \u201cother side\u201d of every question is the\nattractive side for them, and they do not choose to be behind the\nforemost in the race of thought.\n\nNow, that their young people should thus take to the water need not\ncome upon parents as a surprise. The whole training from babyhood\nupward should be in view of this plunge. When the time comes, there is\nnothing to be done; openly, it may be, secretly if the home rule is\nrigid, the young folk think their own thoughts; that is, they follow\nthe leader they have elected; for they are truly modest and humble at\nheart, and do not yet venture to think for themselves; only they have\ntransferred their allegiance. Nor is this transfer of allegiance to be\nresented by parents; we all claim this kind of \u201csuffrage\u201d in our turn\nwhen we feel ourselves included in larger interests than those of the\nfamily.\n\nBut there is much to be done beforehand, though nothing when the time\ncomes. The notion that any contemporary authority is infallible may\nbe steadily undermined from infancy onwards, though at some sacrifice\nof ease and glory to the parents. \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d must take the place\nof the vague wise-sounding answer, the random shot which children\u2019s\npertinacious questionings too often provoke. And \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d should\nbe followed by the effort to know, the research necessary to find\nout. Even then, the possibility of error in a \u201cprinted book\u201d must\noccasionally be faced. The results of this kind of training in the way\nof mental balance and repose are invaluable.\n\nAnother safeguard is in the attitude of reservation, shall we say?\nwhich it may be well to preserve towards \u201cScience.\u201d It is well that\nthe enthusiasm of children should be kindled, that they should see how\nglorious it is to devote a lifetime to patient research, how great to\nfind out a single secret of nature, a key to many riddles. The heroes\nof science should be their heroes; the great names, especially of those\nwho are amongst us, should be household words. But here, again, nice\ndiscrimination should be exercised; two points should be kept well to\nthe front--the absolute silence of the oracle on all ultimate questions\nof origin and life, and the fact that, all along the line, scientific\ntruth comes in like the tide, with steady advance, but with ebb and\nflow of every wavelet of truth; so much so, that, at the present\nmoment, the teaching of the last twenty years is discredited in at\nleast half a dozen departments of science. Indeed, it would seem to be\nthe part of wisdom to wait half a century before fitting the discovery\nof to-day into the general scheme of things. And this, not because the\nlatest discovery is not absolutely true, but because we are not yet\nable so to adjust it--according to the \u201cscience of the proportion of\nthings\u201d--that it shall be relatively true.\n\nBut all this is surely beyond children? By no means; every walk should\nquicken their enthusiasm for the things of nature, and their reverence\nfor the priests of that temple; but occasion should be taken to mark\nthe progressive advances of science, and the fact that the teaching\nof to-day may be the error of to-morrow, because new light may lead\nto new conclusions even from the facts already known. \u201cUntil quite\nlately, geologists thought ... they now think ... but they may find\nreason to think otherwise in the future.\u201d To perceive that knowledge is\n_progressive_, and that the next \u201cfind\u201d may always alter the bearings\nof what went before; that we are waiting, and may have very long to\nwait, for the last word; that science also is \u201crevelation,\u201d though we\nare not yet able fully to interpret what we know; and that \u2018science\u2019\nherself contains the promise of great impetus to the spiritual life--to\nperceive these things is to be able to rejoice in all truth and to wait\nfor final certainty.\n\nIn another way we may endeavour to secure for the children that\nstability of mind which comes of self-knowledge. It is well that they\nshould know so early, that they will seem to themselves always to have\nknown, some of the laws of thought which govern their own minds. Let\nthem know that, once an idea takes possession of them, it will pursue,\nso to speak, its own course, will establish its own place in the very\nsubstance of the brain, will draw its own train of ideas after it. One\nof the most fertile sources of youthful infidelity is the fact that\nthoughtful boys and girls are infinitely surprised when they come to\nnotice the course of their own thoughts. They read a book or listen to\ntalk with a tendency to what is to them \u201cfree-thought.\u201d And then, the\n\u201cfearful joy\u201d of finding that their own thoughts begin with the thought\nthey have heard, and go on and on to new and startling conclusions on\nthe same lines! The mental stir of all this gives a delightful sense of\npower, and a sense of inevitableness and certainty too; for they do not\nintend or try to think this or that. It comes of itself; their reason,\nthey believe, is acting independently of them, and how can they help\nassuming that what comes to them of itself, with an air of absolute\ncertainty, must of necessity be right?\n\nBut what if from childhood they had been warned, \u201cTake care of your\nthoughts, and the rest will take care of itself; let a thought in, and\nit will stay; will come again to-morrow and the next day, will make a\nplace for itself in your brain, and will bring many other thoughts like\nitself. Your business is to look at the thoughts as they come, to keep\nout the wrong thoughts, and let in the right. See that ye _enter not_\ninto temptation.\u201d This sort of teaching is not so hard to understand\nas the rules for the English nominative, and is of infinitively more\nprofit in the conduct of life. It is a great safeguard to know that\nyour \u201creason\u201d is capable of proving any theory you allow yourself to\nentertain.\n\nWe have touched here only on the negative side of the parent\u2019s work as\nprophet, inspirer. There are perhaps few parents to whom the innocence\nof the babe in its mother\u2019s arms does not appeal with pathetic force.\n\u201cOpen me the gates of righteousness, that I may go in unto them,\u201d is\nthe voice of the little unworldly child; and a wish, anyway, that he\nmay be kept unspotted from the world is breathed in every kiss of\nhis mother, in the light of his father\u2019s eyes. But how ready we are\nto conclude that children cannot be expected to understand spiritual\nthings. Our own grasp of the things of the Spirit is all too lax, and\nhow can we expect that the child\u2019s feeble intelligence can apprehend\nthe highest mysteries of our being? But here we are altogether wrong.\nIt is with the advance of years that a materialistic temper settles\nupon us. But the children live in the light of the morning-land. The\nspirit-world has no mysteries for them; that parable and travesty of\nthe spirit-world, the fairy-world, where all things are possible, is\nit not their favourite dwelling-place? And fairy tales are so dear\nto children because their spirits fret against the hard and narrow\nlimitations of time and place and substance; they cannot breathe\nfreely in a material world. Think what the vision of God should be\nto the little child already peering wistfully through the bars of\nhis prison-house. Not a far-off God, a cold abstraction, but a warm,\nbreathing, spiritual Presence about his path and about his bed--a\nPresence in which he recognises protection and tenderness in darkness\nand danger, towards which he rushes as the timid child to hide his\nface in his mother\u2019s skirts.\n\nA friend tells me the following story of her girlhood. It so happened\nthat extra lessons detained her at school until dark every day during\nthe winter. She was extremely timid, but, with the unconscious reserve\nof youth, never thought of mentioning her fear of \u201csomething.\u201d Her way\nhome lay by a river-side, a solitary path under trees--big trees, with\nmasses of shadow. The black shadows, in which \u201csomething\u201d might lie\nhid--the _swsh-sh, swsh-sh_ of the river, which might be whisperings or\nthe rustle of garments--filled her night by night with unabated terror.\nShe fled along that river-side path with beating heart; but, quick as\nflying steps and beating heart, these words beat in her brain, over,\nand over, and over, the whole length of the way, evening by evening,\nwinter after winter: \u201cThou art my hiding-place; Thou shalt preserve me\nfrom trouble; Thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance.\u201d\nYears after, when the woman might be supposed to have outgrown girlish\nterrors, she found herself again walking alone in the early darkness of\na winter\u2019s evening under trees by the _swsh-sh_ of another river. The\nold terror returned, and with it the old words came to her, and kept\ntime the whole length of the way with her hasty steps. Such a place to\nhide him in should be the thought of God to every child.\n\nTheir keen sensitiveness to spiritual influences is not due to\nignorance on the part of the children. It is we, not they, who are in\nerror. The whole tendency of modern biological thought is to confirm\nthe teaching of the Bible: the ideas which quicken come from above; the\nmind of the little child is an open field, surely \u201cgood ground,\u201d where,\nmorning by morning, the sower goes forth to sow, and the seed is the\nWord. All our teaching of children should be given reverently, with the\nhumble sense that we are invited in this matter to co-operate with the\nHoly Spirit; but it should be given dutifully and diligently, with the\nawful sense that our co-operation would appear to be made a condition\nof the Divine action; that the Saviour of the world pleads with us to\n\u201cSuffer the little children to come unto Me,\u201d as if we had the power to\nhinder, as we know that we have.\n\nThis thought of the Saviour of the world implies another conception\nwhich we sometimes leave out of sight in dealing with children. Young\nfaces are not always sunny and lovely; even the brightest children in\nthe happiest circumstances have their clouded hours. We rightly put the\ncloud down to some little disorder, or to the weather, but these are\nthe secondary causes which reveal a deep-seated discontent. Children\nhave a sense of sin acute in proportion to their sensitiveness. We are\nin danger of trusting too much to a rose-water treatment; we do not\ntake children seriously enough; brought face to face with a child,\nwe find he is a very real person, but in our educational theories we\ntake him as \u201csomething between a wax doll and an angel.\u201d He sins; he\nis guilty of greediness, falsehood, malice, cruelty, a hundred faults\nthat would be hateful in a grown-up person; we say he will know better\nby-and-by. He will never know better; he is keenly aware of his own\nodiousness. How many of us would say about our childhood, if we told\nthe whole truth, \u201cOh, I was an odious little thing!\u201d and that, not\nbecause we recollect our faults, but because we recollect our childish\nestimate of ourselves. Many a bright and merry child is odious in his\nown eyes; and the \u201cpeace, peace, where there is no peace,\u201d of fond\nparents and friends is little comfort. It is well that we \u201cask for the\nold paths, where is the good way;\u201d it is not well that, in the name of\nthe old paths, we lead our children into blind alleys, nor that we let\nthem follow the new into bewildering mazes.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n _PARENTS AS INSPIRERS_\n\n PART IV\n\n\n \u201cOne of the little boys gazing upon the terrible desolation\n of the scene, so unlike in its savage and inhuman aspects\n anything he had ever seen at home, nestled close to his\n mother, and asked with bated breath, \u2018Mither, is there a\n God here?\u2019\u201d--JOHN BURROUGHS.\n\n\nThe last chapter introduced the thought of parents in their highest\nfunction--as revealers of God to their children. To bring the human\nrace, family by family, child by child, out of the savage and inhuman\ndesolation where He is not, into the light and warmth and comfort of\nthe presence of God, is, no doubt, the chief thing we have to do in\nthe world. And this individual work with each child, being the most\nmomentous work in the world, is put into the hands of the wisest, most\nloving, disciplined, and divinely instructed of human beings. Be ye\nperfect _as your Father_ is perfect, is the perfection of parenthood,\nperhaps to be attained only in its fulness through parenthood. There\nare mistaken parents, ignorant parents, a few indifferent parents,\neven, as one in a thousand, callous parents; but the good that is done\nupon the earth is done, under God, by parents, whether directly or\nindirectly.\n\nParents, who recognise that their great work is to be done by the\ninstrumentality of the ideas they are able to introduce into the minds\nof their children, will take anxious thought as to those ideas of God\nwhich are most fitting for children, and as to how those ideas may best\nbe conveyed. Let us consider an idea which is just now causing some\nstir in people\u2019s thoughts.\n\n\u201cWe read some of the Old Testament history as \u2018history of the Jews,\u2019\nand Job and Isaiah and the Psalms as poetry--and I am glad to say he\nis very fond of them; and parts of the Gospels in Greek, as the life\nand character of a hero. It is the greatest mistake to impose them upon\nchildren as authoritative and divine all at once. It at once diminishes\ntheir interest: we ought to work slowly up through the human side.\u201d[4]\n\nHere is a theory which commends itself to many persons because it is\n\u201cso reasonable.\u201d But it goes upon the assumption that we are ruled by\nReason, an infallible entity, which is certain, give it fair play, to\nbring us to just conclusions. Now the exercise of that function of\nthe mind which we call reasoning--we must decline to speak of \u201cthe\nReason\u201d--does indeed bring us to inevitable conclusions; the process\nis definite, the result convincing; but whether that result be right\nor wrong depends altogether upon the initial idea which, when we wish\nto discredit it, we call a prejudice; when we wish to exalt, we call\nan intuition, even an inspiration. It would be idle to illustrate\nthis position; the whole history of Error is the history of the\nlogical outcome of what we happily call misconceptions. The history of\nPersecution is the tale of how the inevitable conclusions arrived at\nby reasoning pass themselves off for truth. The Event of Calvary was\ndue to no hasty mad outburst of popular feeling. It was a triumph of\nreasoning: the inevitable issue of more than one logical sequence;\nthe Crucifixion was not criminal, but altogether laudable, _if_ that\nis right which is reasonable. And this is why the hearts of religious\nJews were hardened and their understanding darkened; they were truly\ndoing what was _right_ in their own eyes. It is a marvellous thing to\nperceive the thoughts within us driving us forward to an inevitable\nconclusion, even against our will. How can that conclusion which\npresents itself to us in spite of ourselves fail to be right?\n\nLet us place ourselves for one instant in the position of the logical\nand conscientious Jew. \u201c\u2018Jehovah\u2019 is a name of awe, unapproachable\nin thought or act except in ways Himself has specified. To attempt\nunlawful approach is to blaspheme. As Jehovah is infinitely great,\npresumptuous offence is infinitely heinous, is criminal, is the last\ncrime as committed against Him who is the First. The blasphemer\nis worthy of death. This man makes himself equal with God, the\nunapproachable. He is a blasphemer, arrogant as Beelzebub. He is doubly\nworthy of death. To the people of the Jews is committed in trust the\nhonoured Name; upon them it is incumbent to exterminate the blasphemer.\nThe man must die.\u201d Here is the secret of the virulent hatred which\ndogged the steps of the blameless Life. These men were following the\ndictates of reason, and _knew_, so they would say, that they were doing\nright. Here we have the invincible ignorance which the Light of the\nworld failed to illumine; and He,\n\n \u201cWho knows us as we are,\n Yet loves us better than He knows,\u201d\n\noffers for them the true plea, \u201cThey know not what they do.\u201d The steps\nof the argument are incontrovertible; the error lies in the initial\nidea,--such conception of Jehovah as made the conception of Christ\ninadmissible, impossible. Thus reasoned the Jew upon whom his religion\nhad the first claim. The patriotic Jew, to whom religion itself was\nsubservient to the hopes of his nation, arrived by quite another chain\nof _spontaneous_ arguments at the same inevitable conclusion:--\u201cThe\nJews are the chosen people. The first duty of a Jew is towards his\nnation. These are critical times. A great hope is before us, but we are\nin the grip of the Romans; they may crush out the national life before\nour hope is realised. Nothing must be done to alarm their suspicions.\nThis Man? By all accounts He is harmless, perhaps righteous. But He\nstirs up the people. It is rumoured that they call Him King of the\nJews. He must not be permitted to ruin the hopes of the nation. He\nmust die. It is expedient that one man die for the people, and that\nthe whole nation perish not.\u201d Thus the consummate crime that has been\ndone upon the earth was done probably without any consciousness of\ncriminality; on the contrary, with the acquittal of that spurious moral\nsense which supports with its approval all _reasonable_ action. The\nCrucifixion was the logical and necessary outcome of ideas imbibed from\ntheir cradles by the persecuting Jews. So of every persecution; none\nis born of the occasion and the hour, but comes out of the habit of\nthought of a lifetime.\n\nIt is the primal impulse to these habits of thought which children must\nowe to their parents; and, as a man\u2019s thought and action Godward is--\n\n \u201cThe very pulse of the machine,\u201d\n\nthe introduction of such primal ideas as shall impel the soul to God\nis the first duty and the highest privilege of parents. Whatever sin of\nunbelief a man is guilty of, are his parents wholly without blame? Let\nus consider what is commonly done in the nursery in this respect. No\nsooner can the little being lisp than he is taught to kneel up in his\nmother\u2019s lap, and say \u201cGod bless ...\u201d and then follows a list of the\nnear and dear, and \u201cGod bless ... and make him a good boy, for Jesus\u2019\nsake. Amen.\u201d It is very touching and beautiful. I once peeped in at an\nopen cottage door in a moorland village, and saw a little child in its\nnightgown kneeling in its mother\u2019s lap and saying its evening prayer.\nThe spot has ever since remained to me a sort of shrine. There is no\nsight more touching and tender. By-and-by, so soon as he can speak the\nwords,\n\n \u201cGentle Jesus, meek and mild,\u201d\n\nis added to the little one\u2019s prayer, and later, \u201cOur Father.\u201d Nothing\ncould be more suitable and more beautiful than these morning and\nevening approaches to God, the little children brought to Him by their\nmothers. And most of us can \u201cthink back\u201d to the hallowing influence of\nthese early prayers. But might not more be done? How many times a day\ndoes a mother lift up her heart to God as she goes in and out amongst\nher children, and they never know! \u201cTo-day I talked to them\u201d (a boy\nand girl of four and five) \u201cabout Rebekah at the well. They were very\nmuch interested, especially about Eliezer praying in his heart and the\nanswer coming at once. They said, \u2018How did he pray?\u2019 I said, \u2018I often\npray in my heart when you know nothing about it. Sometimes you begin\nto show a naughty spirit, and I pray for you in my heart, and almost\ndirectly I find the good Spirit comes, and your faces show my prayer\nis answered.\u2019 O. stroked my hand and said, \u2018Dear mother, I shall think\nof that!\u2019 Boy looked thoughtful, but didn\u2019t speak; but when they were\nin bed I knelt down to pray for them before leaving them, and when I\ngot up, Boy said, \u2018Mother, God filled my heart with goodness while you\nprayed for us; and, mother, I _will_ try to-morrow.\u2019\u201d Is it possible\nthat the mother could, when alone with her children, occasionally hold\nthis communing out loud, so that the children might grow up in the\nsense of the presence of God? It would probably be difficult for many\nmothers to break down the barrier of spiritual reserve in the presence\nof even their own children. But could it be done, would it not lead to\nglad and natural living in the recognised presence of God?\n\nA mother who remembered a little penny scent-bottle as an early joy of\nher own, took three such small bottles home to her three little girls.\nThey got them next morning at the family breakfast and enjoyed them\nall through the meal. Before it ended the mother was called away, and\nlittle M. was sitting rather solitary with her scent-bottle and the\nremains of her breakfast. And out of the pure well of the little girl\u2019s\nheart came this, intended for nobody\u2019s ear, \u201cDear mother, you are _too_\ngood!\u201d Think of the joy of the mother who should overhear her little\nchild murmuring over the first primrose of the year, \u201cDear God, you are\n_too_ good!\u201d Children are so imitative, that if they hear their parents\nspeak out continually their joys and fears, their thanks and wishes,\nthey too will have many things to say.\n\nAnother point in this connection: the little German child hears and\nspeaks many times a day of _der liebe Gott_; to be sure he addresses\nHim as \u201c_Du_,\u201d but _du_ is part of his everyday speech; the circle of\nthe very dear and intimate is hedged in by the magic _du_. So with the\nlittle French child, whose thought and word are ever of _le bon Dieu_;\nhe also says _Tu_, but that is how he speaks to those most endeared\nto him. But the little English child is thrust out in the cold by an\narchaic mode of address, reverent in the ears of us older people,\nbut forbidding, we may be sure, to the child. Then, for the Lord\u2019s\nPrayer, what a boon would be a truly reverent translation of it into\nthe English of to-day. To us, who have learned to spell it out, the\npresent form is dear, almost sacred; but we must not forget that it is\nafter all only a translation; and is, perhaps, the most archaic piece\nof English in modern use: \u201cwhich art,\u201d[5] commonly rendered \u201cchart,\u201d\nmeans nothing for a child. \u201cHallowed\u201d is the speech of a strange tongue\nto him--not much more to us; \u201ctrespasses\u201d is a semi-legal term, never\nlikely to come into his everyday talk, and no explanations will make\n\u201cThy\u201d have the same force for him as \u201cyour.\u201d To make a child utter\nhis prayers in a strange speech is to put up a barrier between him\nand his \u201cAlmighty Lover.\u201d Again, might we not venture to teach our\nchildren to say \u201cdear God\u201d? A parent, surely, can believe that no\nausterely reverential style can be so sweet in the Divine Father\u2019s ears\nas the appeal to \u201cdear God\u201d for sympathy in joy and help in trouble,\nwhich flows naturally from the little child who is \u201cused to God.\u201d\nLet children grow up aware of the constant, immediate, joy-giving,\njoy-taking Presence in the midst of them, and you may laugh at all\nassaults of \u201cinfidelity,\u201d which is foolishness to him who knows his God\nas--only far better than--he knows father or mother, wife or child.\n\nLet them grow up, too, with the shout of a King in their midst. There\nare, in this poor stuff we call human nature, founts of loyalty,\nworship, passionate devotion, glad service, which have, alas! to be\nunsealed in the earth-laden older heart, but only ask place to flow\nfrom the child\u2019s. There is no safeguard and no joy like that of being\nunder orders, being possessed, controlled, continually in the service\nof One whom it is gladness to obey.\n\nWe lose sight of the fact in our modern civilisation, but a king, a\nleader, implies warfare, a foe, victory--possible defeat and disgrace.\nAnd this is the conception of life which cannot too soon be brought\nbefore children.\n\n\u201cAfter thinking the matter over with some care, I resolved that I\ncannot do better than give you my view of what it was that the average\nboy carried away from our Rugby of half-a-century ago which stood\nhim in the best stead--was of the highest value to him--in after\nlife.... I have been in some doubt as to what to put first, and am by\nno means sure that the few who are left of my old schoolfellows would\nagree with me; but, speaking for myself, I think this was our most\nmarked characteristic, the feeling that in school and close we were\nin training for a big fight--were, in fact, already engaged in it--a\nfight which would last all our lives, and try all our powers, physical,\nintellectual, and moral, to the utmost. I need not say that this fight\nwas the world-old one of good with evil, of light and truth against\ndarkness and sin, of Christ against the devil.\u201d\n\nSo said the author of \u201cTom Brown\u201d in an address to Rugby School\ndelivered on a recent Quinquagesima Sunday. This is plain speaking;\neducation is only worthy of the name as it teaches this lesson; and it\nis a lesson which should be learnt in the home or ever the child sets\nfoot in any other school of life. It is an insult to children to say\nthey are too young to understand this for which we are sent into the\nworld. A boy of five, a great-grandson of Dr. Arnold, was sitting at\nthe piano with his mother, choosing his Sunday hymn; he chose \u201cThy will\nbe done,\u201d and, as his special favourite, the verse beginning, \u201cRenew\nmy will from day to day.\u201d The choice of hymn and verse rather puzzled\nhis mother, who had a further glimpse into the world of child-thought\nwhen the little fellow said wistfully, \u201cOh, dear, it\u2019s very hard to do\nGod\u2019s work!\u201d The difference between doing and bearing was not plain to\nhim, but the battle and struggle and strain of life already pressed\non the spirit of the \u201ccareless, happy child.\u201d That an evil spiritual\npersonality can get at their thoughts, and incite them to \u201cbe naughty,\u201d\nchildren learn all too soon, and understand, perhaps, better than we\ndo. Then, they are cross, \u201cnaughty,\u201d separate, sinful, needing to be\nhealed as truly as the hoary sinner, and much more aware of their need,\nbecause the tender soul of the child, like an infant\u2019s skin, is fretted\nby spiritual soreness. \u201cIt\u2019s very kind of God to forgive me so often;\nI\u2019ve been naughty so many times to-day,\u201d said a sad little sinner of\nsix, not at all because any one else had been at the pains to convince\nher of naughtiness. Even \u201cPet Marjorie\u2019s\u201d buoyancy is not proof against\nthis sad sense of shortcoming:--\n\n\u201cYesterday I behaved extremely ill in God\u2019s most holy church, for I\nwould never attend myself nor let Isabella attend, ... and it was the\nvery same _Devil_ that tempted Job that tempted me, I am sure; but he\nresisted Satan, though he had boils and many other misfortunes which I\nhave escaped.\u201d--(At six!)\n\nWe must needs smile at the little \u201ccrimes,\u201d but we must not smile too\nmuch, and let children be depressed with much \u201cnaughtiness\u201d when they\nshould live in the instant healing, in the dear Name, of the Saviour of\nthe world.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [4] \u201cMemoirs of Arthur Hamilton.\u201d Messrs. Kegan Paul & Co.\n\n [5] Catholics say \u201cwho art.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n _THE PARENT AS SCHOOLMASTER_\n\n\n\u201cThe schoolmaster will make him sit up!\u201d \u201cSit up,\u201d that is, \u201ccome when\nhe\u2019s called,\u201d apparently, for the remark concerned a young person who\nwent on spinning his top with nonchalance, ignoring an intermittent\nstream of objurgations from his mother, whose view was that bedtime\nhad arrived. Circumstances alter cases, but is it unheard of in higher\nranks of life to trust to the schoolmaster to make a child \u201csit up,\u201d\nafter a good deal of mental and moral sprawling about at home?\n\n\u201cOh, he\u2019s a little fellow yet; he will know better by-and-by.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy view is, let children have a delightful childhood. Time enough for\nrestraint and contradiction when they go to school.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe do not hold with punishing children; love your children, and let\nthem alone, is our principle.\u201d\n\n\u201cThey will meet with hardness enough in the world. Childhood shall have\nno harsh memories for them.\u201d\n\n\u201cSchool will break them in. Let them grow like young colts till the\ntime comes to break them. All young things should be free to kick\nabout.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat\u2019s bred in the bone must come out in the flesh. I do not care much\nfor all this clipping and shaping of children. Destroys individuality.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhen he\u2019s older, he will know better. Time cures many faults.\u201d\n\nAnd so on; we might fill pages with the wise things people say,\nwho, for one excellent reason or another, prefer to leave it to the\nschoolmaster to make a child \u201csit up.\u201d And does the schoolmaster live\nup to his reputation? how far does he succeed with the child who\ncomes to him with no self-management? His real and proud successes\nare with the children who have been trained to \u201csit up\u201d at home. His\npleasure in such children is unbounded; the pains he takes with them\nunlimited; the successful careers he is able to launch them upon exceed\nthe ambition of those most wildly ambitious of human beings (dare we\nsay it?)--parents, quiet, sensible, matter-of-fact parents. But the\nschoolmaster takes little credit to himself for these happy results.\nSchoolmasters and schoolmistresses are modest people, though they are\nnot always credited with their virtues.\n\n\u201cYou can do anything with So-and-so; his parents have turned him out so\nwell.\u201d Observe, the master takes little credit to himself (by no means\nso much as he deserves); and why? Experience makes fools wise; and what\nthen of those who add experience to wisdom? \u201cPeople send us their cubs\nto lick into shape, and what can we do?\u201d Now the answer to this query\nconcerns parents rather closely: what and how much can the schoolmaster\ndo to make the boy \u201csit up\u201d who has not been to the manner bred?\n\nNo suasion will make you \u201csit up\u201d if you are an oyster; no, nor even if\nyou are a cod. You must have a backbone, and your backbone must have\nlearned its work before sitting up is possible to you. No doubt the\nhuman oyster may grow a backbone, and the human cod may get into the\nway of sitting up, and some day, perhaps, we shall know of the heroic\nendeavours made by schoolmaster and mistress to prop up, and haul up,\nand draw up, and anyhow keep alert and sitting up, creatures whose way\nit is to sprawl. Sometimes the result is surprising; they sit up in a\nrow with the rest and look all right; even when the props are removed\nthey keep to the trick of sitting up for awhile. The schoolmaster\nbegins to rub his hands, and the parents say, \u201cI told you so. Didn\u2019t I\nalways say Jack would come right in the end?\u201d Wait a bit. The end is\nnot yet. The habits of school, as of military life, are more or less\nmechanical. The early habits are vital; reversion to these takes place,\nand Jack sprawls as a man just as he sprawled as a child, only more so.\nVarious social props keep him up; he has the wit to seem to \u201csit up\u201d;\nhe is lovable and his life is respectable; and no one suspects that\nthis easy-going Mr. John Brown is a failure; a man who had the elements\nof greatness in him, and might have been of use in the world had he\nbeen put under discipline from his infancy.\n\nSprawling is an ugly word, but the attitude we are thinking of is by no\nmeans always inelegant. Scott gives a delightful illustration of one\nkind of mental sprawling in \u201cWaverley\u201d:--\n\n\u201cEdward Waverley\u2019s powers of apprehension were so quick as almost to\nresemble intuition, and the chief care of his preceptor was to prevent\nhim, as a sportsman would phrase it, from overrunning his game; that\nis, from acquiring his knowledge in a slight, flimsy, and inadequate\nmanner. And here the instructor had to combat another propensity too\noften united with brilliancy of fancy and vivacity of talent--the\nindolence, namely, which can only be stirred by some strong motive\nof gratification, and which renounces study as soon as curiosity is\ngratified, the pleasure of conquering the first difficulties exhausted,\nand the novelty of pursuit at an end.\u201d And the story goes on to show,\nwithout laborious pointing of the moral, how _Waverley_ by name was\n_wavering_ by nature, was ever the sport of circumstances because he\nhad not learned in youth to direct his course. He blunders into many\n(most interesting) misadventures because he had failed to get, through\nhis studies, the alertness of mind and the self-restraint which should\nmake a man of him. Many pleasant things befall him, but not one of\nthem, unless we except Rose Bradwardine\u2019s love--and when did woman\nstudy justice in the bestowal of her favours?--not one did he earn\nby his own wit or prowess; each advantage and success which came to\nhim was the earnings of another man. The elder Waverley had not only\nfortune but force of character to make friends, so we are not made sad\nfor the amiable young man for whom we must needs feel affection; he\ndoes nothing to carve out a way for himself, and he does everything to\nhis own hindrance out of pure want of the power of self-direction, but\nhis uncle has fortune and friends, and all ends well. For the sake, no\ndoubt, of young persons less happily situated, and of parents who are\nnot able to play the part of bountiful Providence to sons and daughters\nwhom they have failed to fit for the conduct of their own lives, the\ngreat novelist takes care to point out that Edward Waverley\u2019s personal\nfailure in life was the fault of his education. His abilities were even\nbrilliant, but \u201cI ought\u201d had waited upon \u201cI like\u201d from his earliest\ndays, and he had never learned to make himself do the thing he would.\n\nNow it is this sort of \u201cbringing under\u201d that parents are apt to leave\nto the schoolmaster. They do not give their children the discipline\nwhich results in self-compelling power, and by-and-by, when they\nmake over the task to another, the time for training in the art of\nself-mastery has gone by, and a fine character is spoiled through\nindolence and wilfulness.\n\nBut why will it not do to leave it to the schoolmaster to make a\nchild \u201csit up\u201d? It is natural for a child to be left free as a bird\nin matters of no moral significance. We would not let him tell lies,\nbut if he hate his lessons, that may be Nature\u2019s way of showing he had\nbetter let them alone.\n\nWe must face the facts. We are not meant to grow up in a state of\nnature. There is something simple, conclusive, even idyllic, in the\nstatement that so-and-so is \u201cnatural.\u201d What more would you have? Jean\nJacques Rousseau preached the doctrine of natural education, and no\nreformer has had a greater following. \u201cIt\u2019s human nature,\u201d we say, when\nstormy Harry snatches his drum from Jack; when baby Marjorie, who is\nnot two, screams for Susie\u2019s doll. So it is, and for that very reason\nit must be dealt with early. Even Marjorie must be taught better. \u201cI\nalways finish teaching my children obedience before they are one year\nold,\u201d said a wise mother; and any who know the nature of children, and\nthe possibilities open to the educator, will say, Why not? Obedience\nin the first year, and all the virtues of the good life as the years\ngo on; every year with its own definite work to show in the training\nof character. Is Edward a selfish child when his fifth birthday comes?\nThe fact is noted in his parents\u2019 year-book, with the resolve that by\nhis sixth birthday he shall, please God, be a generous child. Here, the\nreader who has not realised that to exercise discipline is one of the\nchief functions of parenthood, smiles and talks about \u201chuman nature\u201d\nwith all the air of an unanswerable argument.\n\nBut we live in a redeemed world, and one of the meanings which that\nunfathomable phrase bears is, that it is the duty of those who have the\ncare of childhood to eradicate each vulgar and hateful trait, to plant\nand foster the precious fruits of that kingdom in the children who have\nbeen delivered from the kingdom of nature into the kingdom of grace;\nthat is to say, all children born into this redeemed world. The parent\nwho believes that the possibilities of virtuous training are unlimited\nwill set to work with cheerful confidence, will forego the twaddle\nabout \u201cNature,\u201d whether as lovely in itself or as an irresistible\nforce, and will perceive that the first function of the parent is\nthat function of _discipline_ which is so cheerfully made over to the\nschoolmaster.\n\nNow, to begin with, discipline does not mean a birch-rod, nor a corner,\nnor a slipper, nor bed, nor any such last resort of the feeble. The\nsooner we cease to believe in merely penal suffering as part of the\nDivine plan, the sooner will a spasmodic resort to the birch-rod die\nout in families. We do not say the rod is never useful; we do say it\nshould never be necessary. The fact is, many of us do not believe in\neducation, except as it means the acquirement of a certain amount of\nknowledge; but education which shall deal curatively and methodically\nwith every flaw in character does not enter into our scheme of things\npossible. Now, no less than this is what we mean when we say, Education\nis a Discipline. Where parents fail, the poor soul has one further\nchance in the discipline of life; but we must remember that, while it\nis the nature of the child to submit to discipline, it is the nature\nof the undisciplined man to run his head in passionate wilfulness\nagainst the circumstances that are for his training; so that the parent\nwho wilfully chooses to leave his child to be \u201cbroken in\u201d by the\nschoolmaster or by life leaves him to a fight in which all the odds are\nagainst him. The physique, the temper, the disposition, the career,\nthe affections, the aspirations of a man are all, more or less, the\noutcome of the discipline his parents have brought him under, or of the\nlawlessness they have allowed. What is discipline? Look at the word;\nthere is no hint of punishment in it. A disciple is a follower, and\ndiscipline is the state of the follower, the learner, imitator. Mothers\nand fathers do not well to forget that their children are, by the very\norder of Nature, their disciples. Now no man sets himself up for a\nfollowing of disciples who does not wish to indoctrinate these with\ncertain principles, maxims, rules of life. So should the parent have at\nheart notions of life and duty which he labours without pause to instil\ninto his children.\n\nHe who would draw disciples does not trust to force, but to these three\nthings--to the attraction of his doctrine, to the persuasion of his\npresentation, to the enthusiasm of his disciples; so the parent has\nteachings of the perfect life which he knows how to present continually\nwith winning force until the children are quickened with such zeal for\nvirtue and holiness as carries them forward with leaps and bounds.\nAgain, the teacher does not indoctrinate his pupils all at once, but\nhere a little and there a little, steady progress on a careful plan;\nso the parent who would have his child a partaker of the Divine nature\nhas a scheme, an ascending scale of virtues, in which he is diligent\nto practise his young disciple. He adds to the faith with which the\nchild is so richly dowered virtue, and to virtue, knowledge, and to\nknowledge, self-control. Having practised his child in self-control,\nhe trains him in patience, and to patience he adds godliness, and to\ngodliness, kindness, and to kindness, love. These, and such as these,\nwise parents cultivate as systematically and with as definite results\nas if they were teaching the \u201cthree R\u2019s.\u201d\n\nBut how? The answer covers so wide a field that we must leave it for\nanother chapter. Only this here--every quality has its defect, every\ndefect has its quality. Examine your child; he has qualities, he is\ngenerous; see to it that the lovable little fellow, who would give\naway his soul, is not also rash, impetuous, self-willed, passionate,\n\u201cnobody\u2019s enemy but his own.\u201d It rests with parents to make low the\nhigh places and exalt the valleys, to make straight paths for the feet\nof their little son.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n _THE CULTURE OF CHARACTER_\n\n PART I\n\n\n \u201cWhat get I from my father?\n Lusty life and vigorous will;\n What from my gentle mother?\n Cheerful days and poet\u2019s skill,\u201d[6]\n\n\nsays Goethe; for poets, like the rest of us, are born, not made, and\nget the most of what they are from their parents. But it did not\ntake poet or modern scientist to discover this; people have known\nit time out of mind. Like father, like child, they said, and were\nsatisfied; for it was not the way in earlier days to thresh out the\ngreat facts of life. Not so now; we talk about it and about it; call\nit _heredity_, and take it into count in our notions, at any rate, if\nnot in our practice. Nobody writes a biography now without attempting\nto produce progenitors and early surroundings that shall account for\nhis man or his woman. This fact of heredity is very much before the\npublic, and by-and-by will have its bearing on the loose notions\npeople hold about education. In this sort of way--\u201cHarold is a bright\nlittle boy, but he hasn\u2019t the least power of attention.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, I know he hasn\u2019t; but then, poor child, he can\u2019t help it! \u2018What\u2019s\nbred in the bone,\u2019 you know; and we are feather-brained on both sides\nof the house.\u201d\n\nNow the practical educational question of our day is just this, Can he\nhelp it? or, Can his parents help it? or, Must the child sit down for\nlife with whatever twist he has inherited? The fact is, many of us,\nprofessional teachers, have been taking aim rather beside the mark;\nwe talk as if the development of certain faculties were the chief\nobject of education; and we point to our results, intellectual, moral,\n\u00e6sthetic, physical, with a--\u201cSee there, what culture can effect!\u201d But\nwe forget that the child has inborn cravings after all we have given\nhim. Just as the healthy child must have his dinner and his bed, so\ntoo does he crave for knowledge, perfection, beauty, power, society;\nand all he wants is opportunity. Give him opportunities of loving and\nlearning, and he will love and learn, for \u201c\u2019tis his nature to.\u201d Whoever\nhas taken note of the sweet reasonableness, the quick intelligence, the\nbright imaginings of a child, will think the fuss we make about the\nright studies for developing these is like asking, How shall we get a\nhungry man to eat his dinner?\n\nMany a man got his turn for natural science because, as a boy, he\nlived in the country, and had a chance to observe living things and\ntheir ways. Nobody took pains to develop his faculty; all he had was\nopportunity. If the boy\u2019s mind is crammed with other matters, he\nhas no opportunity, and you may meet men of culture who have lived\nmost of their lives in the country, and don\u2019t know a thrush from a\nblackbird. I know of a woman who has developed both a metaphysical\nand a literary turn, because, as a girl of ten, she was allowed to\nbrowse on old volumes of the _Spectator_, the most telling part of her\neducation, she thinks. Again, I watched quite lately an extraordinary\neducational result of opportunity. A friend, interested in a Working\nBoys\u2019 Club, undertook to teach a class to model in clay. There was no\nselection made; the boys were mill-boys, taken as they came in, with\nno qualifications, except that, as their teacher said, they had not\nbeen spoilt--that is, they had not been taught to draw in the ordinary\nway. She gave them clay, a model, one or two modelling tools, and\nalso, being an artist, the _feeling_ of the object to be copied. After\nhalf-a-dozen lessons, the things they produced cannot be called less\nthan works of art; and delightful it was to see the vigour and spirit\nthey worked with, the artistic instinct which caught the sentiment\nof the object, as the creases made by a little foot which make a\nchild\u2019s shoe a thing to kiss. This lady maintains that she only _let\nout_ what was in the boys; but she did more, her own art enthusiasm\nforced out artistic effort. Even taking into account the enthusiasm\nof the teacher--I wish we might always count on that factor--this\nremains a fair case to prove our point, which is, give them opportunity\nand direction, and children will do the greater part of their own\neducation, intellectual, \u00e6sthetic, even moral, by reason of the\nwonderfully balanced desires, powers, and affections which go to make\nup human nature.\n\nA cheerful doctrine this, which should help to swell the ranks of\nthe unemployed. Outlets for their energies, a little direction, a\nlittle control, and then we may sit by with folded hands and see them\ndo it. But, in fact, there are two things to be done: \u201cpowers to be\ndeveloped--where a little of our help goes a long way; and character\nto be formed\u201d--and here children are as clay in the hands of the\npotter, absolutely dependent on their parents. Disposition, intellect,\ngenius, come pretty much by nature; but character is an achievement,\nthe one practical achievement possible to us for ourselves and for\nour children; and all real advance in family or individual is along\nthe lines of character. Our great people are great simply by reason\nof their force of character. For this, more than for their literary\nsuccesses, Carlyle and Johnson are great. Boswell\u2019s \u201cLife\u201d is, and\nperhaps deserves to be, more of a literary success than anything of his\nmaster\u2019s; but what figure does he make after all?\n\nGreatness and littleness belong to character, and life would be dull\nwere we all cast in one mould; but how come we to differ? Surely by\nreason of our inherited qualities. It is hereditary tendencies which\nresult in character. The man who is generous, obstinate, hot-tempered,\ndevout, is so, on the whole, because that strain of character runs in\nhis family. Some progenitor got a bent from his circumstances towards\nfault or virtue, and that bent will go on repeating itself to the end\nof the chapter. To save that single quality from the exaggeration\nwhich would destroy the balance of qualities we call sanity, two\ncounter-forces are provided: marriage into alien families, and\n_education_.\n\nWe come round now to the point we started from. If the development of\ncharacter rather than of faculty is the main work of education, and\nif people are born, so to speak, ready-made, with all the elements of\ntheir after-character in them, certain to be developed by time and\ncircumstances, what is left for education to do?\n\nVery commonly, the vote is, do nothing; though there are three or four\nways of arriving at that conclusion.\n\nAs, What\u2019s the good? The fathers have eaten sour grapes; the children\u2019s\nteeth _must_ be set on edge. Tommy is obstinate as a little mule--but\nwhat would you have? So is his father. So have been all the Joneses,\ntime out of mind; and Tommy\u2019s obstinacy is taken as a fact, not to be\nhelped nor hindered.\n\nOr, Mary is a butterfly of a child, never constant for five minutes\nto anything she has in hand. \u201cThat child is just like me!\u201d says her\nmother; \u201cbut time will steady her.\u201d Fanny, again, sings herself to\nsleep with the Sicilian Vesper Hymn (her nurse\u2019s lullaby) before she is\nable to speak. \u201cIt\u2019s strange how an ear for music runs in our family!\u201d\nis the comment, but no particular pains are taken to develop the talent.\n\nAnother child asks odd questions, is inclined to make little jokes\nabout sacred things, to call his father \u201cTom,\u201d and, generally, to show\na want of reverence. His parents are earnest-minded people--think with\npain of the loose opinions of Uncle Harry, and decide on a policy\nof repression. \u201cDo as you\u2019re bid, and make no remarks,\u201d becomes the\nchild\u2019s rule of life, until he finds outlets little suspected at home.\n\nIn another case, common thought is much more on a level with the\nscience of the day; there is a tendency to lung-trouble: the doctors\nundertake to deal with the tendency so long as the _habit_ of delicacy\nis not set up. The necessary precautions are taken, and there is no\nreason why the child should not die at a good old age.\n\nOnce more;--there are parents who are aware of the advance science has\nmade in education, but doubt the lawfulness of looking to science for\naid in the making of character. They see hereditary defects in their\nchildren, but set them down as of \u201cthe natural fault and corruption of\nthe nature of every man which naturally is engendered of the offspring\nof Adam.\u201d This, they believe, it is not their part to remedy; that is,\nunless the boy\u2019s fault be of a disturbing kind--a violent temper, for\nexample--when the mother thinks no harm to whip the offending Adam out\nof him. But so surely as we believe the laws of the spiritual life to\nhave been revealed to us, so, not less, surely, though without the\nsame sanctity, have been revealed the laws by which body, mind, and\nmoral nature flourish or decay. These it behoves us to make ourselves\nacquainted with; and the Christian parent who is shy of science, and\nprefers to bring up his children by the light of Nature when that of\nauthoritative revelation fails, does so to his children\u2019s irreparable\nloss.\n\nIf the race is advancing, it is along the lines of character, for each\nnew generation inherits and adds to the best that has gone before\nit. We should have to-day the very flower and fruit that has been\na-preparing through long lines of progenitors. Children have always\nbeen lovely, so far back as that day when a little child in the streets\nof Jerusalem was picked up and set in the midst to show of what sort\nare the princes in the Kingdom to come:--\n\n \u201cIn the Kingdom are the children--\n You may read it in their eyes;\n All the freedom of the Kingdom\n In their careless humour lies.\u201d\n\nAnd what mother has not bowed before the princely heart of innocence in\nher own little child? But apart from this, of their glad living in the\nsunshine of the Divine Countenance, surely our children are \u201cmore so\u201d\nthan those of earlier days. Never before was a \u201cJackanapes\u201d written,\nor the \u201cStory of a Short Life.\u201d Shakespeare never made a child, nor\nScott, hardly Dickens, often as he tried; either we are waking up to\nwhat is in them, or the children are indeed advancing in the van of the\ntimes, holding in light grasp the gains of the past, the possibilities\nof the future. It is the age of child-worship; and very lovely are the\nwell-brought-up children of Christian and cultured parents. But, alas!\nhow many of us degrade the thing we love! Think of the multitude of the\ninnocents to be launched on the world, already mutilated, spiritually\nand morally, at the hands of doting parents.\n\nThe duteous father and mother, on the contrary, who discern any lovely\nfamily trait in one of their children, set themselves to nourish and\ncherish it as a gardener the peaches he means to show. We know how\n\u201cthat kiss made me a painter,\u201d that is, warmed into life whatever\nart faculty the child had. The choicer the plant, the gardener tells\nus, the greater the pains must he take with the rearing of it:\nand here is the secret of the loss and waste of some of the most\nbeauteous and lovable natures the world has seen; they have not had\nthe pains taken with their rearing that their delicate, sensitive\norganisations demanded. Think how Shelley was left to himself! We\nlive in embarrassing days. It is well to cry, \u201cGive us light--more\nlight and fuller;\u201d but what if the new light discover to us a maze of\nobligations, intricate and tedious?\n\nIt is, at first sight, bewildering to perceive that for whatever\ndistinctive quality, moral or intellectual, we discern in the children,\nspecial culture is demanded; but, after all, our obligation towards\neach such quality resolves itself into providing for it these four\nthings: nourishment, exercise, change, and rest.\n\nA child has a great turn for languages (his grandfather was the master\nof nine); the little fellow \u201clisps in Latin,\u201d learns his \u201c_mensa_\u201d from\nhis nurse, knows his declensions before he is five. What line is open\nto the mother who sees such an endowment in her child? First, let him\nuse it; let him learn his declensions, and whatever else he takes to\nwithout the least sign of effort. Probably the Latin case-endings come\nas easily and pleasantly to his ear as does \u201cSee-saw, Margery Daw,\u201d to\nthe ordinary child, though no doubt \u201cMargery Daw\u201d is the wholesomer\nkind of thing. Let him do just so much as he takes to of his own\naccord; but never urge, never applaud, never show him off. Next, let\nwords convey ideas as he is able to bear them. Buttercup, primrose,\ndandelion, magpie, each tells its own tale; daisy is day\u2019s-eye, opening\nwith the sun, and closing when he sets--\n\n \u201cThat well by reason it men callen may\n The da\u00efsie, or else the eye of day.\u201d\n\nLet him feel that the common words we use without a thought are\nbeautiful, full of story and interest. It is a great thing that the\nchild should get the _ideas_ proper to the qualities inherent in him.\nAn idea fitly put is taken in without effort, and, once in, ideas\nbehave like living creatures--they feed, grow, and multiply. Next,\nprovide him with some one delightful change of thought, that is, with\nwork and ideas altogether apart from his bent for languages. Let him\nknow, with friendly intimacy, every out-of-door object that comes in\nhis way--the red-start, the rose-chaffer, the ways of the caddis-worm,\nforest trees, field flowers--all natural objects, common and curious,\nnear his home. No other knowledge is so delightful; not natural\nscience, but common acquaintance with natural objects.\n\nOr, again, some one remarks that all our great inventors have in their\nyouth handled material--clay, wood, iron, brass, pigments. Let him work\nin material. To provide a child with delightful resources on lines\nopposed to his natural bent is the one way of keeping a quite sane mind\nin the presence of an absorbing pursuit.\n\nAt the same time, change of occupation is not rest: if a man ply a\nmachine, now with his foot, and now with his hand, the foot or the\nhand rests, but the man does not. A game of romps (better, so far as\nmere rest goes, than games with laws and competitions), nonsense talk,\na fairy tale, or to lie on his back in the sunshine, should rest the\nchild, and of such as these he should have his fill.\n\nThis, speaking broadly, is the _rationale_ of the matter:--just as\nactually as we sew or write through the instrumentality of the hand, so\nthe child learns, thinks, feels, by means of a material organ--the very\ndelicate nervous tissue of the cerebrum. Now this tissue is constantly\nand rapidly wearing away. The more it is used, whether in the way of\nmental effort or emotional excitement, the more it wears away. Happily,\nrapid new growth replaces the waste, wherefore, work and consequent\nwaste of tissue are necessary. But let the waste get ahead of the\ngain, and lasting mischief happens. Therefore never let the child\u2019s\nbrain-work exceed his chances of reparation, whether such work come in\nthe way of too hard lessons, or of the excitement attending childish\ndissipations. Another plea for abundant rest:--one thing at a time, and\nthat done well, appears to be Nature\u2019s rule; and his hours of rest and\nplay are the hours of the child\u2019s physical growth--witness the stunted\nappearance of children who are allowed to live in a whirl of small\nexcitements.\n\nA word more as to the necessity of _change of thought_ for the child\nwho has a distinct bent. The brain tissue not only wastes with work,\nbut, so to speak, wastes locally. We all know how done up we are\nafter giving our minds for a few hours or days to any one subject,\nwhether anxious or joyous: we are glad at last to escape from the\nengrossing thought, and find it a weariness when it returns upon\nus. It would appear that, set up the continuous working of certain\nideas, and a certain tract of the brain substance is, as it were, worn\nout and weakened with the constant traffic in these ideas. And this\nis of more consequence when the ideas are moral than when they are\nmerely intellectual. Hamlet\u2019s thoughts play continuously round a few\ndistressing facts; he becomes morbid, not entirely sane; in a word, he\nis _eccentric_. Now, possibly, eccentricity is a danger against which\nthe parents of well-descended children must be on the watch. These are\nborn with strong tendencies to certain qualities and ways of thinking.\nTheir bringing up tends to accentuate their qualities; the balance\nbetween these and other qualities is lost, and they become eccentric\npersons. Mr. Matthew Arnold writes down the life and the work of a\ngreat poet as _ineffectual_; and this is, often enough, the verdict\npassed upon the eccentric. Whatever force of genius and of character,\nwhatever lovely moral traits they may have, the world will not take\nthem as guides for good, unless they do as others do in things lawful\nand expedient; and truly there is a broad margin for originality\nin declining to hunt with the hounds in things neither lawful nor\nexpedient.\n\nNow, practically, what is the mother\u2019s course who notices in her most\npromising child little traits of oddity? He does not care much for\ngames, does not get on well with the rest, has some little den of his\nown where he ruminates. Poor little fellow! he wants a confidante\nbadly; most likely he has tried nurse and brothers and sisters, to\nno purpose. If this go on, he will grow up with the idea that nobody\nwants him, nobody understands him, will take his slice of life and\neat it (with a snarl) all by himself. But if his mother have tact\nenough to get at him, she will preserve for the world one of its\nsaving characters. Depend upon it there is something at work in the\nchild--genius, humanity, poetry, ambition, pride of family. It is\nthat he wants outlet and exercise for an inherited trait almost too\nbig for his childish soul. Rosa Bonheur was observed to be a restless\nchild whose little shoes of life were a misfit: lessons did not please\nher, and play did not please her; and her _artist_ father hit on the\nnotion of soothing the child\u2019s divine discontent by--apprenticing\nher to a needlewoman! Happily she broke her bonds, and we have her\npictures. In the case of pride of birth, it is well that the child\nshould be brought face to face and heart to heart with the \u201cgreat\nhumility\u201d of our Pattern. But that being done, this sense of family\ndistinction is a wonderful lever to raise the little world of the\nchild\u2019s nature. _Noblesse oblige._ He must needs add honour and not\ndishonour to a distinguished family. I know of a little boy who bears\ntwo distinguished family names--Browning-Newton, let us say. He goes\nto a preparatory school, where it is the custom to put the names of\ndefaulters on the blackboard. By-and-by, his little brother went to\nschool too, and the bigger boy\u2019s exordium was:--\u201cWe\u2019ll _never_ let two\nsuch names as ours be stuck up on the blackboard!\u201d\n\nAmongst the immediate causes of eccentricity is the dreariness of daily\nliving, the sense of which falls upon us all at times, and often with\ndeadly weight upon the more finely strung and highly gifted. \u201cOh, dear!\nI wish I was in Jupiter!\u201d sighed a small urchin who had already used\nup this planet. It rests with the parents to see that the dreariness\nof a motiveless life does not settle, sooner or later, on any one of\ntheir children. We are made with a yearning for the \u201cfearful joy\u201d of\npassion; and if this do not come to us in lawful ways, we look for it\nin eccentric, or worse, in illegitimate courses. The mother, to whom\nher child is as an open book, must find a vent for the restless working\nof his nature--the more apt to be troubled by--\n\n \u201cThe burden of the mystery,\n The heavy and the weary weight\n Of all this unintelligible world\u201d--\n\nthe more finely he is himself organised. Fill him with the enthusiasm\nof humanity. Whatever gifts he has, let them be cultivated as \u201cgifts\nfor men.\u201d \u201cThe thing best worth living for is _to be of use_,\u201d was well\nsaid lately by a thinker who has left us. The child into whose notion\nof life that idea is fitted will not grow up to find time heavy on\nhis hands. The life blessed with an enthusiasm will not be dull; but\na weight must go into the opposite scale to balance even the noblest\nenthusiasm. As we have said, open for him some door of natural science,\nsome way of mechanical skill; in a word, give the child an absorbing\npursuit and a fascinating hobby, and you need not fear eccentric or\nunworthy developments. It seems well to dwell at length on this\nsubject of eccentricity, because the world loses a great deal by its\nsplendid failures, the beautiful human beings who through one sort of\neccentricity or another become ineffectual for the raising of the rest\nof us.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [6] \u201cVom Vater hab\u2019 ich die Statur,\n Des Lebens ernstes F\u00fchren;\n Vom M\u00fctterchen die Frohnatur,\n Und Lust zu fabuliren.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n _THE CULTURE OF CHARACTER_\n\n PART II\n\n\nSuppose the parent see that the formation of character is the ultimate\nobject of education; see, too, that character is, in the rough, the\ninherited tendencies of the child, modified by his surroundings, but\nthat character may be debased or ennobled by education; that it is\nthe parents\u2019 part to distinguish the first faint budding of family\ntraits--to greet every fine trait as the highest sort of family\npossession to be nourished and tended with care; to keep up at the\nsame time the balance of qualities by bringing forward that which is\nof little account--the more so when they must deliver their child from\neccentricity, pitfall to the original and forceful nature;--suppose\nthey have taken all this into the _r\u00f4le_ of their duties, there yet\nremains much for parents to do.\n\nWe are open to what the French call the defects of our qualities; and\nas ill weeds grow apace, the defects of a fine character may well choke\nout the graces. A little maiden loves with the passion and devotion of\na woman, but she is exacting of return, and jealous of intrusion, even\nwith her mother. A boy is ambitious; he will be leader in the nursery,\nand his lead is wholesome for the rest; but there is the pugnacious\nlittle brother who will not \u201cfollow my leader,\u201d and the two can hardly\nlive in the same rooms. The able boy is a tyrant when his will is\ncrossed. There is the timid, affectionate little maid who will even\ntell a fib to shield her sister; and there is the high-spirited girl\nwho never lies, but who does, now and then, bully; and so on, without\nend. What is the parents\u2019 part here? To magnify the quality; make the\nchild feel that he or she has a virtue to guard--a _family_ possession,\nand, at the same time, a gift from above. A little simple reasonable\nteaching may help. But let us beware of much talk. \u201cHave you _quite_\nfinished, mother?\u201d said a bright little girl of five in the most polite\nway in the world. She had listened long to her mother\u2019s sermonising,\nand had many things on hand. A wise word here and there may be of use,\nbut much more may be done by carefully hindering each \u201cdefect of its\nquality\u201d from coming into play. Give the ill weeds no room to grow.\nThen, again, the defect may often be reclaimed and turned back to feed\nthe quality itself. The ambitious boy\u2019s love of power may be worked\ninto a desire to win by love his restive little brother. The passion of\nthe loving girl may be made to include all whom her mother loves.\n\nThere is another aspect of the subject of heredity and the duties it\nentails. As the child of long lineage may well inherit much of what\nwas best in his ancestors--fine physique, clear intellect, high moral\nworth--so also he has his risks. As some one puts it, not all the women\nhave been brave, nor all the men chaste. We know how the tendency to\ncertain forms of disease runs in families. Temper and temperament,\nmoral and physical nature alike, may come down with a taint. An unhappy\nchild may, by some odd freak of nature, appear to have left out the\ngood and taken into him only the unworthy. What can the parents do\nin such a case? They may not _re_form him--perhaps that is beyond\nhuman skill and care, once he has become all that is possible to his\nnature--but _transform_ him, so that the being he was calculated to\nbecome never develops at all; but another being comes to light blest\nwith every grace of which he had only the defect. This brings us to a\nbeneficent law of nature, which underlies the whole subject of early\ntraining, and especially so this case of the child whose mother must\nbring him forth a second time into a life of beauty and harmony. To put\nit in an old form of words--the words of Thomas \u00e0 Kempis--what seems\nto me the fundamental law of education is no more than this: \u201cHabit\nis driven out by habit.\u201d People have always known that \u201cUse is second\nnature,\u201d but the reason why, and the scope of the saying, these are\ndiscoveries of recent days.\n\nA child has an odious custom, so constant, that it is his quality, will\nbe his _character_ if you let him alone; he is spiteful, he is sly,\nhe is sullen. No one is to blame for it; it was born in him. What are\nyou to do with such inveterate habit of nature? Just this; treat it as\na bad _habit_, and set up the opposite good habit. Henry is more than\nmischievous; he is a malicious little boy. There are always tears in\nthe nursery, because, with \u201cpinches, nips, and bobs,\u201d he is making some\nchild wretched. Even his pets are not safe; he has done his canary to\ndeath by poking at it with a stick through the bars of its cage; howls\nfrom his dog, screeches from his cat, betray him in some vicious trick.\nHe makes fearful faces at his timid little sister; sets traps with\nstring for the housemaid with her water-cans to fall over; there is no\nend to the malicious tricks, beyond the mere savagery of untrained\nboyhood, which come to his mother\u2019s ear. What is to be done? \u201cOh, he\nwill grow out of it!\u201d say the more hopeful who pin their faith to time.\nBut many an experienced mother will say, \u201cYou can\u2019t cure him; what is\nin will out, and he will be a pest to society all his life.\u201d Yet the\nchild may be cured in a month if the mother will set herself to the\ntask with both hands and set purpose; at any rate, the cure may be well\nbegun, and that is half done.\n\nLet the month of treatment be a deliciously happy month to him, he\nliving all the time in the sunshine of his mother\u2019s smile. Let him not\nbe left to himself to meditate or carry out ugly pranks. Let him feel\nhimself always under a watchful, loving, and _approving eye_. Keep him\nhappily occupied, well amused. All this, to break the old custom which\nis assuredly broken when a certain length of time goes by without its\nrepetition. But one habit drives out another. Lay new lines in the old\nplace. Open avenues of kindness for him. Let him enjoy, daily, hourly,\nthe pleasure of pleasing. Get him into the way of making little plots\nfor the pleasure of the rest--a plaything of his contriving, a dish of\nstrawberries of his gathering, shadow rabbits to amuse the baby; take\nhim on kind errands to poor neighbours, carrying and giving of his own.\nFor a whole month the child\u2019s whole heart is flowing out in deeds and\nschemes and thoughts of loving-kindness, and the ingenuity which spent\nitself in malicious tricks becomes an acquisition to his family when\nhis devices are benevolent. Yes; but where is his mother to get time in\nthese encroaching days to put Henry under special treatment? She has\nother children and other duties, and simply cannot give herself up for\na month or a week to one child. If the boy were ill, in danger, would\nshe find time for him then? Would not other duties go to the wall, and\nleave her little son, for the time, her chief object in life? Now here\nis a point all parents are not enough awake to--that mental and moral\nailments require prompt, purposeful, curative treatment, to which the\nparents must devote themselves for a short time, just as they would\nto a sick child. Neither punishing him nor letting him alone--the two\nlines of treatment most in favour--ever cured a child of any moral\nevil. If parents recognised the efficacy and the immediate effect of\ntreatment, they would never allow the spread of ill weeds. For let this\nbe borne in mind, whatever ugly quality disfigures the child, he is\nbut as a garden overgrown with weeds, the more prolific the weeds, the\nmore fertile the soil; he has within him every possibility of beauty of\nlife and character. Get rid of the weeds and foster the flowers. It is\nhardly too much to say that most of the failures in life or character\nmade by man or woman are due to the happy-go-lucky philosophy of the\nparents. They say, \u201cThe child is so young; he does not know any better;\nbut all that will come right as he grows up.\u201d Now, a fault of character\nleft to itself can do no other than strengthen.\n\nAn objection may be raised to this counsel of short and determined\ncurative treatment. The good results do not last, it is said; a week\nor two of neglect, and you lose the ground gained: Henry is as likely\nas ever to grow up of the \u201ctiger\u201d order, a Steerforth or a Grandcourt.\nHere science comes to help us to cheerful certainty.\n\nThere is no more interesting subject of inquiry open just now than\nthat of the interaction between the thoughts of the mind and the\nconfiguration of the brain. The fair conclusion appears to be that\neach is greatly the cause of the other; that the character of the\npersistent thoughts actually shapes the cerebrum, while on the\nconfiguration of this organ depends in turn the manner of thoughts we\nthink. Now, thought is, for the most part, automatic. We think, without\nintention or effort, as we have been accustomed to think, just as we\nwalk or write without any conscious arrangement of muscles. Mozart\ncould write an overture, laughing all the time at the little jokes his\nwife made to keep him awake; to be sure he had thought it out before,\nand there it was, ready to be written; but he did not consciously\ntry for these musical thoughts, they simply came to him in proper\nsuccession. Coleridge thought \u201cKubla Khan\u201d in his sleep, and wrote it\nwhen he awoke; and, indeed, he might as well have been asleep all the\ntime for all he had to do with the production of most of his thoughts.\n\n \u201cOver the buttons she falls asleep,\n And stitches them on in a dream,\u201d--\n\nis very possible and likely. For one thing which we consciously set\nourselves to think about, a thousand words and acts come from us every\nday of their own accord; we don\u2019t think of them at all. But all the\nsame, only a poet or a musician could thus give forth poetry or music,\nand it is the words and acts which come from us without _conscious_\nthought which afford the true measure of what we are. Perhaps this is\nwhy such serious weight is attached to our every \u201cidle word\u201d--words\nspoken without intention or volition.\n\nWe are getting, by degrees, to Henry and his bad habits. Somehow or\nother, the nervous tissue of the cerebrum \u201cgrows to\u201d the thoughts that\nare allowed free course in the mind. _How_, Science hardly ventures to\nguess as yet; but, for the sake of illustration, let us imagine that\ncertain thoughts of the mind run to and fro in the nervous substance of\nthe cerebrum until they have made a way there: busy traffic in the same\norder of thoughts will always be kept up, for there is the easy way for\nthem to run in. Now, take the child with an inherited tendency to a\nresentful temper: he has begun to think resentful thoughts: finds them\neasy and gratifying; he goes on; evermore the ugly traffic becomes more\neasy and natural, and resentfulness is rapidly becoming _himself_, that\ntrait in his character which people couple with his name.\n\nBut one custom overcomes another. The watchful mother sets up new\ntracks in other directions; and she sees to it, that while she is\nleading new thoughts through the new way, the old, deeply worn \u201c_way_\nof thinking\u201d is quite disused. Now, the cerebrum is in a state of\nrapid waste and rapid growth. The new growth takes shape from the\nnew thoughts: the old is lost in the steady waste, and the child is\n_re_formed, physically as well as morally and mentally. That the\nnervous tissue of the cerebrum should be thus the _instrument_ of the\nmind need not surprise us when we think how the muscles and joints\nof the tumbler, the vocal organs of the singer, the finger-ends of\nthe watchmaker, the palate of the tea-taster, grow to the uses they\nare steadily put to; and, much more, both in the case of brain and of\nbodily organs, grow to the uses they are _earliest_ put to.\n\nThis meets in a wonderful way the case of the parent who sets himself\nto cure a moral failing. He sets up the course of new thoughts,\nand hinders those of the past, until the _new_ thoughts shall have\nbecome automatic and run of their own accord. All the time a sort of\ndisintegration is going on in the place that held the disused thoughts;\nand here is the parent\u2019s advantage. If the boy return (as, from\ninherited tendency, he still may do) to his old habits of thought,\nbehold there is no more place for them in his physical being; to make a\nnew place is a work of time, and in this work the parent can overtake\nand hinder him without much effort.\n\nHere, indeed, more than anywhere, \u201cExcept the Lord build the house,\nthey labour but in vain that build it;\u201d but surely intelligent\nco-operation in this divine work is our bounden duty and service. The\ntraining of the will, the instruction of the conscience, and, so far\nas it lies with us, the development of the divine life in the child,\nare carried on simultaneously with this training in the habits of a\ngood life; and these last will carry the child safely over the season\nof infirm will, immature conscience, until he is able to take, under\ndirection from above, the conduct of his life, the moulding of his\ncharacter into his own hands. It is a comfort to believe that there is\neven a material register of our educational labours being made in the\nvery substance of the child\u2019s brain; and, certainly, here we have a\nnote of warning as to the danger of letting ill ways alone in the hope\nthat all will come right by-and-by.\n\nSome parents may consider all this as heavy hearing; that even to\n\u201cthink on these things\u201d is enough to take the joy and spontaneousness\nout of their sweet relationship; and that, after all, parents\u2019 love and\nthe grace of God should be sufficient for the bringing up of children.\nNo one can feel on this subject more sincere humility than those who\nhave not the honour to be parents; the insight and love with which\nparents--mothers most so--are blest, is a divine gift which fills\nlookers-on with reverence, even in many a cottage home; but we have\nonly to observe how many fond parents make foolish children to be\nassured that something more is wanted. There are appointed ways, not\nalways the old paths, but new ones, opened up step by step as we go.\nThe labour of the mother who sets herself to understand her work is not\nincreased, but infinitely lightened; and as for life being made heavy\nwith the thought of these things, once make them our own, and we act\nupon them as naturally as upon such knowledge--scientific also--as,\nloose your hold of a cup--and it falls. A little painstaking thought\nand effort in the first place, and all comes easy.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n _BIBLE LESSONS_\n\n\n \u201cThe history of England is now reduced to a game at cards,--the\n problems of mathematics to puzzles and riddles.... There wants\n but one step further, and the Creed and Ten Commandments may\n be taught in the same manner, without the necessity of the\n grave face, deliberate tone of recital, and devout attention\n hitherto exacted from the well-governed childhood of this\n realm.\u201d--_Waverley._\n\n\nThat parents should make over the religious education of their children\nto a Sunday-school is, no doubt, as indefensible as if they sent them\nfor their meals to a table maintained by the public bounty. We \u201cat\nhome\u201d plead \u201cnot guilty\u201d to this particular count. Our Sunday-schools\nare used by those toil-worn and little-learned parents who are willing\nto accept at the hands of the more leisured classes this service of the\nreligious teaching of their children. That is, the Sunday-school is,\nat present, a necessary evil, an acknowledgment that there are parents\nso hard pressed that they are unable for their first duty. Here we\nhave the theory of the Sunday-school--the parents who can, teach their\nchildren at home on Sunday, and substitutes step in to act for those\nwho can not. It is upon this delightful theory of the Sunday-school\nthat a clergyman[7] at the Antipodes has taken action. Never does\nit appear to occur to him that the members of the upper and middle\nclasses do not need to be definitely and regularly instructed in\nreligion--\u201cfrom a child.\u201d His contention is, only, that such children\nshould not be taught at Sunday-school, but at home, and by their\nparents; and the main object of his parochial \u201cParents\u2019 Union\u201d is to\nhelp parents in this work. These are some of the rules:--\n\n1. The object of the Union shall be to unite, strengthen, and assist\nfathers and mothers in the discharge of their parental duties.\n\n2. Members shall be pledged, by the fact of their joining, to supervise\nthe education of their own children, and to urge the responsibility of\nthe parental relationship upon other parents.\n\n3. Lesson sketches shall be furnished monthly to each family in\nconnection with the Union.\n\n4. Members shall bring their children to the monthly catechising, and\nsit with them, &c., &c.\n\nProbably the \u201clesson-sketches\u201d are to secure that the children do just\nsuch Bible-lessons at home with their parents on Sunday as they have\nhitherto done at the Sunday-school with teachers.\n\nIt seems to be contemplated that parents of every class will undertake\ntheir proper duties in this matter, and that the Sunday-school may be\nallowed to drop, the clergyman undertaking instead to ascertain, by\nmeans of catechising, that certain work is done month by month.\n\nThe scheme seems full of promise. Nothing should do more to strengthen\nthe bonds of family life than that the children should learn religion\nat the lips of their parents; and, to grow up in a church which takes\nconstant heed of you from baptism or infancy, until, we will not say\nconfirmation, but through manhood and womanhood, until the end, should\ngive the right tone to corporate life.\n\nNo doubt we have parishes, and even whole denominations, in which the\nyoung people are taken hold of from first to last; but then it is by\nclergy, teachers, class leaders, and so on; and all parents do not\nregard it as an unmixed blessing that the most serious part of their\nchildren\u2019s training should be undertaken by outsiders. The thing that\nseems most worthy of imitation in this Australian movement is, that\nparents themselves are recognised as the fit instructors of their\nchildren in the best things, and that they are led to acknowledge some\nresponsibility to the Church with regard to the instruction they give.\n\nBut do we manage these things so well \u201cat home\u201d that we have no\noccasion to look about us for hints? It may be in the memories of\nsome of us, that in May 1889, a Committee of the House of Laymen\nfor the Province of Canterbury was appointed to examine into the\nreligious education of the upper and middle classes.[8] The committee\nconsidered that they might obtain a good basis for their investigations\nby examining into the religious knowledge of boys entering school.\nThey sent a paper of inquiries to sixty-two head-masters, most of\nwhom sent replies; and from these replies the committee were led to\nconclude that, \u201cfor the most part, the standard of religious education\nattained by boys before going to school is far below what might be\nhoped or expected; and that even this standard, thus ascertained to\nbe far too low, is deteriorating; and further, that the chief cause\nof deterioration is considered to be the want of home-teaching and\nreligion.\u201d\n\nHere is matter of grave consideration for us all--for, though the\ninvestigation was conducted by Churchmen, it naturally covered\nboys of various denominations attending public and middle-class\nschools; the distinctive character of the religious education was\nthe subject of separate inquiry. No doubt there are many beautiful\nexceptions--families brought up in quiet homes in the nurture and\nadmonition of the Lord; but if it is, as some of us fear, a fact that\nthere is a tendency among parents of the middle and upper classes to\nlet the religious education of their children take care of itself, it\nis worth while to ask, What is the reason? and, What is the remedy?\nMany reasons are assigned for this alleged failure in parental\nduty--social claims, the restive temper of the young people and their\nimpatience of religious teaching, and much else. But these reasons\nare inadequate. Parents are, on the whole, very much alive to their\nresponsibilities; perhaps there has never been a generation more\nearnest and conscientious than the young parents of these days. All the\nsame, these thoughtful young parents do not lay themselves out to teach\ntheir children religion, before all things.\n\nThe fact is, our religious life has suffered, and by-and-by our\nnational character will suffer, for the discredit thrown upon the\nBible by adverse critics. We rightly regard the Bible as the entire\ncollection of our Sacred Books. We have absolutely nothing to teach\nbut what we find written therein. But we no longer go to the Bible\nwith the old confidence: our religion is fading into a sentiment, not\neasy to impart; we wait until the young people shall conceive it for\nthemselves. Meantime, we give them such \u00e6sthetic culture as should\ntend to develop those needs of the soul that find their satisfaction\nin worship. The whole superstructure of \u201cliberal\u201d religious thought is\nmiserably shaky, and no wonder there is some shrinking from exposing\nit to the Ithuriel\u2019s spear of the definite and searching young mind.\nFor we love this flimsy habitation we have builded. It bears a shadowy\nresemblance to the old home of our souls, and we cling to it with a\ntender sentiment which the younger generation might not understand.\n\nAre we then unhoused? Undoubtedly we are upon one assumption--that\nassumption which it takes a brilliant novelist to put forth in its\nnaked asperity--\u201cMiracles do not happen.\u201d The educated mind is more\nessentially logical than we are apt to suppose. Remove the keystone\nof miracle and the arch tumbles about our ears. The ostentatious\nveneration for the Person of Christ, as separated from the \u201cmythical\u201d\nmiraculous element, is, alas! no more than a spurious sentiment toward\na self-evolved conception. Eliminate the \u201cmiraculous\u201d and the whole\nfabric of Christianity disappears; and not only so, what have we to\ndo with that older revelation of \u201cthe Lord, the Lord, a God full of\ncompassion and gracious\u201d? Do we say, Nay, we keep this; here is no\nmiracle; and, of Christ, have we not the inimitable Sermon on the\nMount--sufficient claim on our allegiance? No, we have not; therein\nare we taught to pray, to consider the lilies of the field and the\nfowls of the air, and to remember that the very hairs of our head are\nall numbered. Here we have the doctrine of the personal dealing, the\nparticular providence of God, which is of the very essence of miracle.\nIf \u201cmiracles do not happen,\u201d it is folly and presumption to expect\nin providence and invite in prayer the faintest disturbance of that\ncourse of events which is fixed by inevitable law. The educated mind\nis severely logical, though an effort of the will may keep us from\nfollowing out our conclusions to the bitter end. What have we left? A\nGod who, of necessity, can have no personal dealings with you or me,\nfor such dealings would be of the nature of a miracle: a God, prayer to\nwhom, in the face of such certainty, becomes blasphemous. How dare we\napproach the Highest with requests which, in the nature of things (as\nwe conceive), it is impossible He should grant?\n\nWe cannot pray, and we cannot trust, may be; yet we are not utterly\ngodless; we can admire, adore, worship, in uttermost humility. But\nhow? What shall we adore? The Divine Being can be known to us only\nthrough His attributes; He is a God of love and a God of justice; full\nof compassion and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.\nBut these are attributes which can only be conceived of as in action,\nfrom Person to person. How be gracious and merciful unless to a being\nin need of grace and mercy? Grant that grace and mercy may modify the\nslightest circumstance in a man\u2019s existence, spiritual or temporal,\nand you grant the whole question of \u201cmiracles\u201d--that is, that it is\npossible to God to act otherwise than through such inevitable laws as\nwe are able to recognise. Refuse to concede \u201cthe miraculous element,\u201d\nand the Shepherd of Israel has departed from our midst; we are left\norphaned in a world undone.\n\nSuch and so great are the issues of that question of \u201cmiracle\u201d with\nwhich we are fond of dallying, with a smile here and a shrug there, and\na special sneer for that story of the swine that ran violently down\na steep place, because we know so much about the dim thoughts of the\nbrute creation--living under our eyes, indeed, but curiously out of\nour ken. Grant the possibility of miracles, that is, of the voluntary\naction of a Personal God, and who will venture to assign limits of less\nor more?\n\nHow long halt we betwixt two opinions?--to the law and to the\ntestimony. Let us boldly accept the alternative which Hume proposes,\nhowever superciliously. Let it be, that, \u201cno testimony is sufficient\nto establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its\nfalsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours\nto establish.\u201d Even so. We believe that Christ rose again the third\nday and ascended into heaven; or we credit the far more miraculous\nhypothesis that \u201cthere is no God\u201d; or, anyway, the God of revelation,\nin His adorable Personality, has ceased to be for us. There is no\nmiddle way. Natural law, as we understand it, has nothing to do with\nthese issues; not that the Supreme abrogates His laws, but that our\nknowledge of \u201cnatural law\u201d is so agonisingly limited and superficial,\nthat we are incompetent to decide whether a break in the narrow circle,\nwithin which our knowledge is hemmed, is or is not an opening into a\nwider circle, where what appears to us as an extraordinary exception\ndoes but exemplify the general rule.\n\nWe would not undervalue the solid fruits of Biblical criticism,\neven the most adverse. This should be a great gain in the spiritual\nlife--that, henceforth, a miracle is accredited, not merely by the fact\nthat it is recorded in the sacred history, but by its essential fitness\nwith the Divine Character; just as, if we may reverently compare human\nthings with divine, we say of a friend, \u201cOh, he would never do that!\u201d\nor, \u201cThat is just like him.\u201d Tried by this test, how unostentatious,\nsimple, meekly serviceable are the miracles of Christ; how utterly\ndivine it is\n\n \u201cTo have all power, and be as having none!\u201d\n\nThe mind which is saturated with the Gospel story in all its sweet\nreasonableness, which has absorbed the more confused and broken\nrays wherein the Light of the World is manifested in Old Testament\nstory, will perhaps be the least tempted to the disloyalty of\n\u201chonest doubt;\u201d--for disloyalty to the most close and sacred of all\nrelationships it is, though we must freely concede that such doubt is\nthe infirmity of noble minds. Believing that faith comes by hearing,\nand hearing by the Word of God, that the man is established in the\nChristian faith according as the child has been instructed, the\nquestion of questions for us is, how to secure that the children shall\nbe well grounded in the Scriptures by their parents, and shall pursue\nthe study with intelligence, reverence, and delight.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [7] The Rev. E. Jackson, sometime of Sydney.\n\n [8] See \u201cReport of the Committee of the House of Laymen\n for the Province of Canterbury on the Duty of the\n Church with regard to the Religious Education of the\n Upper and Middle Classes.\u201d--_Nat. Soc. Depository,\n Westminster_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n _FAITH AND DUTY_\n\n REVIEWS\n\n I\n\n\nEducation, properly understood, is the science of life, and every\nattempt to formulate this science is to be hailed with interest, and\nwith a measure of gratitude in proportion to its success. Thinking\nminds everywhere are engaged in furnishing their quota towards this\ngreat work, in one or another of its aspects, physical, social,\nreligious. We see at once the importance of every attempt to solve\nsocial problems or problems of faith, as helping us to understand those\n\u201claws of nature\u201d and \u201cways of men,\u201d the love, and dutiful attitude of\nthe will towards which Mr. Huxley considers to be the sole practical\noutcome of education. We have before us three important works[9] on\nthese lines. One deals with the problems of \u201csecular\u201d morality from an\nAmerican point of view; the second with the whole problem of national\neducation from a French and \u201cscientific\u201d standpoint. The third is\nnot professedly an educational work. It deals with \u201cthe ways of men,\u201d\nbut with the ways of men as they are concerned with the ways and will\nof God. That is, it deals with the deep-seated springs out of which\nare the issues of life. As the true educationalist works from within\noutwards, he will probably find much aid in a work whose outlook on\nlife is from the standpoint of \u201cfaith.\u201d\n\nMr. Felix Adler, in \u201cThe Moral Instruction of Children,\u201d undertakes\na by no means easy task in setting himself to solve the problem of\nunsectarian moral instruction. He brings unusual qualifications to the\nwork--a wide outlook, philosophic training, and that catholic love of\nliterature and knowledge of books which is essential to the teacher of\nmorals. The work before us is one which should find a place on every\neducated parent\u2019s bookshelves, not perhaps to be swallowed whole as a\n\u201ccomplete guide,\u201d but to be studied with careful attention and some\nfreedom of choice as to which counsel of perfection is worthy to be\nacted upon, and which other counsel may be rejected as not fitting in\nwith that scheme of educational thought which the parent has already\nmade for himself. Mr. Adler is most seriously handicapped at the\noutset. He writes for American schools, in which the first condition of\nmoral instruction is that it must be unsectarian. This he, rightly or\nwrongly, interprets, to exclude all theistic teaching whatever; that\nis to say, the child he writes for has no sanctions beyond those he\nfinds in his own breast. For example: \u201cIt is the business of the moral\ninstructor in the school to deliver to his pupils the subject-matter\nof morality, but not to deal with the sanctions of it. He says to the\npupil, \u2018Thou shalt not lie.\u2019 He takes it for granted that the pupil\nfeels the force of this commandment, and acknowledges that he ought\nto yield obedience to it. For my part, I should suspect of quibbling\nand dishonest intention any boy or girl who would ask me, Why ought I\nnot to lie? I should hold up before such a child the _ought_ in all\nits awful majesty. The right to reason about these matters cannot be\nconceded until after the mind has attained a certain maturity.\u201d\n\nWhere does the _ought_ get its awful majesty? That there is in the\nhuman breast an infallible sense of \u201cought\u201d is an error prolific of\nmuch evil. It is a popular idea to-day that it is right to do that\nwhich the doer holds to be right; or, as it is popularly expressed, a\nman does all that can be expected of him when he acts according to his\n\u201clights.\u201d Now, a very slight acquaintance with history demonstrates\nthat every persecution and most outrages, from the Inquisition to\nThuggee, are the outcome of that same majesty of \u201cought,\u201d as it makes\nits voice heard in the breast of an individual or of a community.\nTo attempt to treat of morals without dealing with the sanctions of\nmorality is to work from the circumference instead of from the centre.\n\n_Moses, Moses und immer Moses!_ says a German pedagogue of the modern\nschool, who writes in hot disdain of the old school system, in which\nten or twelve, and, in some of the German States, fifteen or sixteen\nhours a week were devoted to Bible-teaching. We in England, and they in\nAmerica, also rebel against the Bible as a class-book. Educationalists\nsay there is so much else to be learned, that this prolonged study\nof sacred literature is a grievous waste of time; and many religious\npersons, on the other hand, object on the ground that it is not good\nto make the Bible common as a class-book. But it is singular that so\nfew educationalists recognise that the Bible is not a single book,\nbut a classic literature of wonderful beauty and interest; that,\napart from its Divine sanctions and religious teaching, from all that\nwe understand by \u201cRevelation,\u201d the Bible, as a mere instrument of\neducation, is, at the very least as valuable as the classics of Greece\nor Rome. Here is poetry, the rhythm of which soothes even the jaded\nbrain past taking pleasure in any other. Here is history, based on\nsuch broad, clear lines, such dealing of slow and sure and even-handed\njustice to the nations, such stories of national sins and national\nrepentances, that the student realises, as from no other history,\nthe solidarity of the race, the brotherhood--and, if we may call it\nso--the individuality of the nations. Here is philosophy which, of\nall the philosophies which have been propounded, is alone adequate\nto the interpretation of human life. We say not a word here of that\nwhich is the _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of the Bible--its teaching of religion,\nits revelation of God to man; but, to say only one word more, all the\nliteratures of the world put together utterly fail to give us a system\nof ethics, in precept and example, motive and sanction, complete as\nthat to which we have been born as our common inheritance in the Bible.\n\nFor 1700 years, roughly speaking, the Bible has been the school-book of\nmodern Europe; its teaching, conveyed directly or indirectly, more or\nless pure, has been the basis upon which the whole superstructure of\nnot only religious but ethical and, to some extent, literary training\nrested. Now, the Bible as a lesson-book is tabooed; and educationalists\nare called upon to produce what shall take its place in the origination\nof ideas and the formation of character. This is the task to which Mr.\nAdler sets himself; and that he is at all successful is obviously due\nto the fact that his own mind is impregnated with the Bible-lore and\nthe sacred law which he does not feel himself at liberty to propound\nto his students. But this prepossession of the author\u2019s makes his work\nvery helpful and suggestive to parents who desire to take the Bible as\nthe groundwork and the sanction of that moral teaching which they are\nglad to supplement from other sources.\n\nMay we recommend the following suggestion to parents:--\n\n\u201cParents and teachers should endeavour to answer such questions as\nthese: When do the first stirrings of the moral sense appear in the\nchild? How do they manifest themselves? What are the emotional and the\nintellectual equipments of the child at different periods, and how do\nthese correspond with its moral outfit? At what time does conscience\nenter on the scene? To what acts or omissions does the child apply the\nterms right or wrong? If observations of this kind were made with care\nand duly recorded, the science of education would have at its disposal\na considerable quantity of material, from which, no doubt, valuable\ngeneralisations might be deduced. Every mother, especially, should\nkeep a diary in which to note the successive phases of her child\u2019s\nphysical, mental, and moral growth, with particular attention to the\nmoral; so that parents may be enabled to make a timely forecast of\ntheir children\u2019s character, to foster in them every germ of good, and\nby prompt precautions to suppress, or at least restrain, what is bad.\u201d\n\nWe are glad to find that Mr. Adler reinstates fairy tales. He says,\njustly, that much of the selfishness of the world is due, not to actual\nhard-heartedness, but to a lack of imaginative power; and adds, \u201cI\nhold that something, nay, much, has been gained if a child has learned\nto take the wishes out of its heart, as it were, and to project them on\nthe screen of fancy.\u201d The German _M\u00e4rchen_ hold the first place in his\nregards. He says: \u201cThey represent the childhood of mankind, and it is\nfor this reason that they never cease to appeal to children.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut how shall we handle these _M\u00e4rchen_? and what method shall we\nemploy in putting them to account for our special purpose? My first\ncounsel is, Tell the story. Do not give it to the child to read. The\nchild, as it listens to the _M\u00e4rchen_, looks up with wide-opened eyes\nto the face of the person who tells the story, and thrills responsive\nto the touch of the earlier life of the race, which thus falls upon its\nown.\u201d That is, our author feels, and rightly so, that traditions should\nbe orally delivered. This is well worth noting. His second counsel is\nequally important. \u201cDo not,\u201d he says, \u201ctake the moral plum out of the\nfairy tale pudding, but let the child enjoy it as a whole.... Treat the\nmoral element as an incident, emphasise it indeed, but incidentally.\nPluck it as a wayside flower.\u201d\n\nMr. Felix Adler\u2019s third counsel is, to eliminate from the stories\nwhatever is merely superstitious, merely a relic of ancient animism,\nand, again, whatever is objectionable on moral grounds. In this\nconnection he discusses the vexed question of how far we should\nacquaint children with the existence of evil in the world. His\nconclusion is one with which we shall probably be inclined to agree.\n\n\u201cMy own view,\u201d he says, \u201cis that we should speak in the child\u2019s hearing\nonly of those lesser forms of evil, physical or moral, with which it is\nalready acquainted.\u201d On this ground he would rule out all the cruel\nstep-mother stories, the unnatural father stories, and so on; though,\nprobably, most of us would make an exception in favour of Cinderella,\nand its charming German rendering _Aschenbr\u00f6del_.\n\n_Fables_, according to our author, should form the basis of moral\ninstruction at the second stage; probably when children emerge from the\nnursery. We have all grown up on \u201c\u00c6sop\u2019s Fables,\u201d and \u201cThe Dog in the\nManger,\u201d \u201cKing Log,\u201d \u201cThe Frog and the Stork,\u201d have passed into the\ncurrent coinage of our thought. But it is interesting to be reminded\nthat the so-called \u00c6sop\u2019s fables are infinitely older than the famous\nGreek story-teller, and are, for the most part, of Asiatic origin. We\nare reminded that it is important to keep the origin of this fable\nbefore us, and exercise discrimination in our choice of those which\nwe use to convey moral ideas to our children. Such fables as \u201cThe Oak\nand the Reed,\u201d \u201cThe Brazen and the Earthen Pot,\u201d \u201cThe Kite and the\nWolf,\u201d Mr. Adler would reject, as breathing of Eastern subserviency\nand fear. But possibly for the very reason that the British backbone\nis little disposed to bow before man or circumstances, the lessons of\nlife culled by peoples of other habits and other thoughts may be quite\nspecially useful to the English child. Anyway, we should lose some of\nthe most charming fables if we cut out all that savours of the wisdom\nof the East. The fables Mr. Felix Adler specially commends are those\nwhich hold up virtue for our praise or evil for our censure; such as\n_Cowardice_, the fable of the \u201cStag and the Fawn;\u201d _Vanity_, \u201cThe\nPeacock and the Crane;\u201d _Greediness_, \u201cThe Dog and the Shadow.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn the third part of our primary course, we shall use selected\nstories from the classical literature of the Hebrews, and later on from\nthat of Greece, particularly the \u2018Odyssey\u2019 and the \u2018Iliad.\u2019\u201d\n\nHere we begin to be at issue with our author. We should not present\nBible stories as carrying only the same moral sanction as the myths of\nancient Greece; neither should we defer their introduction until the\nchild has gone through a moral course of fairy tales and a moral course\nof fables. He should not be able to recall a time before the sweet\nstories of old filled his imagination; he should have heard the voice\nof the Lord God in the garden in the cool of the evening; should have\nbeen an awed spectator where the angels ascended and descended upon\nJacob\u2019s stony pillow; should have followed Christ through the cornfield\non the Sabbath-day, and sat in the rows of the hungry multitudes--so\nlong ago that the sacred scenes form the unconscious background of his\nthoughts. All things are possible to the little child, and the touch\nof the spiritual upon our material world, the difficult problems, the\nhard sayings, which are an offence--in the Bible sense of the word--to\nhis elders, present no difficulties to the child\u2019s all-embracing faith.\nWe would not say--far otherwise--that every Bible story is fit for\nchildren, because it is a Bible story; neither would we analyse too\ncarefully, nor draw hard and fast lines to distinguish what we would\ncall history from that of which it may be said, \u201cWithout a parable\nspake He not unto them.\u201d\n\nThe child is not an exegetical student. The moral teaching, the\nspiritual revelations, the lovely imagery of the Bible, are the things\nwith which he is concerned, and of these he cannot have too much. As\nMr. Adler says, \u201cThe narrative of the Bible is saturated with the\nmoral spirit, the moral issues are everywhere to the forefront. Duty,\nguilt and its punishment, the conflict of conscience with inclination,\nare the leading themes. The Hebrew people seem to have been endowed\nwith what may be called a moral genius, and especially did they\nemphasise the filial and fraternal duties. Now, it is precisely these\nduties that must be impressed on young children.\u201d\n\nLet us see how Mr. Adler would use the Bible narratives. We have\nonly space for a fragmentary sentence here and there: \u201cOnce upon\na time there were two children, Adam and Eve. Adam was a fine and\nnoble-looking lad.\u201d... \u201cIt was so warm that the children never needed\nto go indoors.\u201d... \u201cAnd the snake kept on whispering, \u2018Just take one\nbite of it; nobody sees you.\u2019\u201d... \u201cYou, Adam, must learn to labour, and\nyou, Eve, to be patient and self-denying for others,\u201d &c.\n\nWe leave it to our readers to decide whether \u201ctreatment\u201d improves the\nBible narrative, or whether this is the sort of thing to lay hold of a\nchild\u2019s imagination.\n\nMr. Ruskin tells us that his incomparable style is due entirely to his\nearly familiarity with the Bible classics. It is a mistake to translate\nBible stories into slipshod English, even when the narrator keeps close\nto the facts of the narrative. The rhythm and cadence of Biblical\nphraseology is as charming to a child as to his elders, if not more so.\nRead your Bible story to the child, bit by bit; get him to tell you in\nhis own words (keeping as close as he can to the Bible words) what you\nhave read, and then, if you like, talk about it; but not much. Above\nall, do not let us attempt a \u201cpractical commentary on every verse in\nGenesis,\u201d to quote the title of a work lately published.\n\nTwo points it seems worth while to dwell upon here. Is it advisable\nto tell the children the stories of the Bible miracles in an age when\nthe possibility of miracles is so hotly discussed? In the first place,\nall that the most advanced scientists have to urge against \u201cmiracles\u201d\nis that precisely such phenomena have not come under their personal\nnotice; but they, before all people, are open to admit that nothing\nis impossible and that no experience is final. In the second place,\nas for the moral and spiritual instruction which the story of the\nmiracle affords, it is immaterial whether, in the particular case in\nquestion, a historical fact is recorded, or whether, in this case also,\nit is true that \u201cwithout a parable spake He not unto them.\u201d It is the\nvital, not the historical, truth of the story which matters to the\nchild. As for the latter, he is a bold critic, and well in advance of\nthe scientific knowledge of the day, who ventures to say, \u201c_This_ is\npossible, _that other_ is impossible.\u201d\n\nThe second point worthy of our attention in regard to Bible-teaching\nis, Is the Bible to be taken whole and undivided, or to be dealt out\nto children as they are able to bear it? There are recitals in the\nBible which we certainly should not put into the hands of children\nin any other book. We should do well to ask ourselves gravely, if we\nhave any warrant for supposing that our children will be shielded from\nthe suggestions of evil which we deliberately lay before them; or if\nthere is any Divine law requiring that the whole Bible--which is not\nonly the Word of God, but is also a collection of the legal, literary,\nhistorical, poetical, philosophical, ethical, and polemical writings\nof a nation--should be placed altogether and all at once in the hands\nof a curious child, as soon as he is able to read? When will our\nsuperstitious reverence for the mere _letter_ of the Scriptures allow\nus to break the Bible up, to be read, as all other literature is, in\nseparate books; and, for the children anyway, those passages \u201cexpunged\u201d\nwhich are not fit for their reading; and even those which are perfectly\nuninteresting, as, for example, long genealogies? How delightful it\nwould be that each birthday should bring with it a gift of a new book\nof the Bible, progressing in difficulty from year to year, beautifully\nbound and illustrated, and printed in clear, inviting type and on good\npaper. One can imagine the Christian child collecting his library of\nsacred books with great joy and interest, and making a diligent and\ndelighted study of the volume for the year in its appointed time.\nThe next best thing, perhaps, is to read bit by bit to the children,\nas beautifully as may be, requiring them to tell the story, after\nlistening, as nearly in the Bible words as they can.\n\nBut to return to Mr. Adler. Here is a valuable suggestion: \u201cChildren\nshould be taught to observe moral pictures before any attempt is made\nto deduce moral principles. But certain simple _rules_ should be given\nto the very young--must, indeed, be given them--for their guidance.\nNow, in the legislation ascribed to Moses, we find a number of rules\nfit for children, and a collection of these rules might be made for\nthe use of schools, such as: Ye shall not lie; ye shall not deceive\none another; ye shall take no bribe; thou shalt not go about as a\ntale-bearer among thy fellows,\u201d and so on--a very useful collection of\nsixteen rules by way of specimen.\n\nFarther on we read, \u201cThe story of David\u2019s life is replete with dramatic\ninterest. It may be arranged in a series of pictures. First picture,\nDavid and Goliath--_i.e._, skill pitted against brute strength, or\nthe deserved punishment of a bully.\u201d Conceive the barren, common,\nself-complete and self-complacent product of \u201cmoral\u201d teaching on this\nlevel!\n\nIn his treatment of the \u201cOdyssey\u201d and the \u201cIliad,\u201d Mr. Adler makes some\ngood points: \u201cMy father, anxious that I should become a good man, made\nme learn all the poems of Homer,\u201d Xenophon makes one of his characters\nsay: and here we have suggestive lines as to how the great epics may be\nused for example of life and instruction in manners.\n\nWhat so inspiring as the story of Ulysses to the boy in search of\nadventures? and what greater stimulus to courage, prudence, presence\nof mind, than in the escapes of the hero? \u201cUlysses is the type of\nsagacity as well as of bravery; his mind teems with inventions.\u201d The\nethical elements of the \u201cOdyssey\u201d are said to be conjugal affection,\nfilial conduct (Telemachus), presence of mind, and veneration shown\nto grand-parents (Laertes). Friendly relations with dependents might\nhave been added, as illustrated by the lovely story of the nurse\nEurycleia recognising Ulysses when his wife sat by with stony face.\nFriendship, again, in the story of Achilles\u2019 grief for Patroclus. Mr.\nAdler treats the Homeric stories with more grace and sympathy, and with\nless ruthless violation, than he metes out to those of the Bible, but\nhere again we trace the initial weakness of \u201csecular\u201d morality. The\n\u201cOdyssey\u201d and the \u201cIliad\u201d are religious poems or they are nothing. The\nwhole motive is religious, every incident is supernaturally directed.\nThe heroic inspiration is entirely wanting, if we fail to bear in\nmind that the characters do and suffer with superlative courage and\nfortitude, only because they willed to do and suffer, in all things,\nthe will of the gods. The acquiescence of the will with that which they\nguessed, however darkly, of the divine will, is the truly inspiring\nquality of the Homeric heroes; and here, as much as in the teaching of\nBible morality, \u201csecular\u201d ethics are at fault.\n\nThe third section of Mr. Adler\u2019s work consists of lessons on duty.\nHere again we have excellent counsels and delightful illustrations.\n\u201cThe teacher should always take the moral habit for granted. He should\nnever give his pupils to understand that he and they are about to\nexamine, whether, for instance, it is wrong or not wrong to lie. The\ncommandment against lying is assumed, and its obligation acknowledged\nat the outset.\u201d This we heartily agree with, and especially we like the\napparently inadvertent use of the word \u201ccommandment,\u201d which concedes\nthe whole question at issue--that is, that the idea of duty is a\nrelative one, depending on an Authority supreme and intimate, which\nembraces the thoughts of the heart and the issues of the life.\n\nThe story of Hillel, as illustrating the duty of acquiring knowledge,\nis very charming, and is deeply interesting to the psychologist, as\nillustrating that a naturally implanted desire for knowledge is one\nof the springs of action in the human breast. The motives proposed\nfor seeking knowledge are poor and inadequate; to succeed in life, to\ngain esteem, to satisfy yourself, and even to be able, possibly, to\nbenefit others, are by no means soul-compelling motives. The child who\nis encouraged to learn, because to learn is his particular duty in\nthat state of life to which it has pleased God to call him, has the\nstrongest of conceivable motives, in the sense that he is rendering\nthat which is required of him by the Supreme Authority.\n\nThis one note of feebleness runs through the whole treatment of the\nsubject. The drowning man is supposed to counsel himself to \u201cbe brave,\nbecause as a human being you are superior to the forces of Nature,\nbecause there is something in you--your moral self--over which the\nforces of Nature have no power, because what happens to you in your\nprivate character is not important; but it is important that you assert\nthe dignity of humanity to the last breath.\u201d This reads rather well;\nbut how much finer is the attitude of the man who struggles manfully to\nsave the life that _God has given him_!\n\nThe chapter on the influence of manual training is well worthy of\nconsideration. The concluding sentence runs: \u201cIt is a cheering and\nencouraging thought that technical labour, which is the source of\nour material aggrandisement, may also become, when employed in\nthe education of the young, the means of enlarging their manhood,\nquickening their intellect, and strengthening their character.\u201d\n\nWe have taken up Mr. Adler\u2019s work so fully because it is one of the\nmost serious and successful attempts with which we are acquainted to\npresent a graduated course of ethics suitable for children of all ages.\nThough we are at issue with the author on the all-important point of\nmoral sanctions, we very earnestly commend the work to the perusal of\nparents. The Christian parent will assuredly present the thought of\nLaw in connection with a Law-giver, and will supplement the thousand\nvaluable suggestions he will find here with his own strong conviction\nthat \u201cOught\u201d is of the Lord God. But even the Christian child suffers\nfrom what may be called slipshod moral teaching. The failings of the\ngood are a source of sorrow and surprise to the moralist as well as to\nthe much-endeavouring and often-failing Christian soul. That temptation\nand sin are inseparable from our present condition may be allowed; but\nthat an earnest and sincere Christian should be habitually guilty\nof failing in candour, frankness, justice to the characters and\nopinions of others, should be intemperate in censure, and--dare we say\nit?--spiteful in criticism, is possibly to be traced, not to fallible\nhuman nature, but to defective education.\n\nThe ethical idea has never been fairly and fully presented to the\nmind on these vulnerable points. The man is unable to give due\nweight to the opinions of another, because the child has not been\ninstructed in the duty of candour. There is little doubt that careful,\nmethodical, ethical instruction, with abundant illustration, and--we\nneed not add--inspired by the thought, \u201cGod wills it,\u201d should, if\nsuch instruction could be made general, have an appreciable effect in\nelevating the national character. Therefore, let us repeat, we hail\nwith gratitude such a contribution to the practical ethics of the\nnursery and schoolroom as Mr. Adler\u2019s work on \u201cThe Moral Instruction of\nChildren.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [9] \u201cThe Moral Instruction of Children.\u201d 6s. By Felix\n Adler. Published by Edward Arnold.\n\n \u201cEducation from a National Standpoint.\u201d By Alfred Fouill\u00e9e.\n Translated and edited by W. J. Greenstreet, M.A.\n Published by Edward Arnold.\n\n \u201cFaith.\u201d Eleven Sermons, with a Preface, by Rev. H. C.\n Beeching. Published by Percival & Co.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n _FAITH AND DUTY_\n\n II\n\n\nSince Locke established a school of English educational thought, based\non English philosophy, our tendency has been exclusively towards\nnaturalism, if not materialism; to the exclusion of a vital element in\neducation--the force of the idea.\n\nMadame de Sta\u00ebl has a remarkable passage concerning this tendency in\nEnglish philosophy which, though we may not be disposed to admit her\nconclusions _en bloc_, should certainly give us pause, and lead us to\nconsider whether we should not wisely modify the tendencies of our\nnational thought by laying ourselves open to foreign influences:--\n\n\u201cHobbes prit \u00e0 la lettre la philosophie qui fait d\u00e9river toutes\nnos id\u00e9es des impressions des sens; il n\u2019en craignit point les\ncons\u00e9quences, et il a dit hardiment _que l\u2019\u00e2me \u00e9tait, soumise \u00e0 la\nn\u00e9cessit\u00e9 comme la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 au despotisme_. Le culte des tous les\nsentiments \u00e9l\u00e9v\u00e9s et purs est tellement consolid\u00e9 en Angleterre par\nles institutions politiques et religieuses, que les sp\u00e9culations\nde l\u2019esprit tournent autour de ces imposantes colonnes sans jamais\nles \u00e9branler. Hobbes eut donc peu de partizans dans son pays; mais\nl\u2019influence de Locke fut plus universelle. Comme son caract\u00e8re \u00e9tait\nmorale et religieuse, il ne se permit aucun des raisonnements\ncorrupteurs qui d\u00e9rivaient n\u00e9cessairement de sa m\u00e9taphysique; et la\nplupart de ses compatriotes, en l\u2019adoptant, ont eu comme lui la noble\nincons\u00e9quence de s\u00e9parer les r\u00e9sultats des principes, tandis que Hume\net les philosophes fran\u00e7ais, apr\u00e8s avoir admis le syst\u00e8me, l\u2019ont\nappliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re beaucoup plus logique.\n\n\u201cLa m\u00e9taphysique de Locke n\u2019a eu d\u2019autre effet sur les esprits, en\nAngleterre, que de ternir un peu leur originalit\u00e9 naturelle; quand m\u00eame\nelle dess\u00e9cherait la source des grandes pens\u00e9es philosophiques, elle ne\nsaurait d\u00e9truire le sentiment religieux, qui sait si bien y suppl\u00e9er;\nmais cette m\u00e9taphysique re\u00e7ue dans le reste de l\u2019Europe, l\u2019Allemagne\nexcept\u00e9e, a \u00e9t\u00e9 l\u2019une des principales causes de l\u2019immoralit\u00e9 dont on\ns\u2019est fait une th\u00e9orie pour en mieux assurer la pratique.\u201d\n\nIt is well that we should recognise the continuity of English\neducational thought, and perceive that we have in Spencer and Baine\nthe lineal descendants of the earlier philosophers. Probably the\nchief source of weakness in our attempt to formulate a science of\neducation is that we do not perceive that education is the outcome\nof philosophy. We deal with the issue and ignore the source. Hence\nour efforts lack continuity and definite aim. We are content to pick\nup a suggestion here, a practical hint there, without even troubling\nourselves to consider what is that scheme of life of which such hints\nand suggestions are the output.\n\nMr. Greenstreet\u2019s translation of M. Fouill\u00e9e\u2019s remarkable work[10]\nshould not be without its effect upon the burning questions of the\nhour. As the translator well says in his preface: \u201cThe spirit of\nreform is in the air; the question of the retention of Greek at the\nUniversities is but a ripple of the great wave that seems ready to\nburst upon us and to obliterate the characteristic features of our\nnational system of education.... A glance at the various forms of the\neducational systems obtaining in Europe and America is sufficient to\nbetray to the observant eye how near to the verge of chaos we are\nstanding.\u201d\n\nThese are words of insight and wisdom, but let us not therefore despair\nas though the end of all things were at hand. The truth is, we are in\nthe throes of an educational revolution; we are emerging from chaos\nrather than about to plunge into it; we are beginning to recognise\nthat education is the applied science of life, and that we really have\nexisting material in the philosophy of the ages and the science of the\nday to formulate an educational code whereby we may order the lives of\nour children and regulate our own. We need not aspire to a complete and\nexhaustive code of educational laws. This will come to us duly when\nhumanity has, so to speak, fulfilled itself. Meantime, we have enough\nto go on with if we would believe it. What we have to do is to gather\ntogether and order our resources; to put the first thing foremost and\nall things in sequence, and to see that education is neither more nor\nless than the practical application of our philosophy. Hence, if our\neducational thought is to be sound and effectual, we must look to the\nphilosophy which underlies it, and must be in a condition to trace\nevery counsel of perfection for the bringing up of children to one or\nother of the two schools of philosophy of which it must needs be the\noutcome.\n\nIs our system of education to be the issue of naturalism or of\nidealism, or is there indeed a _media via_? This is practically the\nquestion which M. Fouill\u00e9e sets himself to answer in the spirit of a\nphilosophical educationalist. He examines his premisses and draws his\ndeductions with a candour, culture, and philosophic insight which carry\nthe confidence of the reader. No doubt he is of a mind with that umpire\nin a cricket-match who lays down the dictum that one must be quite fair\nto both sides with a _little_ leaning to one\u2019s own. M. Fouill\u00e9e takes\nsides with classical as opposed to scientific culture. But he is not a\nmere partisan; he has philosophic reasons for the faith that is in him,\nand his examination of the question of national education is full of\ninstruction and inspiration for the thoughtful parent as well as for\nthe schoolmaster.\n\nM. Fouill\u00e9e gives in his preamble a key to his treatment of the\nsubject. He says:\n\n\u201cOn this as on all great questions of practical philosophy Guyau\nhas left his mark.... He has treated the question from the highest\nstandpoint, and has treated it in a strictly scientific form. \u2018Given\nthe hereditary merits and faults of a race, how far can we modify\nexisting heredity by means of education for a new heredity?\u2019 For the\nproblem is nothing less than this. It is not merely a matter of the\ninstruction of individuals, but of the preservation and improvement\nof the race. Education must therefore be based upon the physiological\nand moral laws of the culture of races.... The ethnical is the true\npoint of view. By means of education we must create such hereditary\ntendencies as will be useful to the race both physically and\nintellectually.\u201d\n\nM. Fouill\u00e9e begins at the beginning. He examines the principle of\nselection, and shows that it is a working principle, not only in\nanimal, but in intellectual, \u00e6sthetic, and moral life. He demonstrates\nthat there is what may be called psychological selection, according to\nwhose laws those _ideas_ which are the fittest rule the world; and it\nis in the light of this truth, of the natural selection of ideas and\nof their enormous force, that he would examine into the vexed question\nof the subjects and methods of education. M. Fouill\u00e9e complains with\njustice that no attempt has been made to harmonise or unify education\nas a whole in any one civilised nation. Controversy rages round quite\nsecondary questions--whether education shall be literary or scientific?\nand, again, whether the ancient or the modern languages shall be\ntaught? But science and literature do not exhaust the field. Our author\nintroduces a new candidate. He says:\n\n\u201cIn this volume we shall inquire if the link between science and\nliterature is not to be found in the knowledge of man, of society, of\nthe great laws of the universe--_i.e._, in morals and social science\nand \u00e6sthetics, in a word, in philosophy.\u201d\n\nNow this is the gist of the teaching which we have laboured to advance\nin the _Parents\u2019 Union_ and its various agencies.\n\n\u201cThe proper study of mankind is man,\u201d is one of those \u201cthoughts\nbeyond their thought\u201d which poets light upon; and I am able to add my\npersonal testimony to the fact that under no other study with which I\nam acquainted is it possible to trace such almost visible expansion of\nmind and soul in the young student as in this of philosophy.\n\nA peculiarly interesting and original line of thought, worked out very\nfully in this volume, is, that just as the child with an individual\nbent should have that bent encouraged and \u201ceducated,\u201d so of a nation:--\n\n\u201cIf social science rejects every mystical interpretation of the\ncommon spirit animating a nation, it by no means rejects the reflected\nconsciousness or spontaneous divination, possessed by every nation, of\nthe functions which have devolved upon it.\u201d\n\nHere is a most fruitful suggestion. Think of the fitness of a scheme of\nphysical, intellectual, and moral training, based upon our ideal of the\nEnglish character and of the destiny of the English nation.\n\nThe chapter on \u201c_Power of Education and of Idea-Forces--Suggestions--\nHeredity_\u201d is very valuable, as utilising a floating nebul\u00e6 of\nintuitions, which are coming upon us in connection with the hundred and\none hypnotic marvels of the day. M. Fouill\u00e9e maintains that--\n\n\u201cThe power of instruction and education, denied by some and exaggerated\nby others, being nothing but the power of ideas and sentiments, it is\nimpossible to be too exact in determining at the outset the extent and\nlimits of this force. This psychological problem is the foundation of\npedagogy.\u201d\n\nIn a word, M. Fouill\u00e9e returns boldly to the Platonic philosophy;\nthe _idea_ is to him all in all, in philosophy and education. But\nhe returns empty-handed. The wave of naturalism, now perhaps on the\nebb, has left neither flotsam nor jetsam for him, save for stranded\nfragments of the Darwinian theory. Now, we maintain that to this wave\nof thought, naturalistic, materialistic--what you will--we owe the\ndiscovery of the physiological basis of education.\n\nWhile we believed that thought was purely volatile, incapable of\nimpact upon matter, or of being acted upon by matter, our theories of\neducation were necessarily vague. We could not catch our Ariel; how\nthen could we school him? But now, the physiologists have taught us\nthat our wilful sprite rests with the tips of his toes, at any rate,\nupon solid ground; nay more, his foothold is none so slight but that it\nleaves footmarks behind, an impress on that domain of the physical in\nwhich we are somewhat at home. The impalpable thoughts that we think\nleave their mark upon the quite palpable substance of the brain, set\nup, so the physiologists tell us, connections between the nerve-cells\nof which that organ is composed; in fact, to make a long story short,\nthe cerebrum \u201cgrows to the uses it is earliest and most constantly\nput to.\u201d This fact opens up a function of education upon which M.\nFouill\u00e9e hardly touches, that most important function of the formation\nof habits--physical, intellectual, moral. \u201cSow an act, reap a habit;\nsow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny,\u201d says\nThackeray. And a great function of the educator is to secure that acts\nshall be so regularly, purposefully, and methodically sown that the\nchild shall reap the habits of the good life in thinking and doing,\nwith the minimum of conscious effort.\n\nWe are only now beginning to discover how beneficial are the laws which\ngovern our being. Educate the child in these habits and the man\u2019s life\nwill run in them, without the constant wear and tear of the moral\neffort of decision. Once, twice, three times in a day, he will still,\nno doubt, have to choose between the highest and the less high, the\nbest and the less good course. But all the minor moralities of life\nmay be made habitual to him. He has been brought up to be courteous,\nprompt, punctual, neat, considerate; and he practises these virtues\nwithout conscious effort. It is much easier to behave in the way he\nis used to, than to originate a new line of conduct. And this is so,\nbecause it is graciously and mercifully ordered that there shall be\na physical record and adaptation as the result of our educational\nefforts; and that the enormous strain of moral endeavour shall come\nupon us only occasionally. \u201cSow a habit, reap a character;\u201d that is,\nthe formation of habits is the chief means whereby we modify the\noriginal hereditary disposition of the child until it becomes the\ncharacter of the man.\n\nBut even in this physiological work, the spiritual force of the idea\nhas its part to play. For a habit is set up by following out an initial\nidea with a long sequence of corresponding acts. You tell a child that\nthe Great Duke slept in so narrow a bed that he could not turn over,\nbecause, said he, \u201cWhen you want to turn over it\u2019s time to get up.\u201d The\nboy does not wish to get up in the morning; but he does wish to be like\nthe hero of Waterloo. You stimulate him to act upon this idea day after\nday for a month or so, until the habit is formed, and it is just as\neasy as not to get up in good time.\n\nThe functions of education may be roughly defined as twofold; (_a_)\nthe formation of habits; (_b_) the presentation of ideas. The first\ndepends far more largely than we recognise on physiological processes.\nThe second is purely spiritual in origin, method, and result. Is it not\npossible that here we have the meeting-point of the two philosophies\nwhich have divided mankind since men began to think about their\nthoughts and ways? Both are right; both are necessary; both have their\nfull activity in the development of a human being at his best. The\n_crux_ of modern thought, as indeed of all profound thought, is, Is\nit conceivable that the spiritual should have any manner of impact\nupon the material? Every problem, from the education of a little child\nto the Divine Incarnation, turns upon this point. Conceive this\npossibility and all is plain, from the marvels resulting from hypnotic\nsuggestion to the miracles of our faith. We can even believe what we\nare told, that, by an effort of passionate concentration of thought\nand feeling the devout may arrive at the figure of the stigmata upon\nhands and feet. With this key nothing is impossible to our faith, all\nwe ask for is precedent. And after all, this inter-action of forces is\nthe most common and every-day of our experiences. What is it but the\nimpact of spirit upon matter which writes upon the face of flesh that\nrecord of character and conduct which we call countenance. And not only\nupon the face. He is a dull scholar in the lore of human nature, who\ncannot read a man fairly well from a back view. The sculptor knows the\ntrick of it. There is a statue of the late Prince Consort in Edinburgh\nin which representative groups pay homage to the Prince. Stand so as\nto get the back view of any one of them and the shoulders of scholar,\nsoldier, peasant, artisan, tell unmistakably the tale of their several\nlives. What is this but the impress of spirit upon matter!\n\nAnyway we are on the horns of a dilemma. There is no middle course\nopen to us. The physiologists have made it absolutely plain that the\nbrain is concerned with thinking. Nay more, that thought may go on\nwithout any volition on the part of the thinker. Further, that much of\nour best work in art and literature is the result of what is called\nunconscious cerebration. Now, we must admit one of two things. Either\nthought is a process of the material brain, one more \u201cmode of motion,\u201d\nas the materialists contend, or the material brain is the agent of the\nspiritual thought, which acts upon it, let us say, as the fingers of\na player upon the keys of his instrument. Grant this and the whole\nquestion is conceded. The impact of the spiritual upon the material is\nan accepted fact.\n\nAs we have had occasion to say before, in this great work of education\nparents and teachers are permitted to play only a subordinate part\nafter all. You may bring your horse to the water, but you can\u2019t make\nhim drink; and you may present ideas of the fittest to the mind of the\nchild; but you do not know in the least which he will take, and which\nhe will reject. And very well for us it is that this safeguard to his\nindividuality is implanted in every child\u2019s breast. Our part is to see\nthat his educational _plat_ is constantly replenished with fit and\ninspiring ideas, and then we must needs leave it to the child\u2019s own\nappetite to take which he will have, and as much as he requires. Of one\nthing we must beware. The least symptom of satiety, especially when the\nideas we present are moral and religious, should be taken as a serious\nwarning. Persistence on our part just then may end in the child\u2019s never\nwillingly sitting down to that dish any more.\n\nThe very limitations we see to our own powers in this matter of\npresenting ideas should make us the more anxiously careful as to the\nnature of the ideas set before our children. We shall not be content\nthat they learn geography, history, Latin, what not,--we shall ask what\nsalient ideas are presented in each such study, and how will these\nideas affect the intellectual and moral development of the child.\nWe shall be in a mood, that is, to go calmly and earnestly into the\nquestion of education as presented by M. Fouill\u00e9e. We shall probably\ndiffer from him in many matters of detail, but we shall most likely\nbe inclined to agree with his conclusion that, not some subject\nof mere utility, but moral and social science conveyed by means of\nhistory, literature, or otherwise, is the one subject which we are\nnot at liberty to leave out from the curriculum of \u201ca being breathing\nthoughtful breath.\u201d\n\nThe tables of studies given in the appendix are of extreme value. Every\nsubject is treated from what may be called the ideal point of view.\n\n\u201cTwo things are necessary. First, we must introduce into the study\nof each science the philosophic spirit and method, general views,\nthe search for the most general principles and conclusions. We must\nthen reduce the different sciences to unity by a sound training in\nphilosophy, which will be as obligatory to students in science as to\nstudents in literature.... Scientific truths, said Descartes, are\nbattles won; describe to the young the principal and most heroic of\nthese battles; you will thus interest them in the results of science,\nand you will develop in them a scientific spirit by means of the\nenthusiasm for the conquest of truth; you will make them see the power\nof the reasoning which has led to discoveries in the past, and which\nwill do so again in the future. How interesting arithmetic and geometry\nmight be if we gave a short history of their principal theorems; if the\nchild were mentally present at the labours of a Pythagoras, a Plato,\na Euclid, or in modern times of a Vi\u00e8te, a Descartes, a Pascal, or\na Leibnitz. Great theories, instead of being lifeless and anonymous\nabstractions, would become human, living truths, each with its own\nhistory, like a statue by Michael Angelo, or like a painting by\nRaphael.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [10] \u201cEducation from a National Standpoint.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n _FAITH AND DUTY_\n\n III\n\n\nThere is a little involuntary resistance in our minds to any teaching\nwhich shall draw the deep things of our faith within the sphere of\nthe laws which govern our development as human beings. We prefer that\nthe commerce between God and the soul, in which is our life, should\nbe altogether \u201csupernatural,\u201d apart from the common laws of life,\narbitrary, inexplicable, opposed to reason. If we err in this, it is in\nreverence we err. Our thought may be poor and crude, but all our desire\nis to hallow the Divine Name, and we know no other way in which to set\nit apart. But though we err in reverence, we _do_ err, and, in the\nspiritual, as in the natural world, the motive does not atone for the\nact. We lose through this misconception of our relations with God the\nsense of unity in our lives. We become aware of an altogether unnatural\nand irreligious classification into things sacred and things secular.\nWe are not in all things _at one_ with God. There are beautiful lives\nin which there is no trace of this separation, whose aims are confined\nto the things we call sacred. But many thoughtful earnest persons\nfeel sorely the need of a conception of the divine relation which\nshall embrace the whole of human life, which shall make art, science,\npolitics, all those cares and thoughts of men which are not rebellious,\nsacred also, as being all engaged in the great evolution, the evolution\nof the Kingdom of God.\n\nOur religious thought, as our educational thought, is, far more than we\nimagine, the outcome of our philosophy. And do not let us imagine that\nphilosophy is not for the general run of men, but only for the few.\nOn the contrary, there is no living soul who does not develop his own\nphilosophy of life--that which he appropriates of the current thoughts\nof his time, modified by his own experiences.\n\nIt would be interesting to trace the effect upon religious thought\nof the two great schools of philosophy--the Idealistic and the\nNaturalistic; but that is beyond our powers, and beyond our purpose\nhere; we must confine ourselves to what is immediately practical.\nThe present day _crux_ is, that naturalistic philosophy being in the\nascendant, and the things of our religion being altogether idealistic,\nmany noble natures are in revolt, feeling that they cannot honestly\naccept as truth that which is opposed to human reason. Others, to whom\ntheir religious faith is the first thing, but who are yet in touch\nwith the thought and discovery of the day, affect an only half-honest\ncompromise with themselves, and say that there are certain questions\nwhich they will not examine; matters secular alone being open to\nsearching scrutiny. Now, it is not, as we so often hear, that the\ntimes are out of joint, that Christianity is effete, that there is\nany inherent antagonism between the facts of natural and the facts of\nspiritual life. It is our own philosophy which needs to be adjusted.\nWe have somehow managed to get life out of focus; we have begun with\nfalse initial ideas, and have taken the logical inferences from these\nfor essential truth. We have not perceived that the concern of the\nreasoning powers is not with moral or spiritual truth, or even with\nwhat we call facts, but is simply with the _logical_ inferences from\nany premisses whatever accepted by the mind.\n\nIn our examination of M. Fouill\u00e9e\u2019s _Education from a National\nStandpoint_, we made some attempt to show that the two schemes of\nphilosophy which have hitherto divided the world have done so because\nboth are right, and neither is exclusively right. Matter and spirit,\nforce and idea, work together in the evolution of character. The brain,\nsomehow, makes material record of those ideas which inspire the life.\nBut the brain does not originate those ideas. They are spiritual in\ntheir nature, and are spiritually conveyed, whether by means of the\nprinted page, the glance of an eye, the touch of a hand, or in that\nholy mystery of the inbreathing of the Divine Spirit, of which we\ncannot tell whence it comes nor whither it goes. Once we recognise\nthat all thoughts that breathe and words that burn are of their nature\nspiritual, and appeal to the spiritual within us--that, in fact, all\nintercourse of thought and feeling belongs to the realm of ideas,\nspiritually conveyed, the great mysteries of our religion cease to be\nhedged off from our common experiences. If the friend who sits beside\nus deals with us, spirit with spirit, by means of quick interchange of\nideas, is it hard to believe that just so is the intercourse between\nthe Spirit of God and the spirit of man? The more perfect the sympathy\nbetween human souls, the less the need for spoken words. How easy to go\non from this to the thought of that most intimate and blissful of all\nintercourse, the converse between the devout soul and its God. Nothing\ncan be more obvious, real, natural, necessary, than that the Father\nof Spirits should graciously keep open such intimate access to, and\nconverse with, the spirits of men.\n\n \u201cI would that one would grant me,\n O my Lord,\n To find Thee only.\n * * * * *\n That Thou alone wouldst speak to me, and I to Thee,\n As a lover talking to his loved one,\n A friend at table with his friend,\u201d[11]\n\nis ever the aspiration of the devout soul. This continuous aspiration\ntowards closest communion is, spoken or unspoken, the prayer of faith.\nA vain and fond imagination, says the sceptic, begotten of the heart,\nas when Narcissus became enamoured of his reflected image! What have\nwe to say in reply? Nothing. He who does not perceive that he loves in\nhis brother not the material form, but the spiritual being of which\nthis form is one expression, how can he understand that the Spirit of\nGod should draw with irresistible drawings the spirit of man, which is\nindeed the whole man. For, after all, what is the body but the garment\nwhich the spirit shapes to its uses?\n\nTo accept the outward seeming, to ignore the spiritual reality, is\nthe easier way. To say that prayer is flung, as a child flings his\nkite, into the air, only to come down again; to say that men are the\ncreatures of circumstances, with no power to determine their own fate;\nthat this belief and that are equal verities, and that the worship of\nChrist or of Buddha is a mere affair of climate and conditions; this\neasy tolerance commends itself to many minds in these days.\n\n\u201cAnd to what does this easy and sceptical life lead a man?... To\nwhat, we say, does this scepticism lead? It leads a man to shameful\nloneliness and selfishness, the more shameful because it is so\ngood-humoured and conscienceless and serene. Conscience! What is\nconscience? Why accept remorse? What is public or private faith?\nMythuses alike, enveloped in enormous tradition. If, seeing and\nacknowledging the lies of the world, Arthur, as see them you can with\nonly too fatal a clearness, you submit to them without any protest\nfurther than a laugh; if, plunged yourself in easy sensuality, you\nallow the whole wretched world to go past groaning by you unmoved; if\nthe fight for the truth is taking place, and all men of honour are on\nthe ground armed on the one side or the other, and you alone are to lie\non your balcony and smoke your pipe out of the noise and the danger,\nyou had better have died, or never have been at all, than be such a\nsensual coward.\u201d[12]\n\nMr. Beeching\u2019s _Eleven Sermons on Faith_ are in refreshing contrast\nwith this sort of modern Saduceeism. In his view, faith is not mystic,\nsupernatural, an exceptional development; it is the common basis of\nour dealings with each other. Credit, trust, confidence--the framework\nof society rests upon these. \u201cI cannot trust you\u201d--what worse thing\ncan we say to one another? The law recognises every man\u2019s right to the\nconfidence of his fellow-men, and will have a man accounted innocent\nuntil he is proved guilty. Our whole commercial and banking systems,\nwhat are they, but enormous systems of _credit_, and only one in a\nhundred, or one in a thousand, fails to sustain this credit. Family\nand social life rest upon credit of another sort; let us call it moral\ncredit, and only one in a hundred or one in a thousand forfeits the\ntrust. If one here and there give occasion for jealousy, mistrust,\nsuspicion, why, the exception proves the rule. In his dealings with\nmen, man lives by credit; in his dealings with God, man lives by faith.\nLet us use the same word in both cases, and say that man is a spiritual\nbeing, and, in all his relations, Godward or manward, he lives by\nfaith. How simple and easy a thing faith becomes! How especially easy\nto the children who trust everybody and offer a confiding hand to any\nguide. Could we only rid ourselves of the materialistic notion that\nspiritual things are not to be understood by us, and that to believe in\nGod is altogether a different thing from to trust a friend, how easy we\nshould find the questions which we allow to stagger our faith.\n\nBut the Kingdom of God is coming upon us with power. Let us only break\ndown this foolish barrier of the flesh; let us perceive that our\nrelations with each other are the relations of spirit with spirit, and\nthat spoken and written words are no more than the outward and visible\nsigns of ideas spiritually conveyed, and how inevitable, incessant,\nall-encompassing becomes the presence of God about us. Faith is, then,\nthe simple trust of person in Person. We realise with fearful joy\nthat He is about our path, and about our bed, and spieth out all our\nways--not with the austere eye of a judge, but with the caressing,\nif critical, glance of a parent. How easy, then, to understand the\nnever-ceasing, ever-inspiring intercourse of the Divine Spirit with\nthe spirit of man--how, morning by morning, He awakeneth _our_ ear,\nalso; how His inspiration and instruction come in the direction, and\nin the degree, in which the man is capable of receiving them. It is no\nlonger a puzzle to us that the uninstructed savage shows sweet traits\nof pity and generosity, \u201cfor His God doth instruct him and doth teach\nhim.\u201d We are not confounded when we hear of a righteous man who lifts\nup his face to Heaven, and says, \u201cThere is no God,\u201d because we know,\nHe maketh His sun to shine upon the evil and upon the good, and that\njust that measure of moral light and leading which a man lays himself\nopen to receive is freely given to him. He may shut his eyes and say,\n\u201cThere is no sun,\u201d but none the less is he warmed and fed and comforted\nby the light he denies. This is the faith in which we would bring up\nour children, this strong, passionate sense of the dear nearness of\nour God; found in this conviction, the controversies of the day will\ninterest but not exercise us, for we are on the other side of all doubt\nonce we know Him in whom we have believed.\n\nFaith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. We advance in\nthis lore of the soul only in proportion as we make it our study; and\nall of us who have the bringing up of children must needs be thankful\nfor every word of help and insight which shall open our eyes to the\nrealities which are spiritually discerned. In this view parents will\nbe glad to read and ponder the Sermons before us. Profound thought is\nconveyed in language of very great simplicity and purity. The sermons\nare written from the standpoint of present day thought, are not at all\nemotional, nor even hortatory, but they are very strengthening and\nrefreshing. You read, and go on your way rejoicing in a strong sense\nof the reality of things unseen. Perhaps this result is due to Mr.\nBeeching\u2019s presentation of the _naturalness_ of faith.\n\n\u201cIt is noticeable that while our Lord is always demanding Faith, He\noffers no definition of the Faith He requires; so that there is a\npresumption that He meant by Faith just what men ordinarily mean by\nit. And the presumption is increased when it is remembered that Faith\nin our Lord began with being faith in human qualities before those\nqualities were seen to be divine. The faith of the Apostles increased\nunder our Lord\u2019s careful training, both in depth and breadth; but\nbetween the first attraction that drew (say) Peter from his nets, and\nthe last declaration of his worship upon the shores of Gennesaret,\nthere was no breach of continuity. Indeed, as if to assure us that\nthe Apostle\u2019s human faith had not after the Resurrection \u2018changed\nto something else,\u2019 and become an indefinite theological virtue, we\nfind the word used to express it which, of all the words which labour\nto express faith, is the one most deeply tinged with human feeling:\n\u2018Simon, son of Jonas, _lovest_ thou Me more than these?\u2019 We must ask,\ntherefore, what, as between man and man, is commonly meant by Faith,\nand then we can examine whether our explanation fits the several groups\nof passages in the Gospels.\u201d\n\nThe above extract from the very thoughtful and instructive Preface\nillustrates what we mean by the naturalness of faith, not that which\ncomes of itself and by itself, but that which is acceptable, fit, and\nproper to our nature whenever and whencesoever it arrive. \u201cFor,\u201d as Mr.\nBeeching says, \u201cas faith is itself no self-originated impulse, but the\nspringing up of a man\u2019s heart in response to the encircling pressure of\nthe \u2018Everlasting Arms,\u2019 so its reward is to feel more deeply and ever\nmore deeply their divine support.\u201d\n\nThe eleven sermons are upon \u201cThe Object of Faith,\u201d \u201cThe Worship of\nFaith,\u201d \u201cThe Righteousness of Faith,\u201d \u201cThe Food of Faith,\u201d \u201cNational\nFaith,\u201d \u201cThe Eye of Faith,\u201d \u201cThe Ear of Faith,\u201d \u201cThe Activity of\nFaith,\u201d \u201cThe Gentleness of Faith,\u201d \u201cThe Discipline of Faith,\u201d \u201cFaith in\nMan.\u201d\n\nIn his examination of \u201cThe Object of Faith,\u201d Mr. Beeching asks: \u201cWhat\nthen is He like; what kind of countenance is it that shines out upon\nus from the Gospel pages? Let us turn to them and see.\u201d And we read\nthe story of how Jesus, being moved with compassion, touched the eyes\nof the two blind men by the wayside going out from Jericho. How Christ\nhad compassion on other things besides bodily sickness. \u201cChrist has\ncompassion also on ignorance; on the aimless wandering of men after\ntheir own desires, without a Master to follow; on the weariness of\nspirit that such a life brings about.\u201d Again, \u201cChrist has compassion\nnot only on sickness and ignorance, but on sin--on the sinner who\nrepents.\u201d And we read the story of the woman whose sins, which were\nmany, were forgiven, for she loved much. Again, we see the countenance\nof Christ as it is turned upon that young man, of whom it is said,\n\u201cThen Jesus, looking upon him, loved him.\u201d \u201cCompassion, then, for\nsuffering and ignorance, and sin that repents, love for enthusiasm,\nthis we have seen in the face of Christ.\u201d One more divine regard we\nare invited to contemplate; how the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.\n\u201cCan you imagine with what a face our Lord looked upon Peter, who had\nthrice denied Him, after confidently affirming that he would go with\nHim to death? Would that that face would shine upon us with whatever\nreproach when we in word or deed deny Him, that so we too may remember\nand weep.\u201d How the heart rises to such teaching as this--the simple\npresentation of Christ as He walked among men. Well did our Lord say:\n\u201cI, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me.\u201d The pity of it is\nthat He, the altogether lovely, is so seldom lifted up to our adoring\ngaze. Perhaps, when our teachers invite us to behold the face of\nChrist, we shall learn the full interpretation of that profound word.\nHe will draw all men, because it is not possible for any human soul to\nresist the divine loveliness once it is fairly and fully presented to\nhis vision.\n\nThe sermon on the \u201cWorship of Faith,\u201d sets forth that \u201cto worship\nChrist is to bow down with love and wonder and thankfulness, before\nthe most perfect goodness that the world has ever seen, and to believe\nthat that goodness was the express image of God the Father.\u201d All\naims and all ideals, that are not the aims and ideals of Christ, are\ndistinctly opposed to such worship, and the man who entertains these\nalien ideals may not call himself a Christian. After examining that\nattitude of the spirit towards Christ which belongs to the worship of\nfaith, the rest of the sermon is very practical. \u201cWork is Worship,\u201d is\nthe keynote: one longs that a writer who knows so well how to touch the\nsecret springs had taken this opportunity to move us to that \u201cheart\u2019s\nadoration,\u201d which is dearer to God; but, indeed, the whole volume has\nthis tendency. It is well to be reminded that \u201cthe thorough and willing\nperformance of any duty, however humble or however exalted, is like the\noffering of incense to Christ, well-pleasing and acceptable.\u201d\n\nThe sermon on the \u201cRighteousness of Faith,\u201d is extremely important and\ninstructive. The writer dwells on the \u201cdeplorable cant\u201d with which we\npronounce ourselves \u201cmiserable sinners,\u201d combining the \u201csentiments of\nthe Pharisees in the parable with the expressions of the publican.\u201d\n\n\u201cChrist\u2019s language about man\u2019s sinfulness is altogether free from\nvagueness and hyperbole; when He blames He blames for definite faults\nwhich we can appreciate, and He is so far from declaring that men can\ndo no good thing, that He assumes always that man in his proper state\nof dependence upon God has the power to do righteousness. \u2018Whosoever\nshall do the will of My Father, which is in heaven, the same is My\nbrother, and sister, and mother.\u2019... But the question remains, How,\nconsidering our actual shortcomings, can any of us be spoken of by\nChrist as righteous here and now? This is the question in answer to\nwhich St. Paul wrote two of his greatest Epistles. His answer was,\nthat according to Christ, a man is accounted righteous, not from a\nconsideration of his works, but from a consideration of his faith\nin God. Human righteousness is not a verdict upon the summing up of\na life, but it is reckoned to a man at any moment from a certain\ndisposition of his spirit to the Spirit of God; a disposition of trust,\nlove, reverence, the disposition of a dutiful son to a good father....\nRighteousness, in the only sense in which it is possible for men, means\nbelieving and trusting God.\u201d\n\nWe have not space to take up in detail all the teaching of this\ninspiring little volume. We commend it to parents. Who, as they, have\nneed to nourish the spiritual life in themselves? Who, as they, have\nneed to examine themselves as to with how firm a grasp they hold the\nmysteries of our faith? Who, as they, need to have their ideas as to\nthe supreme relationship so clear that they can be translated into\nbaby speech? Besides, we have seen that it is the duty of the educator\nto put the first thing foremost, and all things in sequence; only one\nthing is needful--that we \u201chave faith in God\u201d; let us deliver our\nthoughts from vagueness and our ways from variableness, if we would\nhelp the children towards this higher life. To this end, we gladly\nwelcome teaching which is rather nourishing than stimulating, and which\nshould afford real help towards \u201csober walking in pure Gospel ways.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [11] \u201cThe Imitation of Christ\u201d (Rhythmic translation).\n\n [12] _Pendennis._ Thackeray.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n _THE HEROIC IMPULSE_[13]\n\n\n\u201cTo set forth, as only art can, the beauty and the joy of living, the\nbeauty and the blessedness of death, the glory of battle and adventure,\nthe nobility of devotion--to a cause, an ideal, a passion even--the\ndignity of resistance, the sacred quality of patriotism, that is my\nambition here,\u201d says the editor of \u201cLyra Heroica\u201d in his preface.\nWe all feel that some such expression of the \u201csimpler sentiments,\nmore elemental emotions\u201d should be freely used in the education of\nchildren, that, in fact, heroic poetry contains such inspiration to\nnoble living as is hardly to be found elsewhere; and also we are aware\nthat it is only in the youth of peoples that these elemental emotions\nfind free expression in song. We look at our own ballad literature\nand find plenty of the right material, but it is too occasional and\ntoo little connected, and so though we would prefer that the children\nshould imbibe patriotism and heroism at the one fountain head, we think\nit cannot be done. We have no truly English material, we say, for\neducation in this kind, and we fall back on the Homeric myths in one\nor other of the graceful and spirited renderings which have been made\nspecially for children.\n\nBut what if it should turn out that we have our own Homer, our own\nUlysses? Mr. Stopford Brooke has made a great discovery for us who\nlook at all things from the child standpoint. Possibly he would not\nbe gratified to know that his \u201cHistory of Early English Literature,\u201d\ninvaluable addition as it is to the library of the student and the man\nof letters, should be appropriated as food for babes. All the same,\nhere is what we have long wanted. The elemental emotions and heroic\nadventures of the early English put into verse and tale, strange and\neerie as the wildest fairy tale, yet breathing in every line the\nEnglish temper and the English virtue that go to the making of heroes.\nNot that Beowulf, the hero of the great poem, was precisely English,\nbut where the English came from, there dwelt he, and Beowulf was early\nadopted as the national hero, whose achievements were sung in every\nhall.\n\nThe poem, says Mr. Stopford Brooke, consisting of three thousand\none hundred and eighty-three lines, is divided into two parts by an\ninterval of fifty years; the first, containing Beowulf\u2019s great deeds\nagainst the monster Grendel and his dam; the second, Beowulf\u2019s conquest\nof the Fire-drake and his death and burial. We are told that we may\nfairly claim the poem as English, that it is in our tongue and in our\ncountry alone that it is preserved. The hero Beowulf comes of brave\nand noble parents, and mildness and more than mortal daring meet in\nhim. When he comes to Hrothgar to conquer Grendel it is of his counsel\nas much as of his strength that we hear. The queen begs him to be\nfriendly in council to her sons. Hrothgar says to him, \u201cThou holdest\nthy faith with patience and thy might with prudence of mind. Thou shalt\nbe a comfort to thy people and a help to heroes.\u201d None, it is said,\ncould order matters more wisely than he. When he is dying he looks\nback on his life, and that which he thinks of the most is not his\ngreat war deeds, but his patience, his prudence, his power of holding\nhis own well and of avoiding new enmities. \u201cEach of us must await the\nclose of life,\u201d says he; \u201clet him who can, gain honour before he die.\nThat is best for a warrior when he is dead. But do thou throughout\nthis day have patience of thy woes; I look for that from thee.\u201d Such\nthe philosophy of this hero, legendary or otherwise, of some early\ncentury after Christ, before His religion had found its way among those\nnorthern tribes. Gentle, like Nelson, he had Nelson\u2019s iron resolution.\nWhat he undertook to do he went through without a thought, save of\ngetting to the end of it. Fear is wholly unknown to him, and he seems,\nlike Nelson, to have inspired his captains with his own courage. \u201cI\nswore no false oaths,\u201d he said when dying; so also he kept his honour\nin faithfulness to his lord. On foot, alone, in front, while life\nlasted, he was his king\u2019s defence. He kept it in equal faithfulness\nwhen his lord was dead, and that to his own loss, for when the kingdom\nwas offered to him he refused, and trained Heardreg, the king\u2019s son, to\nwar and learning, guarded him kindly with honour, and avenged him when\nhe was slain. He kept it in generosity, for he gave away all the gifts\nthat he received; in courtesy, for he gave even to those who had been\nrude to him; and he is always gentle and grave with women. Above all,\nhe kept it in war, for these things are said of him, \u201cso shall a man do\nwhen he thinks to gain praise that shall never end, and cares not for\nhis life in battle.\u201d \u201cLet us have fame or death,\u201d he cries, and when\nWiglaf comes to help him against the dragon, and Beowulf is wrapped in\nthe flame, Wiglaf recalls to him the aim of his whole life:--\n\n\u201cBeowulf, beloved, bear thyself well. Thou wert wont to say in youth\nthat thou wouldst never let honour go. Now, strong in deeds, ward thy\nlife, firm-souled prince, with all thy might, I will be thy helper.\u201d\n\u201cThese,\u201d adds Mr. Stopford Brooke, \u201care the qualities of the man and\nthe hero, and I have thought it worth while to dwell on them, because\nthey represent the ancient English ideal, the manhood which pleased the\nEnglish folk even before they came to Britain, and because in all our\nhistories since Beowulf\u2019s time, for twelve hundred years or so, they\nhave been repeated in the lives of the English warriors by land and sea\nwhom we chiefly honour. But it is not only the idea of a hero which we\nhave in Beowulf, it is also the idea of a king, the just governor, the\nwise politician, the builder of peace, the defender of his own folk\nat the price of his life, \u2018the good king, the folk king, the beloved\nking, the war ward of his land, the winner of treasure for the need of\nhis people, the hero who thinks in death of those who sail the sea,\nthe gentle and terrible warrior, who is buried amid the tears of his\npeople.\u2019\u201d\n\nWe owe Mr. Stopford Brooke earnest gratitude for bringing this heroic\nideal of the youth of our nation within reach of the unlearned.\nBut what have we been about to let a thousand years and more go by\nwithout ever drawing on the inspiration of this noble ideal in giving\nimpulse to our children\u2019s lives. We have many English heroes, it may\nbe objected: we have no need of this resuscitated great one from a\nlong buried past. We have indeed heroes galore to be proud of, but\nsomehow they have not often been put into song in such wise as to\nreach the hearts of the children and the unlearned. We have to thank\nTennyson for our Arthur, and Shakespeare for our Henry the Fifth, but\nwe imagine that parents will find their children\u2019s souls more in touch\nwith Beowulf than with either of these, because, no doubt, the legends\nof a nation\u2019s youth are the pages of history which most easily reach\na child, and Beowulf belongs to a younger stage of civilisation than\neven Arthur. We hope the author of \u201cEarly English Literature\u201d will\nsometime give us the whole of the poem translated with a special view\nto children, and interspersed with his own luminous teaching as we have\nit here. The quaintness of the metre employed gives a feeling of _eld_\nwhich carries the reader back, very successfully, to the long ago of\nthe poem.\n\nWe have already quoted largely from this \u201cHistory of Early English\nLiterature,\u201d but perhaps a fuller extract will give a better idea of\nthe work and of its real helpfulness to parents. The cost of the two\nrather expensive volumes should be well repaid if a single child were\nto be fired with emulation of the heroic qualities therein sung:--\n\n\u201cThe action of the poem now begins with the voyage of Beowulf to the\nDanish coast. The hero has heard that Hrothgar, the chief of the\nDanes, is tormented by Grendel, a man-devouring monster. If Hrothgar\u2019s\nwarriors sleep in Heorot--the great hall he has built--they are seized,\ntorn to pieces, and devoured. \u2018I will deliver the king,\u2019 thought\nBeowulf, when he heard the tale from the roving seamen. \u2018Over the swan\nroad I will seek Hrothgar; he has need of men.\u2019 His comrades urged him\nto the adventure, and fifteen of them were willing to fight it out with\nhim. Among the rest was a sea-crafty man who knew the ocean-paths.\nTheir ship lay drawn up on the beach, under the high cliff. Then--\n\n\n \u201cThere the well-geared heroes\n Stepped upon the stem, while the stream of ocean\n Whirled the sea against the sand. To the ship, to its breast.\n Bright and carved things of cost carried then the heroes\n And the armour well-arrayed. So the men outpushed,\n On desired adventure, their tight ocean wood.\n Swiftly went above the waves, with a wind well-fitted,\n Likest to a fowl, the Floater, foam around its neck,\n Till about the same time, on the second day,\n The up-curv\u00e9d prow had come on so far,\n That at last the seamen saw the land ahead;\n Shining sea-cliffs, soaring headlands,\n Broad sea-nesses. So the Sailor of the Sea\n Reached the sea-way\u2019s end.\u201d\n _Beowulf_ l. 211.\n\n\u201cThis was the voyage, ending in a fiord with two high sea-capes at its\nentrance. The same kind of scenery belongs to the land whence they\nhad set out. When Beowulf returns over the sea the boat groans as it\nis pushed forth. It is heavily laden; the hollow, under the single\nmast with the single sail, holds eight horses, swords and treasure and\nrich armours. The sail is hoisted, the wind drives the foam-throated\nbark over the waves, until they see the Geats\u2019 Cliffs--the well-known\nsea-nesses. The keel is pressed up by the wind on the sand, and the\n\u2018harbour-guard, who had looked forth afar o\u2019er the sea with longing\nfor their return\u2019--one of the many human touches of the poem--\u2018fastens\nthe wide-bosomed ship with anchoring chains to the strand, lest the\nviolence of the waves should sweep away the winsome boat.\u2019... At the\nend of the bay into which Beowulf sails is a low shore, on which he\ndrives his ship, stem on. Planks are pushed out on either side of\nthe prow; the Weder-folk slipped down on the shore, tied up their\nsea-wood; their battle-sarks clanged on them as they moved. Then they\nthanked the gods that the war-paths had been easy to them.... On the\nridge of the hill above the landing-place the ward of the coast of the\nScyldings sat on his horse, and saw the strangers bear their bright\nshields over the bulwarks of the ship to the shore. He rode down,\nwondering, to the sea, and shook mightily in his hands his heavy spear,\nand called to the men--\u201d\n\n \u201cWho are ye of men, having arms in hand,\n Covered with your coats of mail. Who your keel afoaming\n O\u2019er the ocean street thus have urged along.\n Hither on the high sea!\u201d\n * * * * *\n \u201cNever saw I greater\n Earl upon this earth than is one of you;\n Hero in his harness. He is no home-stayer,\n \u2018Less his looks belie him, lovely with his weapons.\n Noble is his air!\u201d\n _Beowulf_, ll. 237-247.\n\n\u201cBeowulf replies that he is Hrothgar\u2019s friend, and comes to free\nhim from \u2018Grendel, the secret foe on the dark nights.\u2019 He pities\nHrothgar, old and good. Yet, as he speaks, the Teutonic sense of the\ninevitable Wyrd passes by in his mind, and he knows not if Hrothgar\ncan ever escape sorrow. \u2018If ever,\u2019 he says, \u2018sorrow should cease from\nhim, release ever come, and the welter of care become cooler.\u2019 The\ncoast-guard shows them the path, and promises to watch over their ship.\nThe ground rises from the shore, and they pass on to the hilly ridge,\nbehind which lies Heorot.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe History of the Early English Literature\u201d takes us into other\npleasant places. Here are two or three specimens of the riddles of\nthe old bards, and in riddle and saga we get most vivid pictures of\nthe life and thoughts, the ways and words of the forefathers whom we\nare too ready to think of as \u2018rude,\u2019 but who are here portrayed to\nus as gentle, mild, and large of soul; men and women whom we, their\nposterity, may well delight to honour.\n\n\nI. Here is Cynewulf\u2019s Riddle of the Sword.\n\n \u201cI\u2019m a wondrous wight for warstrife shapen;\n By my lord beloved, lovelily adorned:\n Many coloured is my corslet, and a clasping wire\n Glitters round the gem of death which my wielder gave to me:\n He who whiles doth urge me, wide-wanderer that I am,\n With him to conquest.\n Then I carry treasure,\n Cold above the garths, through the glittering day;\n I of smiths the handiwork! Often do I quell\n Breathing men with battle edges! Me bedecks a king\n With his hoard and silver; honours me in hall,\n Doth withhold no word of praise! Of my ways he boasts\n \u2018Fore the many heroes, where the mead they drink.\n In restraint he lulls me, then he lets me loose again,\n Far and wide to rush along; me the weary with wayfarings,\n Cursed of all weapons.\u201d\n _Riddle_ xxi.\n\n\nII. The helmet speaks:--\n\n \u201cWretchedness I bear;\n Wheresoe\u2019er he carries me, he who clasps the spear!\n On me, still upstanding, smite the streams (of rain);\n Hail, the hard grain (helms me), and the hoar-frost covers me;\n And the (flying) snow (in flakes) falls all over me.\u201d\n _Riddle_, lxxix. 6-10.\n\n\nIII. The horn speaks:--\n\n \u201cI a weaponed warrior was! now in pride bedecks me\n A young serving man all with silver and fine gold,\n With the work of waving gyres! Warriors sometimes kiss me.\n Sometimes I to strife of battle, summon with my calling\n Willing war-companions; whiles, the horse doth carry\n Me the march-paths over, or the ocean-stallion\n Fares the flood with me, flashing in my jewels--\n Often times a bower maiden, all bedecked with armlets,\n Filleth up my bosom; whiles, bereft of covers,\n I must, hard and headless, (in the houses) lie!\n Then, again, hang I, with adornments fretted,\n Winsome on the wall where the warriors drink.\n Sometimes the folk fighters, as a fair thing on warfaring,\n On the back of horses bear me; then bedecked with jewels\n Shall I puff with wind from a warrior\u2019s breast.\n Then, again, to glee feasts I the guests invite\n Haughty heroes to the wine-- other whiles shall I\n With my shouting, save from foes what is stolen away,\n Make the plundering scather flee. Ask what is my name!\u201d\n _Riddle_ xv.\n\nWe do not say a word about the literary value and importance of Mr.\nStopford Brooke\u2019s great work; that is duly appraised elsewhere. \u2018There\nis nothing like leather,\u2019 and to us here all things present themselves\nas they may tell on education. Here is a very treasure-trove.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [13] \u201cHistory of Early English Literature,\u201d by Stopford A.\n Brooke, 2 vols. Macmillan & Co.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV\n\n _IS IT POSSIBLE?_\n\n\nThe economic aspects of the great philanthropic scheme[14] which\nbrought timely relief to the national conscience before the setting in\nof the hard winter of 1891, are, perhaps, outside our province, but\nthere are educational aspects of it which, we are in some measure,\nbound to discuss. In the first place, the children in many homes hear,\n\u201cI do not believe that\u201d--it is possible for the leopard to change\nhis spots. \u2018General\u2019 Booth\u2019s scheme brings this issue before us with\nstartling directness, and what the children hear said to-day at the\ntable and by the fireside will probably influence for all their lives\ntheir attitude towards all philanthropic and all missionary endeavour.\nNot only so, but we ourselves, who stand in some measure _in loco\nparentis_ to the distressed in mind, body, or estate, are compelled to\nexamine our own position. How far do we give, and work, for the ease of\nour own conscience, and how far do we believe in the possibility of the\ninstant and utter restoration of the morally degraded, are questions\nwhich, to-day, force themselves upon us. We must be ready with a yea or\na nay; we must take sides, for or against such possibilities as should\nexalt philanthropic effort into a burning passion. The fact is, this\ngreat scheme forced a sort of moral crisis upon us.\n\nWhether or no the scheme commends itself to us for its fitness,\nseasonableness, and promise, one thing it has assuredly done: it has\nrevealed us to ourselves, and that in an agreeable light. It has been\ndiscovered to us that we, too, love our brother; that we, too, yearn\nover \u201cthe bruised\u201d with something of the tenderness of Christ. The\nbrotherhood of man is no fancy bred in the brain, and we have loved our\nbrother all the time--the sick, the poor, the captive, and the sinner,\ntoo; but the fearful, and unbelieving, and slothful amongst us--that\nis, the most of us--have turned away our eyes from beholding evils for\nwhich we saw no help. But now that a promise of deliverance offers,\nmore adequate, conceivably, than any heretofore proposed, why, the\nsolidarity of humanity asserts itself; our brother who is bruised is\nnot merely near and dear; he is our very self, and whoso will ease and\nrevive him is our deliverer too.\n\nThe first flush of enthusiasm subsides, and we ask, Are we not, after\nall, led away by what Coleridge calls the \u201cIdol of Size\u201d? Wherein does\nthis scheme differ from ten thousand others, except in the colossal\nscale on which the experiment is to be tried? And perhaps we should\nconcede at the outset that this hope of deliverance is \u201cthe same,\nonly more so,\u201d as is being already worked out effectually in many an\notherwise sunless corner of the great vineyard. Indeed, the great\nproject has its great risks--risks which the quieter work escapes.\nAll the same, there are aspects in which the remedy, because of its\nvastness and inclusiveness, is new.\n\nHitherto we have helped the wretched _in_ impossible circumstances, not\n_out of_ them. Our help has been as a drop in the bucket, reaching to\nhundreds or thousands only of the lost millions. Even so, we cannot\nkeep it up; we give to-day, and withhold to-morrow; worse than all,\nour very giving is an injury, reducing the power and the inclination\nfor self-help. Or, do we start some small amateur industry by way of\nmaking our people _independent_? This pet industry may sometimes be\na transparent mask for almsgiving, and an encroachment upon regular\nindustries and the rights of other workers.\n\nNow and then is a gleam of hope, now and then a soul and body snatched\ninto safety; but the hardest workers are glad of the noise of the\nwheels to keep the eternal _Cui bono?_ out of their ears. There is so\nmuch to be done, and so little means of doing it. But this scheme--what\nwith the amplitude of its provisions, what with the organisation and\nregimentation it promises, the strong and righteous government, the\nmoral compulsion to well-doing--considering these, and the enormous\nstaff of workers already prepared to carry it out, the dreariest\npessimist amongst us concedes that General Booth\u2019s scheme _may_ be\nworth trying. \u201cBut,\u201d he says, \u201cbut----\n\n\n DO WE BELIEVE IN CONVERSION?\u201d\n\nEverything turns on the condition the originator wisely puts first.\nThere is the _crux_. Given money enough, land enough, men enough, fully\nequip and officer this teeming horde of incapables, and some sort\nof mechanical drill may be got through somehow. But, \u201cwhen a man\u2019s\nown character and defects constitute the reasons for his fall, that\ncharacter must be changed and that conduct altered if any permanent\nbeneficial results are to be obtained.\u201d The drunkard must be made\nsober; the criminal, honest; the impure, clean. Can this be done? is\nthe crucial question. Is it possible that a man can emerge altogether\nout of his old self and become a new creature, with new aims, new\nthoughts, even new habits? That such renovation is possible is the\nold contention of Christianity. Here, and not on the ground of the\ninspiration of the sacred text, must the battle be fought out. The\nanswer to the one urgent question of the age, What think ye of Christ?\ndepends upon the power of the idea of Christ to attract and compel\nattention, and of the indwelling of Christ to vivify and elevate a\nsingle debased and torpid human soul.\n\nMany of us believe exultingly that the \u201cAll power\u201d which is given\ninto the hands of our Master includes the power of upright standing,\nstrength, and beauty for every bruised human reed. That this is so, we\nhave evidence in plenty, beginning with ourselves. But many others of\nus, and those not the less noble, consider with Robert Elsmere, that\n\u201cmiracles do not happen.\u201d The recorded miracles serve as pegs for the\ndiscussion; the essential miracle is the utter and immediate renovation\nof a human being. Upon this possibility the saving of the world must\nhang, and this many cannot receive, not because they are stiff-necked\nand perverse, but because it is dead against natural law as they know\nit. Proofs? Cases without end? The whole history of the Christian\nChurch in evidence? Yes; but the history of the Church is a chequered\none; and, for individual cases, we do not doubt the veracity of the\ndetails; only, nobody knows the whole truth; some preparation in the\npast, some motive in the present inadvertently kept out of sight, may\nalter the bearings of any such case.\n\nThis is, roughly, the position of the honest sceptic, who would, if he\ncould, believe heartily in General Booth\u2019s scheme, and, by consequence,\nin the convertibility of the entire human race. To improve the\ncircumstances, even of millions, is only a question of the magnitude of\nthe measures taken, the wisdom of the administration. But human nature\nitself, depraved human nature, is, to him, the impossible quantity.\n_Can_ the leopard change his spots?\n\n\n THE LAW AGAINST US--HEREDITY.\n\nWho are they whom General Booth cheerfully undertakes to re-fashion\nand make amenable to the conditions of godly and righteous and sober\nliving? Let us hear the life history of many of them in his own words:--\n\n\u201cThe rakings of the human cesspool.\u201d\n\n\u201cLittle ones, whose parents are habitually drunk.... Whose ideas\nof merriment are gained from the familiar spectacle of the nightly\ndebauch.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe obscenity of the talk of many of the children of some of our\npublic schools could hardly be outdone, even in Sodom and Gomorrah.\u201d\n\nAnd the childhood--save the word!--of the children of to-day reproduces\nthe childhood of their parents, their grand-parents, who knows? their\ngreat-grand-parents. These are, no doubt, the worst; but the worst\nmust be reckoned with first, for if these slip through the meshes of\nthe remedial net, the masses more inert than vicious slide out through\nthe breaks. In the first place, then, the scheme embraces the vicious\nby inheritance; proposes to mix up with the rest a class whose sole\nheritage is an inconceivable and incalculable accumulation of vicious\ninclinations and propensities. And this, in the face of that conception\nof heredity which is quietly taking possession of the public mind, and\ncausing many thoughtful parents to abstain from very active efforts to\nmould the characters of their children.\n\nThose of us whose attention has been fixed upon the working of the\nlaw of heredity until it appears to us to run its course, unmodified\nand unlimited by other laws, may well be pardoned for regarding with\ndoubtful eye a scheme which has, for its very first condition, the\nregeneration of the vicious; of the vicious by inherited propensity.\n\n\n THE LAW AGAINST US--HABIT.\n\nUse is second nature, we say. Habit is ten natures; habit begins as a\ncobweb, and ends as a cable. \u201cOh, you\u2019ll get used to it,\u201d whatever it\nis. Dare we face the habits in which these people have their being? It\nis not only the obscene speech, the unholy acts; that which signifies\nis the manner of thoughts we think; speech, act, are the mere outcome;\nit is the habitual thought of a man which shapes that which we call his\ncharacter. And these, can we reasonably doubt that every imagination of\ntheir heart is only evil continually? We say, use is second nature, but\nlet us consider what we mean by the phrase; what is the philosophy of\nhabit so far as it has been discovered to us. The seat of habit is the\nbrain; the actual grey nervous matter of the cerebrum. And the history\nof a habit is shortly this: \u201cThe cerebrum of man grows to those modes\nof thought in which it is habitually exercised.\u201d That \u2018immaterial\u2019\nthought should mould the \u2018material\u2019 brain need not surprise nor\nscandalise us, for do we not see with our eyes that immaterial thought\nmoulds the face, forms what we call countenance, lovely or loathsome\naccording to the manner of thought it registers. The _how_ of this\nbrain growth is not yet in evidence, nor is this the time and place\nto discuss it; but, bearing in mind this structural adaptation to\nconfirmed habit, what chance, again, we say, has a scheme which has for\nits first condition the regeneration of the vicious, vicious not only\nby inherited propensity, but by unbroken inveterate habit?\n\n\n THE LAW AGAINST US--UNCONSCIOUS CEREBRATION.\n\nThose who are accustomed to write know what it is to sit down and\n\u201creel off\u201d sheet after sheet of matter without plan or premeditation,\nclear, coherent, ready for press, hardly needing revision. We are told\nof a lawyer who wrote in his sleep a lucid opinion throwing light on\na most difficult case; of a mathematician who worked out in his sleep\na computation which baffled him when awake. We know that Coleridge\ndreamed \u201cKubla Khan\u201d in an after-dinner nap, line by line, and wrote\nit down when he awoke. What do these cases and a thousand like them\npoint to? To no less than this: that, though the all important _ego_\nmust, no doubt, \u201cassist\u201d at the thinking of the initial thought on\na given subject, yet, after that first thought or two, \u2018brain\u2019 and\n\u2018mind\u2019 manage the matter between them, and the thoughts, so to speak,\nthink themselves; not after the fashion of a pendulum which moves to\nand fro, to and fro, in the same interval of space, but in that of a\ncarriage rolling along the same road, but into ever new developments of\nthe landscape. An amazing thought--but have we not abundant internal\nevidence of the fact? We all know that there are times when we cannot\nget rid of the thoughts that _will think themselves_ within us, though\nthey drive away sleep and peace and joy. In the face of this law,\nbenign as it eases us of the labour of original thought and decision\nabout the everyday affairs of life, terrible when it gets beyond our\npower of control and diversion, what hope for those in whose debauched\nbrain vile thoughts, involuntary, automatic, are for ever running with\nfrightful rapidity in the one well-worn track? Truly, the _in_-look\nis appalling. What hope for these? And what of a scheme whose first\ncondition is the regeneration of the vicious--vicious, not only by\ninherited propensity, and by unbroken inveterate habit, but reduced to\nthat state of, shall we say, inevitable viciousness--when \u201cunconscious\ncerebration,\u201d with untiring activity, goes to the emanation of vicious\nimaginations? All these things are against us.\n\n\n THE LAW FOR US--LIMITATIONS TO THE DOCTRINE\n OF HEREDITY.\n\nBut the last word of Science, and she has more and better words in\nstore, is full of hope. The fathers have eaten sour grapes, but it\nis not inevitable that the children\u2019s teeth be set on edge. The soul\nthat sinneth _it_ shall die, said the prophet of old, and Science is\nhurrying up with her, \u201cEven so.\u201d The necessary corollary to the latest\nmodification of the theory of evolution is--_acquired modifications\nof structure are not transmitted_. All hail to the good news; to\nrealise it, is like waking up from a hideous nightmare. This is,\ndefinitely, our gain; the man who by the continuous thinking of\ncriminal thoughts has modified the structure of his brain so as to\nadapt it to the current of such thoughts, does not necessarily pass on\nthis modification to his child. There is no necessary adaptation in\nthe cerebrum of the new-born child to make place for evil thoughts.\nIn a word, the child of the vicious may be born as fit and able for\ngood living as the child of the righteous. Inherent modifications are,\nit is true, transmitted, and the line between inherent and acquired\nmodifications may not be easy to define. But, anyway, there is hope to\ngo on with. The child of the wicked may have as good a start in life,\nso far as his birthright goes, as the child of the just. The child\u2019s\nfuture depends not upon his lineage so much as upon his bringing up,\nfor education is stronger than nature, and no human being need be given\nover to despair. We need not abate our hope of the regeneration of the\nvicious for the bugbear of an inheritance of irresistible propensity to\nevil.\n\n\n THE LAW FOR US--\u201cONE CUSTOM OVERCOMETH\n ANOTHER.\u201d\n\nBut habit! It is bad enough to know that use is second nature, and that\nman is a bundle of habits; but how much more hopeless to look into the\n_rationale_ of habit, and perceive that the enormous strength of the\nhabit that binds us connotes a structural modification, a shaping of\nthe brain tissues to the thought of which the habit is the outward and\nvisible sign and expression. Once such growth has taken place, is not\nthe thing done, so that it can\u2019t be undone--has not the man taken shape\nfor life when his ways of thinking are registered in the substance of\nhis brain?\n\nNot so; because one habit has been formed and registered in the brain\nis no reason at all why another and contrary habit should not be formed\nand registered in its turn. To-day is the day of salvation, physically\nspeaking, because a habit is a thing of _now_; it may be begun in a\nmoment, formed in a month, confirmed in three months, become the\ncharacter, the very man, in a year. There is growth to the new thoughts\nin a new tract of the brain, and \u201cOne custom overcometh another.\u201d Here\nis the _natural_ preparation for salvation. The words are very old, the\nwords of Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, but the perception that they have a literal\nphysical meaning has been reserved for us to-day. Only one train of\nideas can be active at one time; the old cell connections are broken,\nand benign nature is busy building up the waste places, even be they\nthe waste places of many generations. NO ROAD is set up in the track\nwhere the unholy thoughts carried on their busy traffic. New tissue\nis formed; the wound is healed, and, save, perhaps, for a scar, some\nlittle tenderness, that place is whole and sound as the rest.\n\nThis is how one custom overcometh another: there is no conflict,\nno contention, no persuasion. Secure for the new idea a weighty\nintroduction, and it will accomplish all the rest for itself. It will\nfeed and grow; it will increase and multiply; it will run its course\nof its own accord; will issue in that current of automatic unconscious\ninvoluntary thought of the man which shapes his character. Behold, a\nnew man! Ye must be born again, we are told; and we say, with a sense\nof superior knowledge of the laws of nature, How can a man be born\nagain? Can he enter the second time into his mother\u2019s womb and be born?\nThis would be a miracle, and we have satisfied ourselves that \u201cmiracles\ndo not happen.\u201d And now, at last, the miracle of conversion is made\nplain to our dull understanding. We perceive that conversion, however\nsudden, is no miracle at all--using the word _miracle_ to describe that\nwhich takes place in opposition to natural law. On the contrary, we\nfind that every man carries in his physical substance the gospel of\nperpetual, or of always possible, renovation; and we find how, from\nthe beginning, Nature was prepared with her response to the demand of\nGrace. Is conversion possible? we ask; and the answer is, that it is,\nso to speak, a function for which there is latent provision in our\nphysical constitution, to be called forth by the touch of a potent\nidea. Truly, His commandment is exceeding broad, and grows broader day\nby day with each new revelation of Science.\n\nA man may, most men do, undergo this process of renovation many times\nin their lives; whenever an idea strong enough to divert his thoughts\n(as we most correctly say) from all that went before is introduced, the\nman becomes a new creature; when he is \u201cin love,\u201d for example; when\nthe fascinations of art or of nature take hold of him; an access of\nresponsibility may bring about a sudden and complete conversion:--\n\n The breath no sooner left his father\u2019s body\n But that his wildness, mortified in him,\n Seem\u2019d to die too; yea, at that very moment,\n Consideration, like an angel, came\n And whipp\u2019d the offending Adam out of him;\n Leaving his body as a paradise\n To envelop and contain celestial spirits.\n\nHere is a picture--psychologically true, anyway, Shakespeare makes\nno mistakes in psychology--of an immediate absolute conversion. The\nconversion may be to the worse, alas, and not to the better, and the\nvalue of the conversion must depend upon the intrinsic worthiness\nof the idea by whose instrumentality it is brought about. The point\nworth securing is, that man carries in his physical structure the\nconditions of renovation; conditions, so far as we can conceive,\nalways in working order, always ready to be put in force. Wherefore\n\u201cconversion\u201d in the Biblical sense, in the sense in which the promoters\nof this scheme depend upon its efficacy, though a miracle of divine\ngrace in so far as it is a sign and a marvel, is no miracle in the\npopular sense of that which is outside of and opposed to the workings\nof \u201cnatural law.\u201d Conversion is entirely within the divine scheme of\nthings, even if we choose to limit our vision of that scheme to the\n\u201cfew, faint, and feeble\u201d flashes which Science is as yet able to throw\nupon the mysteries of being. But is this all? Ah, no; this is no more\nthan the dim vestibule of nature to the temple of grace; we are not\nconcerned, however, to say one word here of how \u201cgreat is the mystery\nof godliness;\u201d of the cherishing of the Father, the saving and the\nindwelling of the Son, the sanctifying of the Spirit; neither need\nwe speak of \u201cspiritual wickedness in high places.\u201d The aim of this\nslight essay is to examine the assertion that what we call conversion\nis contrary to natural law; and we do this with a view, not to General\nBooth\u2019s scheme only, but to all efforts of help.\n\nHope shows an ever stronger case for the regeneration of the vicious.\nNot only need we be no more oppressed by the fear of an inheritance of\ninvincible propensities to evil, but the strength of life-long habit\nmay be vanquished by the power of an idea, new habits of thought may be\nset up on the instant, and these may be fostered and encouraged until\nthat habit which is ten natures is the habit of the _new_ life, and\nthe thoughts which, so to speak, think themselves all day long are\nthoughts of purity and goodness.\n\n\n THE LAW FOR US--POTENCY OF AN IDEA.\n\n \u201cHath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,\n senses, affections, passions?\u201d\n\nIn effecting the renovation of a man the external agent is ever an\n_idea_, of such potency as to be seized upon with avidity by the mind,\nand, therefore, to make an impression upon the nervous substance of the\ncerebrum. The potency of an idea depends upon the fact of its being\ncomplementary to some desire or affection within the man. Man wants\nknowledge, for example, and power, and esteem, and love, and company;\nalso, he has within him capacities for love, esteem, gratitude,\nreverence, kindness. He has an unrecognised craving for an object on\nwhich to spend the good that is in him.\n\nThe idea which makes a strong appeal to any one of his primal desires\nand affections must needs meet with a response. Such idea and such\ncapacity are made for one another; apart, they are meaningless as ball\nand socket; together, they are a _joint_, effective in a thousand ways.\nBut the man who is utterly depraved has no capacity for gratitude,\nfor example? Yes, he has; depravity is a disease, a morbid condition;\nbeneath is the man, capable of recovery. This is hardly the place to\nconsider them, but think for a moment of the fitness of the ideas\nwhich are summed up in the thought of Christ to be presented to the\npoor degraded soul: divine aid and compassion for his neglected body;\ndivine love for his loneliness; divine forgiveness in lieu of the shame\nof his sin; divine esteem for his self-contempt; divine goodness and\nbeauty to call forth the passion of love and loyalty that is in him;\nthe Story of the Cross, the lifting up, which perhaps no human soul is\nable to resist if it be fitly put. And the divine idea once received,\nthe divine life is imparted also, grows, is fostered and cherished by\nthe Holy Ghost. The man is a new creature, with other aims, and other\nthoughts, and a life out of himself. The old things have passed away,\nand all things have become new--the physical being embodying, so to\nspeak, the new life of the spirit.\n\nWe may well believe, indeed, that \u201cconversion\u201d is so proper to the\nphysical and spiritual constitution of man that it is inevitable to all\nof us if only the ideas summed up in Christ be fitly introduced to the\nsoul.\n\nThe question then turns, not upon the possibility of converting the\nmost depraved, nor upon the potency of the ideas to be presented,\nbut altogether upon the power of putting these ideas so that a man\nshall recognise and seize upon the fulness of Christ as the necessary\ncomplement to the emptiness of which he is aware.\n\n\n THE HABITS OF THE GOOD LIFE.\n\nBut, the man converted, the work is not done. These sinners exceedingly\nare not only sinful, but diseased; morbid conditions of brain have\nbeen set up, and every one of them needs individual treatment, like\nany other sick man, for disease slow of cure. For a month, three\nmonths, six months, it will not do to let one of them alone. Curative\n_treatment_ is an absolute condition of success, and here is where\nhuman co-operation is invited in what is primarily and ultimately\nthe work of God. There are diseased places in the brain, where ill\nthoughts have of old run their course; and these sore places must have\ntime, blessed time, wherein to heal. That is to say, all traffic in the\nold thoughts must be absolutely stopped, at whatever cost.\n\nThink of the Army of Vigilance which must be ever on the alert to\nturn away the eyes of the patients from beholding evil; for, a single\nsuggestion, of drink, of uncleanness, and, _presto_, the old thoughts\nrun riot, and the work of healing must be begun anew. And, how to\nkeep out the old, but by administering the thoughts of the new life\nwatchfully, one by one, as they are needed, and can be taken; offering\nthem with engaging freshness, with comforting fitness, until at last\nthe period of anxious nursing is over, the habits of the good life are\nset up, and the patient is able to stand on his own feet and labour for\nhis own meat. This is no work to be undertaken wholesale. The spiritual\ncare of a multitude diseased, even physically diseased, of sin, is no\nlight thing. And if it be not undertaken systematically, and carried\nout efficiently, the whole scheme must of necessity fall through. Who\nis sufficient for these things? No one, perhaps; but a following of a\ngreat corps of nurses trained to minister to minds diseased, and with\nthe experience and the method belonging to a professional calling, is\nsurely, a fitting qualification for the Herculean task.\n\n\n THE EASE OF DISCIPLINE.\n\nHow readily we can understand how, in the days when monarchs were\nmore despotic than they are now, one and another would take refuge in\na convent for the ease of doing the will of another rather than his\nown! Is not this the attraction of conventual life to-day, and is not\nthis why the idea of the Salvation Army is powerfully attractive to\nsome of us who know, all the same, that we (individually) should be\nwrong to lay down our proper function of ordering and acting out our\nown lives. But for these, strong of impulse and weak of will, who have\nno power at all to do the good they vaguely and feebly desire, oh,\nthe ease of being taken up into a strong and beneficent organisation,\nof having their comings and goings, their doings and havings, ordered\nfor them! Organisation, regimentation, we are reminded, make a hero\nof Tommy Atkins. And these all have it in them to be heroes, because,\nrestlessness, rebellion, once subdued, they will rejoice more than any\nothers in the ease of simply doing as they are bidden. Here is a great\nsecret of power, to treat these, lapsed and restored, like children;\nfor what is the object of family discipline, of that obedience which\nhas been described as \u201cthe whole duty of a child\u201d? Is it not to ease\nthe way of the child, while will is weak and conscience immature, by\nsetting it on the habits of the good life where it is as easy to go\nright as for a locomotive to run on its lines? Just such present relief\nfrom responsibility, such an interval for development, do these poor\nchildren of larger growth demand for their needs; and any existing\npossibility of ordering and disciplining this mixed multitude must\nneeds appear to us a surpassing adaptation of \u201csupply\u201d to \u201cdemand.\u201d\n\nThe saving grace of work, and the healing power of the fresh air,\nagain, should do their part in the restoration of the \u201csubmerged.\u201d But\nit is not our part to examine the methods proposed by General Booth,\nor to adumbrate his chances of success. Our concern is solely with the\nchildren. No doubt this great social scheme has been discussed, more\nor less, in every family, and the attitude of thought towards all good\nwork which the children will henceforth take may depend very much upon\nhow far the underlying principles are made clear to them in one such\ntypical instance. Whatever the agency, let the children be assured that\nthe work is the work of God, to be accomplished in the strength of God,\naccording to the laws of God; that it is our part to make ourselves\nacquainted with the laws we would work out, and that, having done all,\nwe wait for the inspiration of the divine life, even as the diligent\nfarmer waits upon sunshine and shower.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [14] Issue of _Darkest England_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n\n _DISCIPLINE_\n\n\nWhat part does Discipline play in your system of education? We should\nhail the query as manifesting a cheering degree of interest if we were\nnot quite sure that our interlocutor uses discipline as a euphuism\nfor punishment. That conviction puts one\u2019s mind into the attitude\nof protest. In the first place, we have no system of education. We\nhold that great things, such as nature, life, education are \u201ccabined,\ncribbed, confined\u201d in proportion as they are systematised. We have a\n_method_ of education, it is true, but method is no more than a way to\nan end and is free, yielding, adaptive as Nature herself. Method has\na few comprehensive laws according to which details shape themselves,\nas one naturally shapes one\u2019s behaviour to the acknowledged law that\nfire burns. System, on the contrary, has an infinity of rules and\ninstructions as to what you are to do and how you are to do it. Method\nin education follows Nature humbly, stands aside and gives her fair\nplay.\n\nSystem leads Nature: assists, supplements, rushes in to undertake\nthose very tasks which Nature has made her own since the world was.\nDoes Nature endow every young thing, child or kitten, with a wonderful\ncapacity for inventive play? Nay, but, says System, I can help here; I\nwill invent games for the child and help his plays, and make more use\nof this power of his than unaided Nature knows how. So Dame System\nteaches the child to play, and he enjoys it; but, alas, there is no\nplay in him, no initiative, when he is left to himself; and so on all\nalong the lines. System is fussy and zealous and produces enormous\nresults--in the teacher! Method pursues a \u201cwise passiveness.\u201d You\nwatch the teacher and are hardly aware that he is doing anything. The\nchildren take the initiative, but, somehow, the result here is in these\nand not in the teacher. They develop, become daily more and more of\npersons, with\n\n \u201cThe reason firm, the temperate will,\n Endurance, foresight, strength, and skill.\u201d\n\nSuch as these are the golden fruits which ripen under the eyes of the\nparent who is wise to discriminate between the _r\u00f4le_ of nature and\nthat of the educator, who follows sympathetically and dutifully the\nlead of the great mother.\n\n\u201cOh, then you have no discipline. I thought not. I daresay it would\nanswer very well to leave children to themselves and make them happy.\nChildren are always good when they are happy, are they not?\u201d Not so\nfast, dear reader. He who would follow a great leader must needs\nendeavour himself, _Ohne Hast ohne Rast_, and the divine lead which\nwe call Nature is infinitely blessed in the following, but steep to\ntread and hard to find and by no means to be confounded with leisurely\nstrolling in ways of our own devising.\n\nThe parent who would educate his children, in any large sense of the\nword, must lay himself out for high thinking and lowly living; the\nhighest thinking indeed possible to the human mind and the simplest,\ndirectest living.\n\nThis thought of discipline, for example, is one of the large\ncomprehensive ideas which must inform and direct the life, rather\nthan be gathered up into a rule, easy to remember and easy to apply,\nwhen, now and then, comes the occasion for it. If Tommy is naughty,\nwhip him and send him to bed--is a ready-reckoner kind of rule, handy\nto have about one, and is the sort of thing which many people mean by\ndiscipline. Now we would not say that punishment is never to be used,\nvery much otherwise. Neither would we say that physic is never to be\ntaken. But punishment, like physic, is a casualty only of occasional\noccurrence at the worst, and punishment and physic alike are reduced\nto a minimum in proportion as we secure healthy conditions of body and\nmind. We are not anxious to lay down canons for punishment. Mr. Herbert\nSpencer has not perhaps said the last word, but he has given us a\nquite convenient rule to go on with. A child should be punished by the\nnatural consequences of his offence. To carry this suggestion out _au\npied de la lettre_ would often enough mean lasting, even fatal injury\nto the child, bodily and mental. You cannot let the indolent child be\npunished by ignorance, or the wilful and adventurous child break his\nlimb; but, so far as punishments have been allowed to become necessary,\nthe nature of the offence gives one a clue to a suitable punishment.\nThe child who does not eat his porridge goes without his plum. This is,\nanyway, a punishment in kind, perhaps the nearest approach to natural\nconsequences which it is advisable to try.\n\nBut parents should face the fact that children rather enjoy\npunishments. In these they find the opportunities, so frequent is\nstory-books, so rare in real life, for showing a fine pluck. The child\nwho is in punishment is very commonly enjoying himself immensely,\nbecause he is respecting himself intensely. There is a bit of heroism\nin the bearing of the penalty which is very apt to do away with any\nsense of contrition for the offence, and the plucky little fellow, who\ntakes his punishment with an air, is by no means a bad and hardened\nyoung offender, but is an economist of opportunities, making the\nbest of what comes to hand for his own real education. His mother\u2019s\ndistress, his father\u2019s disapproval, these are quite different matters,\nand carry no compensating sense of hardihood. Reflections like these\nlead one to spare the rod, not at all out of over sensibility to the\nchild\u2019s physical suffering, for we would have him endure hardness if we\nmean to make a man of him, but purely because it is not easy to find a\npunishment that does not defeat its own end.\n\nThe light smart slap, with which the mother visits the little child\nwhen he is naughty, is often both effective and educative. It changes\nthe current of baby\u2019s thoughts, and he no longer wishes to pull his\nsister\u2019s hair. But should not the slap be a last resort when no other\nway is left of changing his thoughts? With the older child a theory\nof punishments rests less upon the necessity to change the culprit\u2019s\nthoughts than upon the hope of forming a new association of ideas, that\nis, of certain pains and penalties inevitably attached to certain forms\nof wrong-doing. This, we know too well, is a teaching of life, and is\nnot to be overlooked in education. The experience of each of us goes to\nprove that every breach of law, in thought or deed, is attended by its\nown penalties, immediate or remote, and the child who is not brought\nup to know that \u201cdue follows deed in course,\u201d is sent out to his first\ncampaign undrilled and untrained, a raw recruit.\n\nOur contention is (_a_), that the need for punishment is mostly\npreventable, and (_b_), that the fear of punishment is hardly ever\nso strong a motive as the delight of the particular wrong-doing in\nview. If punishment were necessarily reformative and able to cure us\nall of those \u201csins we have a mind to,\u201d why, the world would be a very\ngood world, for no manner of sin escapes its present punishment. The\nfact is, not that punishment is unnecessary or that it is useless,\nbut that it is inadequate and barely touches our aim; which is, not\nthe visitation of the offence, but the correction of that fault of\ncharacter of which the offence is the outcome. Jemmy tells lies and\nwe punish him, and by so doing we mark our sense of the offence; but,\nprobably, no punishment could be invented drastic enough to cure Jemmy\nof telling lies in the future, and this is the thing to be aimed at.\nNo, we must look deeper; we must find out what weak place in character,\nwhat false habit of thinking, leads Jemmy to tell lies, and we must\ndeal with this false habit in the only possible way, by forming the\ncontrary habit of true thinking, which will make Jemmy grow up a true\nman. \u201cI think I have never told a lie since,\u201d said a lady, describing\nthe single conversation in which her father cured her of lying by\nsetting up an altogether new train of thought.\n\nNot mere spurts of occasional punishment, but the incessant\nwatchfulness and endeavour which go to the forming and preserving\nof the habits of the good life, is what we mean by discipline, and\nfrom this point of view never were there such disciplinarians as the\nparents who labour on the lines we indicate. Every habit of courtesy,\nconsideration, order, neatness, punctuality, truthfulness, is itself a\nschoolmaster, and orders life with the most unfailing diligence.\n\nA habit is so easily formed, so strong to compel. There are few\nparents who would not labour diligently if for every month\u2019s labour\nthey were able to endow one of their children with \u00a31000. But, in a\nmonth, a parent may form a habit in his child of such infinite value\nthat your thousand pounds is a mere bagatelle by comparison. We have\noften urged that the great discovery which modern science has brought\nto the aid of the educator is, that every habit of the life sets up, as\nit were, a material record in the brain tissues. We all know that we\nthink as we are used to think and act as we are used to act. Ever since\nman began to notice the ways of his own mind this law of habit has been\nmatter of common knowledge, and has been more or less acted upon by\nparents and other trainers of children. The well brought-up child has\nalways been a child carefully trained in good habits. But it is only\nwithin our own day that it has been possible to lay down definite laws\nfor the formation of habits. Until now, the mother who wished to train\nher children in such and such a good habit has found herself hindered\nby a certain sense of casualty. \u201cI am sure I am always telling her\u201d--to\nkeep her drawers neat, or to hold up her head and speak nicely, or to\nbe quick and careful about an errand,--says the poor mother, with tears\nin her eyes; and indeed this, of \u201calways telling\u201d him or her is a weary\nprocess for the mother; dull, because hopeless. She goes on \u201ctelling\u201d\nto deliver her own soul, for she has long since ceased to expect any\nresult; and we know how dreary is work without hope. But, perhaps\neven his mother does not know how unutterably dreary is this \u201calways\ntelling,\u201d which produces nothing, to the child. At first he is fretful\nand impatient under the patter of idle words; then he puts up with\nthe inevitable, but comes at last hardly to be aware that the thing is\nbeing said. As for any impression on his character, any habit really\nformed, all this labour is without result; the child does the thing\nwhen he cannot help it and evades as often as he can. And the poor\ndisappointed mother says, \u201cI\u2019m sure I\u2019ve tried as much as any mother\nto train my children in good habits, but I have failed.\u201d She is not\naltogether dispirited, however. The children have not the habits she\nwished to train them in, but they grow up warm-hearted, good-natured,\nbright young people, by no means children to be ashamed of. All the\nsame, the mother\u2019s sense of failure is a monition to be trusted. Our\nfailures in life are, perhaps, due, for the most part, to the defects\nof our qualities, and, therefore, it is not enough to send children\ninto the world with just the inheritance of character they get from\ntheir parents.\n\nLet us offer a few definite practical counsels to a parent who wishes\nto deal seriously with a bad habit. _First._--Let us remember that this\nbad habit has made its record in the brain. _Second._--There is one\nway only of obliterating such record; the absolute cessation of the\nhabit for a considerable space of time, say, some six or eight weeks.\n_Third._--During this interval new growth, new cell connections, are\nsomehow or other taking place, and the physical seat of the evil is\nundergoing a natural healing. _Fourth._--But the only way to secure\nthis pause is to introduce some new habit as attractive to the child\nas is the wrong habit you set yourself to cure. _Fifth._--As the bad\nhabit usually arises from the defect of some quality in the child it\nshould not be difficult for the parent who knows his child\u2019s character\nto introduce the contrary good habit. _Sixth._--Take a moment of happy\nconfidence between parent and child; introduce, by tale or example,\nthe stimulating idea; get the child\u2019s will with you. _Seventh._--Do\nnot tell him to do the new thing, but quietly and cheerfully _see that\nhe does it_ on all possible occasions, for weeks if need be, all the\ntime stimulating the new idea, until it takes great hold of the child\u2019s\nimagination. _Eighth._--Watch most carefully against any recurrence of\nthe bad habit. _Ninth._--Should the old fault recur, do not condone it.\nLet the punishment, chiefly the sense of your estrangement, be acutely\nfelt. Let the child feel the shame of not only having done wrong, but\nof having done the wrong when it was perfectly easy to avoid the wrong\nand do the right. Above all \u201cwatch unto prayer\u201d and teach your child\ndependence upon divine aid in this warfare of the spirit; but also, the\nabsolute necessity for his own efforts.\n\nSusie is an inquisitive little girl. Her mother is surprised and\nnot always delighted to find that the little maid is constantly on\nvoyages of discovery, which the servants speak of to each other as\nprying and poking. Is her mother engaged in talk with a visitor or\nthe nurse--behold, Susie is at her side, sprung from nobody knows\nwhere. Is a confidential letter being read aloud--Susie is within\nearshot. Does the mother think she has put away a certain book where\nthe children cannot find it--Susie volunteers to produce it. Does she\ntell her husband that cook has asked for two days leave of absence--up\njumps Susie, with all the ins and outs of the case. \u201cI really don\u2019t\nknow what to do with the child. It is difficult to put down one\u2019s foot\nand say you ought not to know this or that or the other. Each thing\nin itself is harmless enough, but it is a little distressing to have\na child who is always peering about for gossipy information.\u201d Yes,\nit is tiresome, but is not a case for despair, nor for thinking hard\nthings of Susie, certainly not for accepting the inevitable. Regarding\nthis tiresome curiosity as the defect of its quality, the mother casts\nabout for the quality, and, behold, Susie is reinstated. What ails the\nchild is an inordinate desire for knowledge, run to seed, and allowed\nto spend itself on unworthy objects. When the right moment comes,\nintroduce Susie to some delightful study, of Nature, for example, which\nwill employ all her prying proclivities. Once the new idea has taken\npossession of the little girl, a little talk should follow about the\nunworthiness of filling one\u2019s thoughts with trifling matters so that\nnothing really interesting can get in. For weeks together see that\nSusie\u2019s mind is too full of large matters to entertain the small ones;\nand, once the inquisitive habit has been checked, encourage the child\u2019s\nactive mind to definite progressive work on things worth while. Susie\u2019s\nunworthy curiosity will soon cease to be a trial to her parents.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n\n _SENSATIONS AND FEELINGS_\n\n PART I\n\n\nChildren whose parents have little theoretic knowledge of the values\nof the various food-stuffs are often thoroughly nourished; their\nparents rely on what they call common-sense; and the result is, on\nthe whole, better than if scientific consideration were given to the\nfamily dietary. But this common-sense has usually scientific opinion\nfor its basis, though the fact may be forgotten, and when scientific\nopinion has become the groundwork of habit it is of more value, and\nworks in a more simple way, than while it is still in the stage\nof experiment. In the same way it is a good thing to have such an\nacquaintance with the functions of human nature that we act on our\nknowledge unconsciously, and do not even know that we possess it. But\nif we have no such floating capital of cognisance we must study the\nsubject, even if we have to make experiments. Most people suppose that\nthe sensations, feelings, and emotions of a child are matters that\ntake care of themselves. Indeed, we are apt to use the three terms\nindiscriminately, without attaching very clear ideas to them. But they\ncover, collectively, a very important educational field; and though\ncommon sense, that is to say judgments formed upon inherited knowledge,\noften helps us to act wisely without knowing why, we shall probably\nact more wisely if we act reasonably.\n\nLet us consider, first, the subject of sensations. We speak of\nsensations of cold, and sensations of heat, and sensations of pain, and\nwe are quite right. We also speak of sensations of fear and sensations\nof pleasure, and we are commonly wrong. The sensations have their\norigin in impressions received by the several organs of sense--eye,\ntongue, nostrils, ear, the surface of the external skin--and are\nconveyed by the sensory nerves, some to the spinal cord and some to\nthe lower region of the brain. Many sensations we know nothing about;\nwhen we become aware of our sensations it is because communications are\nsent by nerve fibres, acting as telegraph wires, from the sensorium to\nthe thinking brain, and this happens when we give our _attention_ to\nany one of the multitudinous messages carried by the sensory nerves.\nThe physiology of the senses is too complicated a subject for us to\ntouch upon here, but it is deeply interesting, and perhaps no better\nintroduction exists than Professor Clifford\u2019s little book, \u201cSeeing\nand Thinking\u201d (Macmillan). Now the senses are \u201cThe Five Gateways of\nKnowledge,\u201d to quote the title of a little book which many of us have\nused in early days; and an intelligent person should be aware of, and\ncapable of forming judgments upon, the sensations he receives.\n\nWe all recognise that the training of the senses is an important\npart of education. One caution is necessary: from the very first a\nchild\u2019s sensations should be treated as matters of objective and not\nof subjective interest. Marmalade, for example, is interesting, not\nbecause it is \u201cnice\u201d--a fact not to be dwelt upon at all--but because\none can discern in it different flavours and the modifying effect of\nthe oil secreted in the rind of the orange. We shall have occasion to\nspeak more of this subject later; but a useful piece of education is\nthis of centering a child\u2019s interest in the objects which produce his\nsensations and not in himself as the receiver of these sensations.\n\nThe purpose of so-called object lessons is, to assist a child, by\ncareful examination of a given object, to find out all he can about it\nthrough the use of his several senses. General information about the\nobject is thrown in and lodges only because the child\u2019s senses have\nbeen exercised, and his interest aroused. Object lessons are a little\nin disfavour, just now, for two reasons. In the first place, miserable\nfragments are presented to the children which have little of the\ncharacter of the object _in situ_, and are apt to convey inadequate,\nif not wrong, ideas. In the next place, object lessons are commonly\nused as a means to introduce children to hard words, such as opaque and\ntranslucent, which never become part of their living thought until they\npick them up for themselves incidentally as they have need of them. But\nthe abuse of this kind of teaching should not cause us to overlook its\nuse. No child can grow up without daily object teaching, whether casual\nor of set purpose, and the more thorough this is the more intelligent\nand observant will he become. It is singular how few people are capable\nof developing an intelligent curiosity about the most attractive\nobjects, except as their interest is stimulated from without. The baby\nis a wonderful teacher in this matter of object lessons. To be sure\nhis single pupil is his own small self, but his progress is amazing.\nAt first he does not see any difference between a picture of a cow and\nthe living animal; big and little, far and near, hard and soft, hot\nand cold, are all alike to him; he wishes to hold the moon in his\npinafore, to sit on the pond, to poke his finger into the candle, not\nbecause he is a foolish little person, but because he is profoundly\nignorant of the nature of the contents of this unintelligible world.\nBut how he works! he bangs his spoon to try if it produces sound; he\nsucks it to try its flavour; he fumbles it all over and no doubt finds\nout whether it is hard or soft, hot or cold, rough or smooth; he gazes\nat it with the long gaze of infancy, so that he may learn the look of\nit; it is an old friend and an object of desire when he sees it again,\nfor he has found out that there is much joy in a spoon. This goes on\nwith great diligence for a couple of years, at the end of which time\nbaby has acquired enough knowledge of the world to conduct himself in a\nvery dignified and rational way.\n\nThis is what happens under Nature\u2019s teaching; and for the first five\nor six years of his life everything, especially everything in action,\nis an object of intelligent curiosity to the child--the street or the\nfield is a panorama of delight, the shepherd\u2019s dog, the baker\u2019s cart,\nthe man with the barrow, are full of vivid interest. He has a thousand\nquestions to ask, he wants to know about everything; he has, in fact,\nan inordinate appetite for knowledge. We soon cure all that: we occupy\nhim with books instead of things; we evoke other desires in place of\nthe desire to know; and we succeed in bringing up the unobservant\nman (and more unobservant woman), who discerns no difference between\nan elm, a poplar and a lime tree, and misses very much of the joy of\nliving. By the way, why is it that the baby does not exercise with\npurpose his organ of smell? He screws up a funny little nose when he\nis taught to sniff at a flower, but this is a mere trick; he does not\nnaturally make experiments as to whether things are odorous, while each\nof his other senses affords him keen joy. No doubt the little nose is\ninvoluntarily very active, but can his inertness in this matter be an\nhereditary failing? It may be that we all allow ourselves to go about\nwith obtuse nostrils. If so, this is a matter for the attention of\nmothers, who should bring up their children not only to receive, which\nis involuntary and vague, but to perceive odours from the first.\n\nTwo points call for our attention in this education of the senses; we\nmust assist the child to educate himself on Nature\u2019s lines, and we must\ntake care not to supplant and crowd out Nature and her methods with\nthat which we call education. Object lessons should be incidental;\nand this is where the family enjoys so great an advantage over the\nschool. It is almost impossible that the school should give any but\nset lessons, but this sort of teaching in the family falls in with\nthe occurrence of the object. The child who finds that wonderful and\nbeautiful object, a \u201cpaper\u201d wasp\u2019s nest, attached to a larch-twig, has\nhis object lesson on the spot from father or mother. The grey colour,\nthe round symmetrical shape, the sort of cup and ball arrangement,\nthe papery texture, the comparative size, the comparative smoothness,\nthe odour or lack of odour, the extreme lightness, the fact that it\nis not cold to the touch. These and fifty other particulars the child\nfinds out unaided, or with no more than a word, here and there, to\ndirect his observation. One does not every day find a wasp\u2019s nest,\nbut much can be got out of every common object, and the commoner the\nbetter, which falls naturally under the child\u2019s observation, a piece of\nbread, a lump of coal, a sponge. In the first place it is unnecessary\nin the family to give an exhaustive examination to every object; one\nquality might be discussed in this, another quality in that. We eat\nour bread and milk and notice that bread is absorbent, and we overhaul\nour experience to discover other things which we know to be absorbent\nalso, and we do what we can to compare these things as to whether they\nare less absorbent or more absorbent than bread. This is exceedingly\nimportant: the unobservant person states that an object is light and\nconsiders that he has stated an ultimate fact: the observant person\nmakes the same statement, but has in his mind a relative scale, and\nhis judgment is of the more value because he compares it silently\nwith a series of substances to which this is relatively light. It is\nimportant that children should learn to recognise that high, low,\nsweet, bitter, long, short, agreeable, &c., &c., are comparative terms,\nwhile square, round, black, white, are positive terms, the application\nof which is not affected by comparison with other objects. Care in this\nmatter makes for higher moral, as well as intellectual development:\nhalf the dissensions in the world arise from an indiscriminate use of\nepithets. \u201cWould you say your bread (at dinner) was light or heavy?\u201d\nThe child would probably answer, \u201crather light.\u201d \u201cYes, we can only say\nthat a thing is light by comparing it with others; what is bread light\ncompared with?\u201d \u201cA stone, a piece of coal, of cheese, of butter of the\nsame size.\u201d \u201cBut it is heavy compared with?\u201d \u201cA piece of sponge cake,\na piece of sponge, of cork, of pumice,\u201d and so on. \u201cWhat do you think\nit weighs?\u201d \u201cAn ounce, an ounce and a half.\u201d \u201cWe\u2019ll try after dinner;\nyou had better have another piece and save it,\u201d and the weighing after\ndinner is a delightful operation. The power of judging of weight is\nworth cultivating. We heard the other day of a gentleman who was\nrequired at a bazaar to guess the weight of a monster cake; he said\nit weighed twenty-eight pounds fourteen ounces, and it did, exactly.\n_C\u00e6teris paribus_, one has a greater respect for the man who made this\naccurate judgment than for the well-intentioned but vague person, who\nsuggested that the cake might weigh ten pounds. Letters, book parcels,\nan apple, an orange, a vegetable marrow, fifty things in the course of\nthe day give opportunities for this kind of object teaching, _i.e._,\nthe power of forming accurate judgments as to the relative and absolute\nweight of objects by their resistance, which is perceived by our sense\nof touch, though opposed to our muscular force. By degrees the children\nare trained to perceive that the relative weights of objects depend\nupon their relative density, and are introduced to the fact that we\nhave a standard of weight.\n\nIn the same way children should be taught to measure objects by\nthe eye. How high is that candlestick? How long and broad that\npicture-frame? and so on--verifying their statements. What is the\ncircumference of that bowl? of the clock-face? of that flower-bed? How\ntall is so-and-so, and so-and-so? How many hands high are the horses\nof their acquaintance? Divide a slip of wood, a sheet of paper into\nhalves, thirds, quarters by the eye; lay a walking-stick at right\nangles with another; detect when a picture, curtain, &c., hangs out of\nthe perpendicular. This sort of practice will secure for children what\nis called a correct or true eye.\n\nA quick and true ear is another possession that does not come by\nNature, or anyway, if it does, it is too often lost. How many sounds\ncan you distinguish in a sudden silence out of doors? Let these be\nnamed in order from the less to the more acute. Let the notes of the\nbirds be distinguished, both call-notes and song-notes; the four or\nfive distinct sounds to be heard in the flow of a brook. Cultivate\naccuracy in distinguishing footfalls and voices; in discerning, with\ntheir eyes shut, the direction from which a sound proceeds, in which\nfootsteps are moving. Distinguish passing vehicles by their sounds;\nas lorry, brougham, dog-cart. Music is, no doubt, the instrument _par\nexcellence_ for this kind of ear culture. Mrs. Curwen\u2019s \u201cChild Pianist\u201d\nputs carefully graduated means for this kind of culture into the hands\nof parents; and, if a child never become a performer, to have acquired\na cultivated and correct ear is no small part of a musical education.\n\nWe do not attach enough importance to the discrimination of odours,\nwhether as a safeguard to health, or as a source of pleasure. Half the\npeople one knows have nostrils which register no difference between the\natmosphere of a large, and so-called \u201cairy,\u201d room, whose windows are\nnever opened, and that of a room in which a through current of air is\narranged for at frequent intervals: and yet health depends largely on\na delicate perception as to the purity of the atmosphere. The odours\nwhich result in diphtheria or typhoid are perceptible, however faint,\nand a nose trained to detect the faintest malodorous particles in food,\nclothing, or dwelling, is a panoply against disease to the possessor.\n\nThen, odours enter more readily than other sense perceptions into\nthose--\n\n \u201cSensations sweet,\n Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart,\u201d\n\nwhich add so much to the sum of our happiness, because they unite\nthemselves so readily with our purely incorporeal joys by links of\nassociation. \u201cI never smell woodruff without being reminded----\u201d\nis the sort of thing we hear and say continually, but we do not\ntrouble ourselves to realise that we owe a double joy to the odour\nof the woodruff (or it may be, alas! a reflected sorrow)--the joy of\nthe pleasant influences about us when we pluck the flower, and the\npossibly more personal joy of that other time with which we associate\nit. Every new odour perceived is a source, if not of warning, of\nrecurrent satisfaction or interest. We are acquainted with too few of\nthe odours which the spring-time offers. Only this spring the present\nwriter learned two peculiarly delightful odours quite new to her,\nthat of young larch twigs, which have much the same kind and degree\nof fragrance as the flower of the syringa, and the pleasant musky\naroma of a box-hedge. Children should be trained, for example, to shut\ntheir eyes when they come into the drawing-room and discover by their\nnostrils what odorous flowers are present, should discriminate the\ngarden odours let loose by a shower of rain:--\n\n \u201cHouses and rooms are full of perfumes, the shelves are crowded with\n perfumes,\n I breathe the fragrance myself and know it and like it.\n * * * * *\n The atmosphere is not a perfume, it has no taste of the distillation,\n it is odourless,\n It is for my mouth for ever, I am in love with it.\n * * * * *\n The sniff of green leaves, and dry leaves, and of the shore, and\n dark-coloured sea-rocks, and of hay in the barn.\u201d\n\n--The American poet has, perhaps, done more than any other to express\nthe pleasure to be found in odours. This is one direction in which\nmuch remains to be done; we have not yet arrived even at a scale of\nodours, as of sound and of colour.\n\nFlavour, again, offers a wide range for delicate discrimination. At\nfirst sight it would appear difficult to cultivate the sense of flavour\nwithout making a child more or less of a gourmand, but the fact is,\nthat the strong flavours which titillate the palate destroy the power\nof perception. The young child who lives upon milk-foods has, probably,\nmore pleasure in flavour than the diner-out who is _au fait_ with the\nconfections of a _cordon bleu_. At the same time, one would prefer to\nmake flavour a source of interest rather than of sensuous pleasure to\nchildren: it is better that they should try to discern a flavour with\ntheir eyes shut, for example, than that they should be allowed to think\nor say that things are \u201cnice\u201d or \u201cnasty.\u201d This sort of fastidiousness\nshould be cried down. It is not well to make a child eat what he does\nnot like, as that would only make him dislike that particular dish\nalways; but to let him feel that he shows a want of self-control and\nmanliness when he expresses distaste for wholesome food is likely to\nhave a lasting effect.\n\nWe have barely touched on the sorts of object lessons, appealing now\nto one sense and now to another, which should come incidentally every\nday in the family. We are apt to regard an American Indian as a quite\nuneducated person; he is, on the contrary, highly educated in so far\nas that he is able to discriminate sensory impressions, and to take\naction upon these in a way which is bewildering to the book-learned\nEuropean. It would be well for parents to educate a child, for the\nfirst half-dozen years of his life at any rate, on \u201cRed Indian\u201d\nlines. Besides the few points we have mentioned, he should be able\nto discriminate colours and shades of colour; relative degrees of\nheat in woollen, wood, iron, marble, ice; should learn the use of the\nthermometer; should discriminate objects according to their degrees of\nhardness; should have a cultivated eye and touch for texture; should,\nin fact, be able to get as much information about an object from a\nfew minutes\u2019 study, as to its form, colour, texture, size, weight,\nqualities, parts, characteristics, as he could learn out of many pages\nof a printed book. We approach the subject by the avenue of the child\u2019s\nsenses rather than by that of the objects to be studied, because just\nnow we have in view the occasional test exercises, the purpose of which\nis to give thorough culture to the several senses. An acquaintance with\nnature and natural objects is another thing, and is to be approached\nin a slightly different way. A boy who is observing a beetle does not\nconsciously apply his several senses to the beetle, but lets the beetle\ntake the initiative, which the boy reverently follows: but the boy who\nis in the habit of doing daily sensory gymnastics will learn a great\ndeal more about the beetle than he who is not so trained.\n\nDefinite object lessons differ from these incidental exercises in that\nan object is in a manner exhausted by each of the senses in turn and\nevery atom of information it will yield got out of it. A good plan is\nto make this sort of a lesson a game, pass your object round--piece of\nbread, for example--and let each child tell some fact that he discovers\nby touch, another round by smell, again by taste, and again by sight.\nChildren are most ingenious in this kind of game, and it affords\nopportunities to give them new words, as friable, elastic, when they\nreally ask to be helped to express some discovery they have made. The\nchildren learn to think with exactitude too, to distinguish between\nfriable and brittle, for example, and any common information that is\noffered to them in the course of these exercises becomes a possession\nfor ever. A good game in the nature of an object lesson, suitable for a\nbirthday party, is to have a hundred small objects arranged on a table,\nunknown to the children, then lead the little party into the room,\nallow them three minutes to walk round the table, and then, when they\nhave left the room, let them write, or tell in a corner, the names of\nall the objects they recollect. Some children will easily get fifty or\nsixty.\n\nNo doubt the best and happiest exercise of the senses springs out\nof a loving familiarity with the world of nature, but the sorts of\ngymnastics we have indicated render the perceptions more acute and\nare greatly enjoyed by children. That the sensations should not be\npermitted to minister unduly to the subjective consciousness of the\nchild is the great point to be borne in mind.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n\n _SENSATIONS AND FEELINGS_\n\n PART II\n\n \u201cThese beauteous forms,\n Through a long absence, have not been to me\n As is a landscape to a blind man\u2019s eye;\n But oft, in lonely rooms, and \u2019mid the din\n Of towns and cities, I have owed to them,\n In hours of weariness, sensations sweet,\n Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart;\n And passing even into my purer mind,\n With tranquil restoration:--feelings, too,\n Of unremembered pleasure: such, perhaps,\n As have no slight or trivial influence\n On that best portion of a good man\u2019s life,\n His little, nameless, unremembered acts\n Of kindness and of love.\u201d\n --W. WORDSWORTH, _Tintern Abbey_.\n\n\nInsight--the so to speak scientific grip of a great poet--is amongst\nthose \u201cmore things\u201d in heaven and earth than our philosophy has dreamed\nof. Wordsworth tells us that after the lapse of years, these beauteous\nforms (of Tintern Abbey) gave him sensations. Now we are apt to think\nthat sensations can only be immediate, perceived on the instant that\nthe object is present to the senses; but the poet is, as usual,\nabsolutely right: we may have, so to speak, reflected sensations, as\nwell as those that are immediate, because a conscious sensation depends\nupon the recognition of an impression in the sensory centres, and this\nrecognition may be evoked, not only by a repeated sensation, but by\nan association which recalls the image once permanently impressed by\nthe original sensation. Wordsworth is exquisitely right when he speaks\nof the repeated enjoyment of sensations sweet. \u201cIn lonely rooms and\n\u2019mid the din of towns and cities\u201d some sudden touch of the cords of\nassociation has brought to him the soothing joy of a picture--\u201cForms\u201d\nwith every grace of symmetry, harmony, venerable antiquity, in the ever\nfresh and gracious setting of a beautiful landscape. The eye of his\nmind is infinitely gladdened; the ear of his mind, no longer conscious\nof the din of cities, hears the chord struck by the Wye in its flow,\nand the notes of the birds and the lowing of the cattle and the\nacuter notes of the insect world. Again he perceives the odour of the\nmeadow-sweet, he touches the coolness of the grass, and all these are\nas absolutely sensations as when they were for the first time conveyed\nto his consciousness by the sensory organs.\n\nWe have in these few lines a volume of reasons why we should fill\nthe storehouse of memory for the children with many open-air images,\ncapable of giving them reflected sensations of extreme delight. Our\ncare all the time must be to secure that they do look, and listen,\ntouch, and smell, and the way to this is by sympathetic action on\nour part: what we look at they will look at; the odours we perceive\nthey too will get. We heard, the other day, of a little girl who\ntravelled in Italy with her parents, in the days of dignified family\ntravelling-carriages. The child\u2019s parents were conscientious, and\ntime was precious, not by any means to be wasted on the mere idleness\nof travelling, so the governess and the little girl had the _coup\u00e9_\nto themselves, and in it were packed all the paraphernalia of the\nschoolroom, and she did her sums, learned her geography, probably the\ncounties of England, and all the rest of it, with the least possible\nwaste of time in idle curiosity as to what the \u201cfaire londes,\u201d through\nwhich she was passing, might be like. A story like this shows that\nwe are making advances, but we are still far from fully recognising\nthat our part in the education of children should be thoughtfully\nsubordinated to that played by Nature herself.\n\nTo continue our study of this amazingly accurate, as well as\nexquisitely beautiful, psychological record:--the poet goes on to tell\nus that these sensations sweet are \u201cfelt in the blood and felt along\nthe heart,\u201d a statement curiously true to fact, for a pleasurable\nsensation causes the relaxation of the infinitesimal nerve fibres\nnetted around the capillaries, the blood flows freely, the heart\nbeats quicker, the sense of well-being is increased; gaiety, gladness\nsupervene; and the gloom of the dull day, and the din of the busy city,\nexist for us no more; that is to say, memories of delight are, as it\nwere, an elixir of life capable, when they present themselves, of\nrestoring us at any moment to a condition of physical well-being.\n\nBut even this is not the whole. Wordsworth speaks of these memories as\n\u201cpassing into my purer mind with tranquil restoration\u201d--purer because\nless corporeal, less affected by physical conditions, but all the same\nso intimately related to the physical brain, that the condition of the\none must rule the other. Mind and brain perhaps have been alike fagged\nby the insistent recurrence of some one line of thought, when suddenly\nthere flashes into the \u201cpurer mind\u201d the cognition of images of delight,\nrepresented in consequence of a touch to some spring of association:\nthe current of thought is diverted into new and delightful channels,\nand weariness and brain fag give place to \u201ctranquil restoration.\u201d\n\nIf mere sensations are capable of doing so much for our happiness, our\nmental refreshment, and our physical well-being, both at the time of\ntheir reception and for an indefinite number of times afterwards, it\nfollows that it is no small part of our work as educators to preserve\nthe acuteness of the children\u2019s perceptions, and to store their\nmemories with images of delight.\n\nThe poet pursues the investigation and makes a pointed distinction;\nhe not only recovers \u201csensations sweet,\u201d but \u201cfeelings, too, of\nunremembered pleasure.\u201d Very few persons are capable of discriminating\nbetween the sensations and the feelings produced by an image recovered\nby some train of association. Wordsworth\u2019s psychology is not only\ndelicately nice, but very just, and the distinction he draws is\nimportant to the educator. The truth is \u201cthe feelings\u201d are out of\nfashion at present; _The Man of Feeling_ is a person of no account;\nif he still exists he keeps in the shade, being aware, through a\ncertain quickness of perception which belongs to him, that any little\nefflorescence proper to his character would be promptly reduced to\npulp by the application of a sledge hammer. _The Man of Feeling_ has\nhimself to thank for this; he allowed his feelings to become fantastic;\nhis sweet sensibilities ran away with him; he meant pathos and talked\nbathos; he became an exaggerated type, and in self-preservation Society\nalways cut off the offending limb, so _The Man of Feeling_ is no more.\nNor is this the only charge that \u201cthe feelings\u201d have to sustain. So\nlong as the feelings remain objective they are, like the bloom to the\npeach, the last perfection of a beautiful character; but when they\nbecome subjective, when every feeling concerns itself with the _ego_,\nwe have, as in the case of sensations, morbid conditions set up; the\nperson begins by being \u201cover sensitive,\u201d hysteria supervenes, perhaps\nmelancholia, an utterly spoilt life. George Eliot has a fine figure\nwhich aptly illustrates this subjective condition of the feelings. She\ntells us that a philosophic friend had pointed out to her that whereas\nthe surface of a mirror or of a steel plate may be covered with minute\nscratches going in every direction, if you hold a lighted candle to\nthe surface all these random scratches appear to arrange themselves\nand radiate from the central flame: just so with the person whose\nfeelings have been permitted to minister to his egoistic consciousness:\nall things in heaven and earth are \u201cfelt\u201d as they affect his own\npersonality.\n\nWhat are the feelings? Perhaps they are best expressed in Coleridge\u2019s\nphrase of \u201ca vague appetency of the mind\u201d; and we may do something to\nclear our thoughts by a negative examination. The feelings are _not_\nsensations, because they have no necessary connection with the senses;\nthey are to be distinguished from the two great affections (of love and\njustice) because they are not actively exercised upon any objects; they\nare distinct from the desires because they demand no gratification; and\nthey are distinguishable from the intellectual operations which we call\nthought, because while thought proceeds from an idea, is active, and\narrives at a result, the feelings arise from perceptions, are passive,\nand not definitely progressive.\n\nEvery feeling has its positive and its negative, and these in almost\ninfinitely varying degrees: pleasure, displeasure; appreciation,\ndepreciation; anticipation, foreboding; admiration, contempt;\nassurance, hesitancy; diffidence, complacency; and so on through\nmany more delicate _nuances_ of feeling that are nameable, and yet\nmore so delicate that language is too rough an instrument for their\nexpression. It will be observed that all these feelings have certain\nconditions in common; none are distinctly moral or immoral; they have\nnot arrived at the stage of definite thought; they exist vaguely in\nwhat would appear to be a semi-conscious intellectual region. Why then\nneed we concern ourselves about this little known tract of that _terra\nincognita_ which we call human nature? This \u201cwhy\u201d is the question\nof the prose-philosopher--our poet sees deeper. In one of the most\nexquisitely discriminating passages in the whole field of poetry,\nhe speaks of feelings of unremembered pleasure as having no slight\nor trivial influence on a good man\u2019s life, as the source of \u201clittle\nnameless unremembered acts of kindness and of love.\u201d Even the feeling\nof \u201c_unremembered_ pleasure\u201d--for it is possible to have the spring of\nassociation touched so lightly that one recovers the feeling of former\npleasure without recovering the sensation, or the image which produced\nthe sensation, but merely just the vague feeling of the pleasure, as\nwhen one hears the word \u2018Lohengrin\u2019 and does not wait, as it were,\nto recover the sensation of musical delight, but just catches a waft\nof the pleasure which the sensation brought--intangible, indefinite\nas they are, produce that glow of the heart which warms a good man\nto \u201cacts of kindness and of love,\u201d as little, as nameless, and as\nunremembered as the feelings out of which they spring.\n\nNameless as they are, our poet does not hesitate to rank these trifling\nacts as the \u201cbest portion of a good man\u2019s life.\u201d But it is only out\nof the good man\u2019s heart that these good issues come, because, as we\nhave said, the feelings are not in themselves moral, they act upon\nthat which is there, and the point brought before us is, that the\ninfluence of the feelings is equally powerful and indirect. Why should\nthe recollection of Tintern Abbey cause a good man to do some little\nkind thing? We can only give the ultimate answer that \u201cGod has made us\nso,\u201d that a feeling of even unremembered pleasure prompts the good man\nto give forth out of the good treasure of his heart in kindness and in\nlove. We have but to think of the outcome of feelings at the negative\npole to convince us of the nice exactitude of the poet\u2019s psychology. We\nare not exactly displeased, but unpleased, dull, not quickened by any\nfeeling of pleasure: let us ask ourselves if, in this condition of our\nfeelings, we are prompted to any outpouring of love and kindness upon\nour neighbours.\n\nHere is another aspect of the feelings of very great importance to us\nwho have the education of children.\n\n \u201cI do not like you, Doctor Fell,\n The reason why I cannot tell,\u201d\n\nis a feeling we all know well enough, and is, in fact, that intuitive\nperception of character--one of our finest feelings and best guides\nin life--which is too apt to be hammered out of us by the constant\neffort to beat down our sensibilities to the explicit and definite.\nOne wonders why people complain of faithless friends, untrustworthy\nservants, and disappointed affections. If the feelings were retained\nin truth and simplicity, there is little doubt that they would afford\nfor each of us such a touchstone of character in the persons we come in\ncontact with, that we should be saved from making exigeant demands on\nthe one hand, and from suffering disappointment on the other.\n\nThe public orator plays, by preference, upon the gamut of the\nfeelings. He throws in arguments by the way; brightens his discourse\nwith graphic word-picture, metaphor, simile; but for his final effect\nhe relies upon the impression he has been able to make upon the\nfeelings of his audience, and the event proves him to be right.\n\nNot only our little nameless acts but the great purposes of our lives\narise out of our feelings. Enthusiasm itself is not thought, though it\narises when we are\n\n \u201cStung with the rapture of a sudden thought;\u201d\n\nit is a glowing, malleable condition of the forces of our nature,\nduring which all things are possible to us, and we only wait for a\nlead. Enthusiasm in its earliest stage is inconsequent, incoherent,\ndevoid of purpose, and yet is the state out of which all the great\npurposes of life shape themselves. We feel, we think, we say, we do;\nthis is the genesis of most of our activities.\n\nBut our feelings, as our thoughts, depend upon what we are; we feel in\nall things as \u201c\u2019tis our nature to,\u201d and the point to be noticed is that\nour feelings are educable, and that in educating the feelings we modify\nthe character. A pressing danger of our day is that the delicate task\nof educating shall be exchanged for the much simpler one of blunting\nthe feelings. This is the almost inevitable result of a system where\ntraining is given _en masse_; but not the necessary result, because the\ntone of feeling of a head-master or mistress is almost with certainty\nconveyed, more or less, to a whole school. Still, perhaps, the perfect\nbloom of the feelings can only be preserved under quite judicious\nindividual culture, and, therefore, necessarily devolves upon parents.\nThe instrument to be employed in this culture is always the same--the\nblessed sixth sense of Tact. It is possible to call up the feeling\none desires by a look, a gesture; to dissipate it entirely by the\nrudeness of a spoken word. Our silence, our sympathy, our perception\ngive place and play to fit feelings, and equally discourage, and cause\nto slink away ashamed the feeling which should not have place. But let\nus beware of words; let us use our eyes and our imagination in dealing\nwith the young; let us see what they are feeling and help them by the\nflow of our responsive feeling. But words, even words of praise and\ntenderness, touch this delicate bloom of nature as with a hot finger,\nand behold! it is gone. Let us consider carefully what feelings we wish\nto stimulate, and what feelings we wish to repress in our children,\nand then, having made up our minds, let us say nothing. We all know\nthe shrinking, as of a sore place, with which children receive some\nwell-meant word from a tactless friend.\n\nThe sense of spiritual touch is our only guide in this region of the\nfeelings, but with this alone we may tune the spirits of the children\nto great issues, believing that they are capable of all things great.\nWe wish them to revere. Now reverence is a feeling before it becomes a\nthought or an act, and it is a communicable feeling, but communicable\nlike the light of a torch only by contact. The sentiment of reverence\nfills our own souls when we see a bird on its nest, an old man at his\ncottage door, a church in which have centred the aspirations of a\nvillage for many an age; we feel and the children feel our feeling,\nand they feel too: a feeling is communicated by sympathy, but perhaps\nin no other way. The ignoble habit of depreciation is in the first\nplace a feeling. It is quite easy to put the children into that\nother attitude of feeling called forth by the fitness and goodness of\nthe thing regarded, and we all know that it is easy to appreciate or\ndepreciate the same thing. These two feelings alone illustrate the\nimportance of the delicate culture we have in view, for among the\nminor notes of character none tend more to differentiate persons than\nthis of perceiving cause of satisfaction in an object or a person, or\nof perceiving cause of dissatisfaction in the same object or person.\nAn appreciative habit of feeling is a cause of tranquil joy to its\npossessor, and of ease and contentment to the people connected with\nhim. A depreciative habit, on the contrary, though it affords a little\npleasurable excitement because it ministers to the vanity of the _ego_\n(I dislike this person or this thing, therefore I know better or am\nbetter than others), disturbs tranquillity and puts the person out of\nharmony with himself and with his surroundings; no stable joy comes\nof depreciation. But even in dealing with feelings of this class we\nmust remember that tact, sympathy and communicable feeling are our\nonly implements; the feelings are not thoughts to be reasoned down;\nthey are neither moral nor immoral to challenge our praise or our\nblame; we cannot be too reticent in our dealings with them in children,\nnor too watchfully aware that the least inadvertence may bruise some\ntender blossom of feeling. This is the risk which attends the habit of\npersiflage and banter in family talk; a little is thoroughly good and\nwholesome, but this kind of play should be used with very great tact,\nespecially by the elders. Children understand each other so well that\nthere is far less risk of hurt feelings from the tormenting schoolboy\nthan from the more considerate elder.\n\nThere is only one case in which the feelings may not have free play,\nand that is when they reflect the consciousness of the _ego_. What\nare commonly called sensitive feelings--that is, susceptibility for\noneself and about oneself, readiness to perceive neglect or slight,\ncondemnation or approbation--though belonging to a fine and delicate\ncharacter, are in themselves of less worthy order, and require very\ncareful direction lest morbid conditions should be set up. To ignore\nwisely is an art, and the girl who craves to know what you thought of\nher when she said this or did the other, need not be told brutally\nthat you did not think of her at all; it is quite enough for her to\nperceive that your regard is fixed upon something impersonal both\nto her and you; she takes the hint and looks away from herself, and\nnothing is said to cause her pain. It appears to be an immutable law\nthat our feelings, as our sensations, must find their occupation in\nthings without; the moment they are turned in upon themselves harm is\ndone. The task of dealing with the susceptibilities of young people is\none of the most delicate that falls to us elders, whether we be parents\nor friends. Undiscriminating sympathy is very perilous, and bluntness\nof perception is very damaging; we are between Scylla and Charybdis,\nand must needs walk humbly and warily in this delicate work of dealing\nwith the feelings of children and young people. Our only safeguard is\nto cherish in ourselves \u201cthe soft, meek, tender soul,\u201d sensitive to\nthe touch of God, and able to deal in soft, meek, tender ways with\nchildren, beings of fine and delicate mould as they are.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n\n \u201c_WHAT IS TRUTH?_\u201d\n\n\nIt is said that we English are no longer to be characterised as a\ntruth-speaking people. This is a distressing charge, and yet we cannot\nput it away from us with a high hand. Possibly we are in a stage\nof civilisation which does not tend to produce the fine courage of\nabsolute truthfulness. He who is without fear is commonly without\nfalsehood; and a nation brought up amid the chivalries of war dares\nto be true. But we live in times of peace: we are no longer called\non to defend the truth of our word by the strength of our hand. We\nspeak with very little sense of responsibility, because no one calls\nus to account; and, so far as we are truth-tellers, we are so out of\npure truth of heart and uprightness of life. That is, we may be, as a\nnation, losing the habit of truth to which the nation\u2019s childhood was\ntrained, in ways however rough and ready; but we are growing up, and\nthe truth that is among us is perhaps of a higher quality than the\nmore general truthfulness of earlier days. Now, truth is indeed the\nwhite flower of a blameless life, and not the mere result of a fearless\nhabit. The work before us is to bring up our children to this higher\nmanner of truth. We no longer treat this or that particular lie or\nbit of deceit as a local ailment, for which we have only to apply the\nproper lotion or plaster; we treat it as symptomatic, as denoting a\nradical defect of character which we set ourselves to correct.\n\nOpinion without knowledge, says Darwin, has no value, and to treat\nthe tendency to untruthfulness that children often show, one should\nhave a good deal of knowledge of a special kind. To treat a child _de\nnovo_, place him under a moral microscope, record our observations,\nand formulate opinions based upon that child, and as many more as we\ncan get into focus, is, no doubt, useful and important work. But it is\nwork for which we must qualify ourselves. The child is a human being,\nimmature, but yet, perhaps, a human being at his best. Who amongst\nus has such gifts of seeing, knowing, comprehending, imagining, such\ncapacities for loving, giving, believing, as the little child in the\nmidst! We have no higher praise for our wisest and best than that they\nare fresh and keen as little children in their interests and loves.\n\nNow, we maintain that it is not sufficient to bring unaided common\nsense and good intentions to this most delicate art of child-study. We\ncannot afford to discard the wisdom of the past and begin anew with the\neffort to collect and systematise, hoping to accomplish as much and\nmore in our short span than the centuries have brought us.\n\nIn this matter of lying, for example, unaided common sense is likely\nto start upon one of two theses: either the child is born true, and\nyou must keep him so; or, the child is born false, and you must cure\nhim of it. Popular opinion leans strongly to the first theory in these\ndays; and, as we perceive only that which we believe, the tendency\nis, perhaps, to take the absolute truthfulness and honour of children\na little too much for granted. If you would have children true, you\nmust, of course, treat them as if they were true, and believe them\nto be true. But, all the same, wisdom may not play the ostrich. In\nthe last generation, people accepted their children as born false,\nand, what more likely to make them so than this foregone conclusion?\nPossibly some falling off in truthfulness in our day is traceable to\nthe dogmatic teaching upon which our forbears were brought up.\n\nThe wisdom of the ages--_i.e._, philosophy, and the science of the\npresent, especially physiology, and more particularly what we may call\npsycho-physiology--show us that both these positions are wrong, and\nthat all theories founded upon either position, or upon any midway\npoint between the two, must needs be wrong too. A child is born neither\ntrue nor false. He is absolutely without either virtue or vice when\nhe comes into the world. He has tendencies, indeed, but these are no\nmore either virtuous or vicious than is the colour of his eyes. Even\nthe child of a liar is not necessarily born a liar, because, we are\nassured, acquired tendencies are not transmitted. But there is this\nto be said. The child born of a family which has from generation to\ngeneration been in a subject position may have less predisposition\nto truthfulness than the child of a family which has belonged for\ngenerations to the ruling class. As in the natural world all substances\nmust be reduced to their elements before they can be chemically dealt\nwith, so in the moral world, if we wish to treat an offence, it is best\nto trace it to that elemental property of human nature of which it is\nthe probable outcome. Now, lying, even in its worst forms, is by no\nmeans elemental. Ambition is elemental, avarice, vanity, gratitude,\nlove and hate. But lying arises from secondary causes. The treatment is\nall the more difficult. It is no longer a case of--the child has lied,\npunish him; but, where is the weak place in his character, or what is\nthe defect in his education, which has induced this lying habit, if it\nbe a habit? How shall we, not punish the lie, but treat the failing\nof which it is symptomatic. From this point of view let us consider\nthe extremely interesting classification of lies presented to us by an\nAmerican educationalist.[15]\n\nI. _Pseudophobia._ Janet _thinks_ she _may_ have glanced at Mary\u2019s\nslate, and seen the answer to her sum. A comparison of the two slates\nshows that she has not done so, and that Janet, in the effort to\nsave herself from a lie, has actually told one. This sort of morbid\nconscientiousness is Argus-eyed for other forms of sin. We knew a\nsick girl of fourteen, who was terribly unhappy because she was not\nable to kneel up in bed when she said her prayers. Was this the\n\u201cunpardonable sin\u201d? she asked, in unaffected terror. We agree with\nthe writer in question, as to the frequent occurrence of this form\nof distress, and also in tracing it, not to moral, but to physical\ncauses. We should say, too, it is more common in girls than in boys,\nand in the home-taught than in the school-taught child. Healthy\ninterests, out-of-door life, engrossing and delightful handiworks,\ngeneral occupation with things rather than with thoughts, and avoidance\nof any word or hint that may lead to self-consciousness or the habit\nof introspection, will probably do much to carry the young sufferer\nthrough a difficult stage of life.\n\nII. _The Lie Heroic._ The lie heroic is, _par excellence_, the\nschoolboy\u2019s lie, and has its rise, not in any love for lying, but in a\nwant of moral balance; that is to say, the boy has been left to form\nhis own code of ethics.\n\nWho spilled the ink? little Tom Brown is asked. \u201cI did,\u201d he says;\nbecause Jack Spender, the real culprit, is his particular hero at the\nmoment. Faithfulness to a friend is a far higher virtue in Tom\u2019s eyes\nthan mere barren truthfulness. And how is Tom to know, if he has not\nbeen taught, that it is unlawful to cherish one virtue at the expense\nof another. Considering how little clear, definite, authoritative\nteaching children receive on ethical questions, the wonder is that most\npersons do elaborate some kind of moral code, or code of honour, for\nthemselves.\n\nIII. _Truth for friends, lies for enemies._ A lie under this head\ndiffers from the lie heroic chiefly in that it need not bring any risk\nto the speaker. This class of lies again points to the moral ignorance\nwhich we are slow to recognise in children because we confound\ninnocence with virtue. It is quite natural for a child to believe that\ntruth is relative, and not absolute, and that whether a lie is a lie\nor not depends on whom you are speaking to. The children are in the\nposition of \u201cjesting Pilate.\u201d What is truth? they unconsciously ask.\n\nIV. _Lies inspired by selfishness._ This is a form of lying for which\nsuperficial treatment is quite idle. The lie and the vice of which it\nis the instrument are so allied that those two cannot be put asunder.\nProfessor Stanley Hall well points out that school is a fertile field\nfor this kind of lying. But it is the selfishness and not the lying\nthat must be dealt with. Cure the first, and the second disappears,\nhaving no further _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_. How? This is a hard question.\nNothing but a strong impulse to the heroism of unselfishness,\ninitiated and sustained by the grace of God, will deliver boy or girl\nfrom the vice of selfishness of which lying is the ready handmaid. But\nlet us not despair; _every_ boy and girl is open to such impulse, is\ncapable of heroic effort. Prayer and patience, and watchfulness for\nopportunities to convey the stimulating suggestion--these will not be\nin vain. _Every_ boy and girl is a hero _in posse_. There is no worse\ninfidelity than that which gives up the hope of mending any flaw of\ncharacter, however bad, in a young creature. All the same, happy those\nparents who have not allowed selfishness and virtue (whether in the\nform of truthfulness, or under some other name), to come to hand to\nhand conflict. It is easy to give direction to the tendencies of a\nchild; it is agonisingly difficult to alter the set of character in a\nman.\n\nV. _The Deception of imagination and play._ I passed little Muriel in\nthe park one day; the child was not looking; her companion was unknown\nto me. I was engaged with my companion, and believed that Muriel had\nnot noticed me. The little girl went home and told her mother that I\nhad kissed her and asked various questions about the family health.\nWhat could be the child\u2019s motive? She had none. Her active imagination\nrehearsed the little dialogue which most naturally would have taken\nplace; and this was so real to her that it obscured the fact. The\nreality, the truth, to Muriel, was what she imagined had taken place.\nShe had probably no recollection whatever of the actual facts. This\nsort of failure in verbal truthfulness is excessively common in\nimaginative children, and calls for prompt attention and treatment;\nbut not on the lines a hasty and righteous parent might be inclined\nto adopt. Here is no call for moral indignation. The parents and not\nthe child are in fault. The probability is that the child\u2019s ravenous\nimagination is not duly and daily supplied with its proper meat, of\nfairy tale in early days, of romance, later. Let us believe of the\nchildren that \u201ctrailing clouds of glory do they come\u201d from the place\nwhere all things are possible, where any delightful thing may happen.\nLet us believe that our miserable limitations of time and space and\nthe laws of matter irk them inconceivably, imprison the free soul as\na wild bird in a cage. If we refuse to give the child outlets into\nthe realms of fancy, where everything is possible, the delicate Ariel\nof his imagination will still work within our narrow limits upon our\npoor tasks, and every bit of our narrow living is played over with a\nthousand variations, apt to be more vivid and interesting than the poor\nfacts, and, therefore, more likely to remain with the child as the\nfacts which he will produce when required to speak the truth. What is\nthe cure? Give the child free entrance into, abundant joyous living in,\nthe kingdom of make-believe. Let him people every glen with fairies,\nevery island with Crusoes. Let him gift every bird and beast with human\ninterests, which he will share when the dear fairy godmother arrives\nwith an introduction. Let us be glad and rejoice that all things are\npossible to the children, recognising in this condition of theirs their\nfitness to receive and believe and understand, as, alas! we cannot do,\nthe things of the Kingdom of God. The age of faith is a great sowing\ntime, doubtless designed, in the Divine scheme of things, especially\nthat parents may make their children at home in the things of the\nSpirit before contact with the world shall have materialised them.\n\nAt the same time the more imaginative the child, the more essential is\nit that the boundaries of the kingdom of make-believe should be clearly\ndefined, and exact truthfulness insisted upon in all that concerns\nthe narrower world where the grown-ups live. It is simply a matter\nof careful education; daily lessons in exact statement, without any\nhorror or righteous indignation about misstatements, but warm, loving\nencouragement to the child who gives a long message quite accurately,\nwho tells you just what Miss Brown said and no more, just what happened\nat Harry\u2019s party, without any garnish. Every day affords scope for a\ndozen little lessons at least, and, gradually, the more severe beauty\nof truth will dawn upon the child whose soul is already possessed by\nthe grace of fiction.\n\nVI. _Pseudomania._ We have little to say on this score, except to\ncounsel parents to keep watch at the place of the letting out of\nwaters. No doubt the condition is pathological, and calls for curative\ntreatment rather than punishment. But we believe it is a condition\nwhich never need be set up. The girl who has been able to win esteem\nfor what she really is and really does, is not tempted to \u201cpose,\u201d\nand the boy who has found full outlet for his energies, physical and\nmental, has no part of himself left to spend upon \u201chumbugging.\u201d This\nis one of the cases which show how important it is for parents to\nacquaint themselves with that delicate borderland of human nature which\ntouches the material and the spiritual. How spiritual thought and\nmaterial brain interact; how brain and nerves are inter-dependent; how\nfresh air and wholesome food affect the condition of the blood which\nnourishes the nerves; how the nerves again may bear tyrannous sway over\nall that we include under \u201cbodily health;\u201d these are matters that the\nparent should know who would avoid the possibility of the degradation\ndescribed as Pseudomania from being set up in any one of his children.\n\nIt is as well that those who have to do with young people should\nbe familiar with one or two marked signs of this mentally diseased\ncondition; as, the furtive glance from under half-closed lids, shot up\nto see how you are taking it all; the flowing recital, accompanied by a\nslightly absent pre-occupied look, which denotes that the speaker is in\nthe act of inventing the facts he relates.\n\nWe have not space to enlarge upon _palliatives_, _lies of terror_,\nor one or two more classes of lies, which seem to us of frequent\noccurrence, as _lies of display_ (boasting), _lies of carelessness_\n(inaccuracy), and, worst of all, _lies of malice_ (false witness).\n\nWe would only commend the subject to the attention of parents;\nfor, though one child may have more aptitude than another, neither\ntruthfulness nor the multiplication table come by nature. The child who\nappears to be perfectly truthful is so because he has been carefully\ntrained to truthfulness, however indirectly and unconsciously. It is\nmore important to cultivate the habit of truth than to deal with the\naccident of lying.\n\nMoral teaching must be as simple, direct and definite as the teaching\nwhich appeals to the intellect; presented with religious sanctions,\nquickened by religious impulses, but not limited to the prohibitions of\nthe law nor to the penalties which overtake the transgressor.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [15] Professor G. Stanley Hall, in an article which\n appeared in the _American Journal of Psychology_, Jan.\n 1891.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XX\n\n _SHOW CAUSE WHY_\n\n\nWe have been asking, WHY? like Mr. Ward Fowler\u2019s Wagtail, for a long\ntime. We asked, Why? about linen underclothing, and behold it is\ndiscarded. We asked Why? about numberless petticoats, and they are\ngoing. We are asking Why? about carpets and easy chairs, and all\nmanner of luxurious living; and probably the year 1900 will see of\nthese things only the survivals. It is well we should go about with\nthis practical Why? rather than with the \u201cWhy does a wagtail wag its\ntail?\u201d manner of problem. The latter issues in vain guesses, and the\npseudo-knowledge which puffeth up. But if, Why? leads us to--\u201cBecause\nwe should not; then, let us do the thing we should.\u201d--This manner of\nWhy? is like a poker to a dying fire.\n\nWhy is Tom Jones sent to school? That he may be educated, of course,\nsay his parents. And Tom is dismissed with the fervent hope that he may\ntake a good place. But never a word about the delights of learning, or\nof the glorious worlds of nature and of thought to which his school\nstudies will presumably prove an open sesame. \u201cMind you be a good\nboy and get a good place in your class,\u201d is Tom\u2019s valediction; and\nhis little soul quickens with purpose. He won\u2019t disappoint father,\nand mother shall be proud of him. He\u2019ll be the top boy in his class.\nWhy, he\u2019ll be the top boy in the whole school, and get prizes and\nthings, and won\u2019t that be jolly! Tommy says nothing of this, but his\nmother sees it in his eyes and blesses the manly little fellow. So\nTommy goes to school, happy boy, freighted with his father\u2019s hopes and\nhis mother\u2019s blessings. By-and-by comes a report, the main delight\nof which is, that Tommy has gained six places; more places gained,\nprizes, removes--by-and-by scholarships. Before he is twelve, Tommy is\nable to earn the whole of his future schooling by his skill in that\nindustry of the young popularly known as _Exams_. Now he aims at larger\ngame; \u201cexams\u201d still, but \u201cexams\u201d big with possibilities, \u201cexams\u201d which\nwill carry him through his University career. His success is pretty\ncertain, because you get into the trick of \u201cexams\u201d as of other crafts.\nHis parents are congratulated, Tom is more or less of a hero in his\nown eyes and in those of his compeers. Examinations for ever! Hip,\nhip! Never was a more facile way for a youth to distinguish himself,\nthat is, if his parents have sent him into the world blessed with any\ninheritance of brains. For the boy not so blessed--why, he may go to\nthe Colonies and that will make a man of him.\n\nThe girls come in a close second. The \u201cJunior,\u201d the \u201cSenior,\u201d the\n\u201cHigher,\u201d the \u201cIntermediate,\u201d the \u201cB.A.,\u201d and what else you will, mark\nthe epochs in most girls\u2019 lives. Better, say you, than having no epochs\nat all. Unquestionably, yes. But the fact that a successful examination\nof one sort or another is the goal towards which most of our young\npeople are labouring, with feverish haste and with undue anxiety, is\none which possibly calls for the scrutiny of the investigating Why?\n\nIn the first place, people rarely accomplish beyond their own aims.\nThe aim is a pass, not knowledge, \u201cthey cram to pass and not to know;\nthey do pass and they don\u2019t know,\u201d says Mr. Ruskin; and most of us\nwho know the \u201ccandidate\u201d will admit that there is some truth in the\nepigram. There are, doubtless, people who pass and who also know, but,\neven so, it is open to question, whether passing is the most direct,\nsimple, natural and efficacious way of securing knowledge, or whether\nthe persons who pass _and_ know are not those keen and original minds\nwhich would get blood out of stone,--anyway, sap out of sawdust.\nAgain--except for the fine power of resistance possessed by the human\nmind, which secures that most persons who go through examination grind\ncome out as they went in, absolutely unbiassed towards any intellectual\npursuits whatever--except for this, the tendency of the grind is to\nimperil that individuality which is the one incomparably precious\nbirthright of each of us. The very fact of a public examination compels\nthat all who go in for it must study on the same lines.\n\nIt will be urged that there is no necessary limitation to studies\noutside the examination syllabus, nor any restrictions whatever as to\nthe direction of study even upon the syllabus; but this is a mistake.\nWhatever public examinations a given school takes, the whole momentum\nof pupils and staff urges towards the great issue. As to the manner of\nstudy, this is ruled by the style of questions set in a given subject;\nand Dry-as-dust wins the day because it is easier and fairer to give\nmarks upon definite facts than upon mere ebullitions of fancy or\ngenius. So it comes to pass that there is absolutely no choice as to\nthe matter or manner of their studies for most boys and girls who go to\nschool, nor, for many of those who work at home. For, so great is the\nconvenience of a set syllabus that parents and teachers are glad to\navail themselves of it.\n\nIt appears then that the boy is in bondage to the schoolmaster, and\nthe schoolmaster to the examiner, and the parents do no more than\nacquiesce. Would parents be astounded if they found themselves in this\nmatter a little like the man who had talked prose all his life without\nknowing it? The tyranny of the competitive examination is supported\nfor the most part by parents. We do not say altogether. Teachers do\ntheir part manfully; but, in the first place, teachers unsupported by\nparents have no power at all in the matter; not a single candidate\ncould they present beyond their own sons and daughters; in the next\nplace, we do not hesitate to say that the whole system is forced upon\nteachers (though, perhaps, by no means against their will) by certain\nugly qualities of human nature as manifested in parents. Ignorance,\nidleness, vanity, avarice, do not carry a pleasant sound; and if we,\nwho believe in parents, have the temerity to suggest such shadows to\nthe father basking in the sunshine of his boy\u2019s success, we would add\nthat the rest of us who are not parents are still more to blame; that\nit is terribly hard to run counter to the current of the hour; and\nthat, \u201charm is wrought through want of thought.\u201d\n\nIgnorance is excusable, but wilful ignorance is culpable, and the\ntime has come for the thoughtful parent to examine himself and see\nwhether or no it be his duty to make a stand against the competitive\nexamination system. Observe, the evil lies in the competition, not\nin the examination. If the old axiom be true, that the mind can know\nnothing but what it can produce in the form of an answer to a question\nput by the mind itself, it is relatively true that knowledge conveyed\nfrom without must needs be tested from without. Probably, work on a\ngiven syllabus tested by a final examination is _the_ condition of\ndefinite knowledge and steady progress. All we contend for is that\nthe examination shall not be competitive. It will be urged that it\nis unfair to rank such public examinations as the Universities\u2019\nLocal--which have done infinitely much to raise the standard of\nmiddle-class education, especially amongst girls, and upon which\nneither prize nor place depends--as competitive examinations. They\nare rarely competitive, it is true, in the sense of any extraneous\nreward to the fortunate candidate; but, happily, we are not so far gone\nfrom original righteousness but that Distinction is its own reward.\nThe pupil is willing to labour, and rightly so, for the honour of a\npass which distinguishes him among the _\u00e9lite_ of his school. The\nschools themselves compete (_con_ + _petere_ = to seek with) as to\nwhich shall send in the greatest number of candidates and come out\nwith the greatest number of Honours, Scholarships, and what not. These\ndistinctions are well advertised, and the parent who is on the look-out\nfor a school for his boy is all too ready to send him where the chances\nof distinction are greatest. Examinations which include the whole\nschool, and where every boy has his place on the list, higher or lower,\nare another thing; though these also appeal to the emulous principle,\nthey do not do so in excess, the point to be noted.\n\nBut, why should so useful an incentive to work as a competitive\nexamination be called in question? There are certain facts which may be\npredicated of every human being who is not, as the country folk say,\n\u201cwanting.\u201d Every one wants to get on; whatever place we occupy we aim\nat the next above it. Every one wants to get rich, or, anyway, richer;\nwhether the wealth he chooses to acquire be money or autographs. Every\none wants the society of his fellows; if he does not, we call him a\nmisanthrope and say, to use another popular and telling phrase, \u201cHe\u2019s\nnot quite right.\u201d We all want to excel, to do better than the rest,\nwhether in a tennis-match or an examination. We all want to know,\nthough some of us are content to know our neighbours\u2019 affairs, while\nothers would fain know about the stars in their courses. We all, from\nthe sergeant in his stripes to the much decorated commanding officer,\nwant people to think well of us. Now these several desires, of power,\nof wealth, of society, of excelling, of knowledge, of esteem, are\nprimary springs of action in every human being. Touch any one of them,\nin savage or in _savant_, and you cannot fail of a response. The\nRussian Moujik besieges a passing traveller with questions about the\nlands he has seen, because he _wants to know_. The small boy gambles\nwith his marbles because he _wants to get_. The dairymaid dons a new\nbow because she _wants to be admired_, the only form of esteem to which\nshe is awake. Tom drives when the children play horses because he\n_wants to rule_. Maud works herself into a fever for her examination\nbecause she _wants to excel_, and \u201cto pass\u201d is the hallmark of\nexcellence, that is, of those who excel.\n\nNow these primary desires are neither virtuous nor vicious. They are\ncommon to us all and necessary to us all, and appear to play the same\npart towards our spiritual being that the appetites do to our material\nexistence; that is, they stimulate us to the constant effort which\nis the condition of progress, and at the same time the condition of\nhealth. We know how that soul stagnates which thinks nothing worth an\neffort. He is a poor thing who is content to be beaten on all hands.\nWe do not quarrel with the principle of emulation, any more than we do\nwith that of respiration. The one is as natural and as necessary as the\nother, and as little to be brought before a moral tribunal. But it is\nthe part of the educator to recognise that a child does not come into\nthe world a harp with one string; and that the perpetual play upon this\none chord through all the years of adolescence is an evil, not because\nemulation is a vicious principle, but because the balance of character\nis destroyed by the constant stimulation of this one desire at the\nexpense of the rest.\n\nEqually strong, equally natural, equally sure of awakening a responsive\nstir in the young soul, is the divinely implanted principle of\ncuriosity. The child _wants to know_: wants to know incessantly,\ndesperately; asks all manner of questions about everything he comes\nacross, plagues his elders and betters, and is told not to bother, and\nto be a good boy and not ask questions. But this only sometimes. For\nthe most part we lay ourselves out to answer Tommy\u2019s questions so far\nas we are able, and are sadly ashamed that we are so soon floored by\nhis insatiable curiosity about natural objects and phenomena. Tommy has\nhis reward. The most surprising educational feat accomplished amongst\nus is the amount of knowledge, about everything within his range, which\nTommy has acquired by the end of his sixth year. \u201cWhy, he knows as much\nas I do, about\u201d--this, and that, and the other, says his astonished\nand admiring father. Take him to the seaside, and in a week he will\ntell you all about trawling and mackerel fishing; the ways of the\nfisher-folk, and all that his inquisitive mind can find out unaided.\nHe would tell all about sand, and shells, and tides, and waves, only,\npoor little boy, he must have help towards this manner of knowledge,\nand there is no one to give it to him. However, he finds out all that\nhe can about all that he sees and hears, and does amass a surprising\namount of exact knowledge about things and their properties.\n\nWhen Tommy goes to school, his parents find themselves relieved of the\ninconvenience of his incessant Why? They are probably so well pleased\nto be let off that it does not occur to them to ask themselves Why\nTommy no longer wonders Why? Up to this period nature has been active.\nShe has been allowed to stimulate that one of his desires most proper\nto minister to his mental growth, just as, if let alone, she would give\nhim that hearty appetite which should promote his physical growth.\nShe has it all her own way. The desire of knowledge is that spring of\naction most operative in Tommy\u2019s childhood. But he goes to school.\nKnowledge is a pure delight to Tommy. Let his lessons approach him on\nthe lines of his nature--not on the lines proper for certain subjects\nof instruction--and the little boy has no choice. He cannot help\nlearning and loving to learn, \u201c\u2018cos \u2019tis his nature to.\u201d\n\nThis, of presenting knowledge to Tommy on the lines of his nature, is,\nhowever, a difficult and delicate task. Not every schoolmaster, any\nmore than every parent, is keen to give Tommy what he wants in this\nmatter of needful knowledge. So, once upon a time, let us suppose,\nthere arose a pedagogue to whom was discovered a new and easier way.\nThe morning had seen the poor man badly baffled by the queries of\nboys who _wanted to know_. How was a man, who had pretty well done\nwith fresh studies for his own part, to keep up with these eager\nintelligences. In a vision of the night it is disclosed to Cognitus\nthat there is another and an easier way. The desire of knowledge is not\nthe only desire active in the young bosom. Just as much as he wants to\nknow, he wants to excel, to do better than the rest. \u201cEvery soul of\nthem wants to be first in one way or another--first in games, if not\nin class.\u201d Now, Cognitus was a philosopher; he knew that, as a rule,\nbut one desire is supremely active at one time in the breast of boy\nor man. Kindle their emulation, and all must needs do the same thing\nin the same way to see who can do it best. The boys will no longer\n_want to know_; they will get their due share of learning in regular\nways, and really get on better than if they were moved by the restless\nspirit of inquiry. _Eureka!_ A discovery; honour and renown for master\nand boys,--no need for cane or imposition, for emulation is the best\nof all disciplinarians,--and steady-going, quiet work, without any\nof the fatiguing excursions into new fields to which the craving for\nknowledge leads. \u201cHow pleased the parents will be, too,\u201d says Cognitus,\nfor he knows that paternal love, now and then, looks for a little\nsustenance from paternal vanity, that the child who does well is dear.\nNay, who knows but the far-seeing Cognitus beheld, as in a vision, the\nscholarships and money awards which should help to fill the pocket of\nPaternus, or should, any way, lessen the drain thereupon. Here, indeed,\nis a better way, upon which Paternus and Cognitus may well consent to\nwalk together. Every one is happy, every one content, nobody worried,\na great deal of learning got in. What would you have more? Just one\nthing, honoured Cognitus, that keen desire for knowledge, that same\nincessant Why? with which Tommy went to school, and which should\nhave kept him inquisitive about all things good and great and wise\nthroughout the years given to him wherein to lay the groundwork of\ncharacter, the years of his youth.\n\nWe cannot put our finger upon Cognitus, and are pretty sure that he\narrived by a consensus of opinion, and through considerable urgency\non the part of parents. No one is to blame for a condition of things\nwhich is an enormous advance upon much of what went before. Only,\nknowledge is advancing, and it is full time that we reconsider our\neducational principles and recast our methods. We absolutely must get\nrid of the competitive examination system if we would not be reduced to\nthe appalling mediocrity which we see in China, for example, to have\nbefallen an examination-ridden empire. Probably the world has never\nseen a finer body of educationalists than those who at the present\nmoment man our schools, both Boys\u2019 and Girls\u2019. But the originality,\nthe fine initiative, of these most able men and women is practically\nlost. The schools are examination-ridden, and the heads can strike out\nno important new lines. Let us begin our efforts by believing in one\nanother, parents in teachers and teachers in parents. Both parents and\nteachers have the one desire, the advance of the child along the lines\nof character. Both groan equally under the limitations of the present\nsystem. Let us have courage, and united and concerted action will\noverthrow this Juggernaut that we have made.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n\n _HERBARTIAN PEDAGOGICS_\n\n\nWe in England require, every now and then, to pull ourselves\ntogether, and to ask what they are doing on the continent in the way\nof education. We still hark back to the older German educational\nreformers. We may not know much of Comenius, Basedow, Ratich; we\ndo know something of the reformers next in descent, Pestalozzi and\nFroebel; but how much do we know of the thought of Johann Friedrich\nHerbart, the lineal successor of these, who has largely displaced his\npredecessors in the field of Pedagogics.\n\nHow entirely German educators work upon Herbart, and Herbart only, is\nproved by the existence of a Herbartian educational literature greatly\nmore extensive than the whole of our English educational literature put\ntogether.\n\nA little volume on the \u201cOutlines of Pedagogics,\u201d[16] by Professor W.\nRein, of the University of Jena, is offered to us by the translators,\nC. C. and Ida J. Van Liew, as a brief introduction to the study of\nHerbart and his school, the author making due allowance for the\nadvances that have been made in the fifty years that have elapsed since\nHerbart\u2019s death.\n\nAs Herbart and his interpreters represent the most advanced school of\neducational thought on the continent, it will, perhaps, be interesting\nto our readers to make a slight comparison between what we call\n_P.N.E.U. Philosophy_ and the school of thought which exercises such\nimmense influence in Germany.\n\nOne of the most characteristic features of Herbart\u2019s thinking, and\nthat feature of it which constitutes a new school of educational\nthought, is, that he rejects the notion of separate mental faculties.\nThe earlier reformers, notably Pestalozzi and Froebel, divide the\nfaculties up with something of the precision of a phrenologist, and\na chief business of education is, according to them, \u201cto develop the\nfaculties.\u201d There is a certain pleasing neatness in this idea which\nis very attractive. We want to know, definitely, what we have to do.\nWhy develop the perceptive faculties here, the conceptive there, the\njudgment in this lesson, the affections in the other, until you have\ncovered the whole ground, giving each so-called faculty its due share\nof developmental exercise! But, says Herbart, we have changed all that.\nThe mind, like Wordsworth\u2019s cloud, moves altogether when it moves at\nall.\n\nNow this appears to be but a slight fundamental difference, but it\nis one upon the recognition of which education changes front. The\nwhole system of beautifully organised lessons, whose object is to\ndevelop this or that, is called into question. For the _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_\nof specialised intellectual gymnastics is gone when we no longer\nrecognise particular \u201cmuscles\u201d of the mind to be developed. The aim\nof education must be something quite other, and, if the aim is other,\nthe methods must be altered, for what is method but _a way to an\nend_. So far we are entirely with Herbart; we do not believe in the\n\u201cfaculties;\u201d therefore we do not believe in the \u201cdevelopment of the\nfaculties;\u201d therefore we do not regard lessons as instruments for this\n\u201cdevelopment\u201d: in fact, our whole method of procedure is altered.\n\nAgain, we are with the philosopher in his recognition of the force of\nan idea, and especially of those ideas which are, as we phrase it,\nin the air at any given moment. \u201cBoth the circle of the family and\nthat of social intercourse are subjected to forces that are active in\nthe entire social body, and that penetrate the entire atmosphere of\nhuman life in invisible channels. No one knows whence these currents,\nthese ideas arise; but they are there. They influence the moods, the\naspirations, and the inclinations of humanity, and no one however\npowerful can withdraw himself from their effects; no sovereign\u2019s\ncommand makes its way into their depths. They are often born of a\ngenius to be seized upon by the multitude that soon forgets their\nauthor; then the power of the thought that has thus become active\nin the masses again impels the individual to energetic resolutions:\nin this manner it is constantly describing a remarkable circle.\nOriginating with those that are highly gifted, these thoughts permeate\nall society, reaching, in fact, not only its adult members, but also\nthrough these its youth, and appearing again in other highly gifted\nindividuals in whom they will perhaps have been elevated to a definite\nform.\n\n\u201cWhether the power of these dominant ideas is greater in the\nindividual, or in the body of individuals as a whole, is a matter\nof indifference here. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that\ntheir effect upon the one is manifested in a reciprocal action upon\nthe other, and that their influence upon the younger generation is\nindisputable.\u201d\n\nWe entirely agree that no one can escape the influence of this\nZeitgeist, and that the Zeitgeist is, in fact, one of the most\npowerful of the occult educational influences, and one which parents\nand all who have the training of children will do well to reckon with\nin the adjustment of their work.\n\nNature, family, social intercourse, this Zeitgeist, the Church and\nthe State, thus Professor Rein, as interpreting Herbart, sums up the\nschoolmasters under whose influences every child grows up; a suggestive\nenumeration we should do well to consider. \u201c_Erziehung ist Sache\nder Familien; von da geht sie aus und dahin kehrt sie gr\u00f6ssenteils\nzur\u00fcck_,\u201d says Herbart. He considers, as do we, that by far the most\nvaluable part of education is carried on in the family, because of the\nunion of all the members under a common parentage, of the feeling of\ndependence upon a head, of the very intimate knowledge to be gained of\nthe younger members.\n\n\u201cThe members of the family look confidently to the head; and this\nsense of dependence favours, at the same time, the proper reception\nof that which is dearest to mankind, namely, the religious feeling.\nIf the life of the family is permeated by a noble piety, a sincere\nreligious faith will take root in the hearts of the children. Faithful\ndevotion to the guide of the youth also calls forth faithful devotion\nto Him who controls human destinies--a thought which Herbart expresses\nso beautifully in the words--\u2018To the child, the family should be the\nsymbol of the order in the world; from the parents one should derive by\nidealisation the characteristics of the deity.\u2019\u201d\n\nThis idea of all education springing from and resting upon our relation\nto Almighty God is one which we of the P.N.E.U. have ever laboured to\nenforce. We take a very distinct stand upon this point. We do not\nmerely give a _religious_ education, because that would seem to imply\nthe possibility of some other education, a secular education, for\nexample. But we hold that all education is divine, that every good\ngift of knowledge and insight comes from above, that the Lord the Holy\nSpirit is the supreme educator of mankind, and that the culmination\nof all education (which may, at the same time, be reached by a little\nchild) is that personal knowledge of and intimacy with the Supreme,\nin which our being finds its fullest perfection. We hold, in fact,\nthat noble conception of education held by the medi\u00e6val church, as\npictured upon the walls of the Spanish chapel in Florence. Here we have\nrepresented the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Twelve, and directly\nunder them, fully under the illuminating rays, are the noble figures\nof the seven liberal arts, Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Music, Astronomy,\nGeometry, Arithmetic, and under these again the men who received\nand expressed, so far as we know, the initial idea in each of these\nsubjects; such men as Pythagoras, Zoroaster, Euclid, whom we might call\npagans, but whom the earlier Church recognised as divinely taught and\nilluminated.\n\nHere follows a passage which we do more than endorse, for it contains\nthe very _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of our society. \u201cThe education of the children\nwill always remain the holiest and highest of all family duties. The\nwelfare, civilisation, and culture of a people depend essentially\nupon the degree of success that attends the education in the homes.\nThe family principle is the point at which both the religious and\neducational life of a people centres, and about which it revolves. It\nis a force in comparison with which every sovereign\u2019s command appears\npowerless.\u201d\n\nBy the way, we are inclined to think that Dr. Rein\u2019s mention of\nRousseau is a little misleading. It is true that in \u201cEmil\u201d the parents\nare supplanted, but, notwithstanding that fact, perhaps no other\neducationalist has done so much to awaken parents to their great work\nas educators. After investigating the conditions of home training,\nDr. Rein proceeds to a discussion of schools (_a_) as they exist in\nGermany--(_b_) as they exist in his own ideal, a discussion which\nshould be most interesting to parents.\n\nTeleology, _i.e._, the theory of the purpose of education, falls next\nunder discussion in an extremely instructive chapter. It is well we\nshould know the vast uncertainty which exists on this fundamental\npoint. As a matter of fact, few of us know definitely what we propose\nto ourselves in the education of our children. We do not know what it\nis possible to effect, and, as a man does not usually compass more\nthan he aims at, the results of our education are very inadequate and\nunsatisfactory.\n\n\u201cShall the educator follow Rousseau and educate a man of nature in the\nmidst of civilised men? In so doing, as Herbart has shown, we should\nsimply repeat from the beginning the entire series of evils that have\nalready been surmounted. Or shall we turn to Locke and prepare the\npupil for the world which is customarily in league with worldlings? We\nshould then arrive at the standpoint of Basedow, and aim to educate the\npupil so that he would become a truly useful member of human society.\nOf course we should always be harassed with the secret doubt as to\nwhether this is the ideal purpose after all, and whether we are not at\ntimes directly enjoined to place the pupil at variance with the usage\nand customary dealings of the world. If we reflect that an endless\ncareer is open to man for his improvement, we realise that only that\neducation, whose aims are always the highest, can hope to reach the\nlofty goals that mark this career.\n\n\u201cTherefore an ideal aim must be present in the mind of the educator.\nPossibly he can obtain information and help from Pestalozzi, whose\nnature evinced such ideal tendencies. Pestalozzi wished the welfare of\nmankind to be sought in the harmonious cultivation of _all_ powers.\nIf one only knew what is to be understood by a multiplicity of mental\npowers, and what is meant by the _harmony_ of various powers. These\nphrases sound very attractive, but give little satisfaction. The purely\n_formal_ aims of education will appeal just as little to the educator:\n\u2018Educate the pupil to independence;\u2019 or, \u2018educate the pupil to be his\nown educator;\u2019 or, \u2018educate the pupil so that it will become better\nthan its educator.\u2019 (Hermann and Dorothea, Hector and Astyanax in the\nIliad). Such and similar attempts to fix the purpose of education are\nabundant in the history of pedagogy; but they do not bring us nearer\nthe goal. In their formal character they do not say, for example, of\nwhat kind the independence shall be, what content it shall have, what\naims it shall have in view, or in what directions its course shall lie.\nFor the pupil that has become independent can use his freedom rightly\nfor good just as well as misuse it for evil.\u201d\n\nHerbart\u2019s own theory of education, so far as we may venture to\nformulate it, is strictly ethical as opposed to intellectual, that\nis, the development and sustenance of the intellect is of secondary\nimportance to the educator for two reasons: character building is the\nmatter of first importance to human beings; and this because, (_a_)\ntrain character and intellectual \u201cdevelopment\u201d largely takes care\nof itself, and (_b_) the lessons designed for intellectual culture\nhave high ethical value, whether stimulating or disciplinary. This is\nfamiliar ground to us: we too have taught, in season and out of season,\nthat the formation of character is the aim of the educator. So far,\nwe are at one with the philosopher; but, may we venture to say it, we\nhave arrived, through the study of Physiology, at the definiteness of\naim which he desires but does not reach. We must appeal, he says, to\nPsychology, but then, he adds, \u201cof course we cannot expect a concordant\nanswer from all psychologists; and in view of the obscurity which still\nprevails in this sphere, the different views as to the nature of the\nhuman soul and the extraordinary difficulty with which the empirical\nmethod of investigation meets, an absolutely indubitable explanation\ncan hardly be expected.\u201d\n\nThis is doubtless true of Psychology alone, but of Psychology\nilluminated by Physiology we have another tale to tell. It is the study\nof that border-land betwixt mind and matter, the brain, which yields\nthe richest results to the educator. For the brain is the seat of\nhabit: the culture of habit is, to a certain extent, physical culture:\nthe discipline of habit is at least a third part of the great whole\nwhich we call education, and here we feel that the physical science of\nto-day has placed us far in advance of the great philosopher of fifty\nyears ago. We hold with him entirely as to the importance of great\nformative ideas in the education of children, but, we add to our ideas,\nhabits, and we labour to form habits upon a physical basis. Character\nis the result not merely of the great ideas which are given to us, but\nof the habits which we labour to form _upon those ideas_. We recognise\nboth principles and the result is a wide range of possibilities\nin education, practical methods, and a definite aim. We labour to\nproduce a human being at his best physically, mentally, morally, and\nspiritually, with the enthusiasms of religion, the good life, of\nnature, of knowledge, of art and of manual work; and we do _not_ labour\nin the dark.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [16] Sonnenschein & Co., 3s.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII\n\n _THE TEACHING OF THE \u201cPARENTS\u2019 NATIONAL\n EDUCATIONAL UNION\u201d_\n\n PART I\n\n\nOne of Mr. Matthew Arnold\u2019s discriminating utterances may help us in\nthe effort to define anew the scope and the methods of education. In\n\u201cA French Eton\u201d (page 61) he says:--\u201cThe education of each class in\nsociety has, or ought to have, its ideal, determined by the wants of\nthat class, and by its destination. Society may be imagined so uniform\nthat one education shall be suitable for all its members; we have not\na society of that kind, nor has any European country.... Looking at\nEnglish society at this moment, one may say that the ideal for the\neducation of each of its classes to follow, the aim which the education\nof each should particularly endeavour to reach, is different.\u201d\n\nThis remark helps us to define our position. We lay no claim to\noriginal ideas or methods. We cannot choose but profit by the work of\nthe great educators. Such men as Locke and Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and\nFroebel, have left us an inheritance of educational thought which we\nmust needs enter upon.\n\nOur work is selective, but not merely so. We are progressive. We take\nwhat former thinkers have left us, and go on from there.\n\nFor example, in this matter of class differentiation, we believe we\nhave scientific grounds for a line of our own. The Fathers (why should\nwe not have Fathers in education as well as in theology?) worked out,\nfor the most part, their educational thought with an immediate view to\nthe children of the poor. Because the children that he had to deal with\nhad a limited vocabulary, and untrained observing powers, Pestalozzi\ntaught them to see and then to say: \u201cI see a hole in the carpet. I see\na small hole in the carpet. I see a small round hole in the carpet. I\nsee a small round hole with a black edge in the carpet,\u201d and so on;\nand it is very easy to see how good such training would be for such\nchildren. But what is the case with the children we have to deal with?\nWe believe to-day on scientific grounds in the doctrine of heredity,\nand certainly in this matter experience supports our faith.\n\n_Punch_ has hit off the state of the case: \u201cCome and see the puff-puff,\ndear.\u201d \u201cDo you mean the _locomotive_, grandmamma?\u201d As a matter of\nfact, the child of four and five has a wider, more exact vocabulary\nin everyday use, than that employed by his elders and betters, and\nis constantly adding to this vocabulary with surprising quickness;\n_ergo_, to give a child of this class a vocabulary is no part of direct\neducation. Again, we know that nothing escapes the keen scrutiny of the\nlittle people. It is not their perceptive powers we have to train, but\nthe habit of methodical observation and accurate record.\n\nGenerations of physical toil do not tend to foster imagination. How\ngood, then, for the children of the working classes to have games\ninitiated for them, to be carried through little dramatic plays until,\nperhaps, in the end they will be able to invent such little dramas for\nthemselves!\n\nBut the children of the cultured classes--why, surely their danger\nis rather to live too much in realms of fancy. A single sentence in\nlesson or talk, the slightest sketch of an historical character, and\nthey will play at it for a week, inventing endless incidents. Like\nTennyson, when he was a child, they will carry on the story of the\nsiege and defence of a castle (represented by a mound, with sticks for\nits garrison) for weeks together, and a child engrossed with these\nlarger interests feels a sensible loss of dignity when he flaps his\nwings as a pigeon or skips about as a lamb, though, no doubt, he will\ndo these things with pleasure for the teacher he loves. Imagination is\nravenous for food, not pining for culture, in the children of educated\nparents, and education need not concern herself directly, for them,\nwith the development of the conceptive powers. Then with regard to the\ncultivated child\u2019s reasoning powers, most parents have had experiences\nof this kind--Tommy is five. His mother had occasion to talk to\nhim about the Atlantic Cable, and said she did not know how it was\ninsulated; Tommy remarked next morning that he had been thinking about\nit, and perhaps the water itself was an insulator. So far from needing\nto develop their children\u2019s reasoning powers, most parents say--\u201cOh,\nwad the gods the giftie gie us\u201d--to answer the everlasting \u2018why\u2019 of the\nintelligent child.\n\nIn a word, to develop the child\u2019s so-called faculties is the main work\nof education when _ignorant_ or otherwise _deficient_ children are\nconcerned; but the children of educated people are never _ignorant_\nin this sense. They awake to the world all agog for knowledge, and\nwith keen-edged faculties; therefore the principle of heredity causes\nus to recast our idea of the office of education, and to recognise\nthat the child of intelligent parents is born with an inheritance of\nself-developing faculties.\n\nThus education naturally divides itself into education for the\nchildren of _lettered_, and education for the children of _unlettered_\nparents. In fact, this class question, which we are all anxious to\nevade in common life, comes practically into force in education. It is\nabsolutely necessary to individualise and say, this part of education\nis the most important for _this_ child, or _this_ class, but may be\nrelegated into a lower place for another child or another class.\n\nIf science limits our range of work as regards the development of\nso-called faculties, it extends it in equal measure with regard to\nhabit. Here we have no new doctrine to proclaim. \u201cOne custom overcometh\nanother,\u201d said Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, and that is all we have to say; only\nphysiologists have made clear to us the _rationale_ of this law of\nhabit. We know that to form in his child right habits of thinking and\nbehaving is a parent\u2019s chief duty, and that this can be done for every\nchild definitely and within given limits of time. But this question has\nbeen already dealt with, and we need do no more than remind parents of\nwhat they already know.\n\nTo nourish a child daily with loving, right, and noble ideas we believe\nto be the parent\u2019s next duty. The child having once received the Idea\nwill assimilate it in his own way, and work it into the fabric of\nhis life; and a single sentence from his mother\u2019s lips may give him\na bent that will make him, or may tend to make him, painter or poet,\nstatesman or philanthropist. The object of lessons should be in the\nmain twofold: to train a child in certain mental habits, as attention,\naccuracy, promptness, &c., and to nourish him with ideas which may bear\nfruit in his life.\n\nThere are other educational principles which we bear in mind and\nwork out, but for the moment it is worth while for us to concentrate\nour thought upon the fact that one of our objects is to accentuate\nthe importance of education under the two heads of the _formation\nof habits_ and the _presentation of ideas_, and as a corollary to\nrecognise that the _development_ of _faculties_ is not a supreme object\nwith the cultivated classes, because this is work which has been done\nfor their children in a former generation.\n\nBut how does all this work? Is it practical? Is it the question of\nto-day? It must needs be practical because it gives the fullest\nrecognition to the two principles of human nature, the _material_, and\nthe _spiritual_. We are ready to concede all that the most advanced\nbiologist would ask of us. Does he say, \u201cThought is only a mode of\nmotion?\u201d if so, we are not dismayed. We know that ninety-nine out of\na hundred thoughts that pass through our minds are involuntary, the\ninevitable result of those modifications of the brain tissue which\nhabit has set up. The mean man thinks mean thoughts, the magnanimous\nman great thoughts, because we all think as we are accustomed to\nthink, and Physiology shows us why. On the other hand, we recognise\nthat greater is the spirit within us than the matter which it governs.\nEvery habit has its beginning. The beginning is the _idea_ which comes\nwith a stir and takes possession of us. The _idea_ is the motive power\nof life, and it is because we recognise the spiritual potency of the\n_idea_ that we are able to bow reverently before the fact that God the\nHoly Spirit is Himself the Supreme Educator, dealing with each of us\nseverally in the things we call sacred and those we call secular. We\nlay ourselves open to the spiritual impact of ideas whether these be\nconveyed by the printed page, the human voice, or whether they reach us\nwithout visible sign.\n\nBut ideas may be evil or may be good; and to choose between the ideas\nthat present themselves is, as we have been taught, the one responsible\nwork of a human being. It is the power of choice that we would give our\nchildren. We ask ourselves \u201cIs there any fruitful idea underlying this\nor that study that the children are engaged in?\u201d We divest ourselves\nof the notion that to develop the faculties is the chief thing, and\na \u201csubject\u201d which does not rise out of some great thought of life we\nusually reject as not nourishing, not fruitful; while we usually, but\nnot invariably, retain those studies which give exercise in habits of\nclear and orderly thinking. We have some gymnastics of the mind whose\nobject is to exercise what we call faculties as well as to train in the\nhabit of clear and ordered thinking. Mathematics, grammar, logic, &c.,\nare not purely disciplinary; they do develop, if a bull may be allowed\nus, intellectual muscle. We by no means reject the familiar staples of\neducation, in the school sense, but we prize them even more for the\nrecord of intellectual habits they leave in the brain tissue than for\ntheir distinct value in developing certain \u201cfaculties.\u201d Thus our first\nthought with regard to Nature-knowledge is that the child should have\na living personal acquaintance with the things he sees. It concerns\nus more that he should know bistort from persicaria, hawkweed from\ndandelion, and where to find this and that, and how it looks, living\nand growing, than that he should talk learnedly about _epigynous_ and\n_hypogynous_. All this is well in its place, but should come quite\nlate, after the child has seen and studied the living growing thing _in\nsitu_, and has copied colour and gesture as best he can.\n\nSo of object lessons, we are not anxious to develop his observing\npowers on little bits of everything which he shall describe as opaque,\nbrittle, malleable, and so on. We would prefer not to take the edge\noff his curiosity in this way; we should rather leave him receptive\nand respectful for one of those opportunities for asking questions and\nengaging in talk with his parents about the lock in the river, the\nmowing machine, the ploughed field, which offer real seed to the mind\nof a child, and never make him a priggish little person able to tell\nall about it.\n\nOnce more, we know that there is a storehouse of thought wherein we may\nfind all the great ideas that have moved the world. We are above all\nthings anxious to give the child the key to this storehouse.\n\nThe education of the day, it is said, does not produce _reading_\npeople. We are determined that the children shall love books, therefore\nwe do not interpose ourselves between the book and the child. We read\nhim his Tanglewood Tales, and when he is a little older his Plutarch,\nnot trying too much to break up or water down, but leaving the child\u2019s\nmind to deal with the matter as it can. We endeavour that all our\nteaching and treatment of children shall be on the lines of nature,\n_their_ nature and ours, for we do not recognise what is called\n\u201cChild-nature.\u201d We believe that children are human beings at their\nbest and sweetest but also at their weakest and least wise. We are\ncareful not to water down life for them but to present such portions\nto them in such quantities as they can readily receive. In a word we\nare very tenacious of the dignity and individuality of our children.\nWe recognise steady, regular growth with no _transition_ stage. This\nteaching is up to date, but it is as old as common sense. Our claim\nis that our common sense rests on a basis of Physiology, that we show\na reason for all that we do, and that we recognise \u201cthe science of\nthe proportion of things,\u201d put the first thing foremost, do not take\ntoo much upon ourselves, but leave time and scope for the workings of\nnature and of a higher Power than nature herself.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n\n _THE TEACHING OF THE PARENTS\u2019 NATIONAL\n EDUCATIONAL UNION_\n\n PART II\n\n\nAs the philosophy which underlies any educational or social scheme is\nreally the vital part of that scheme, it may be well to set forth,\nhowever meagrely, some fragments of P.N.E.U. Philosophy.\n\nWe believe--\n\nThat disposition, intellect, genius, come pretty much by nature.\n\nThat _character_ is an achievement, the one practical achievement\npossible to us for ourselves and for our children.\n\nThat all real advance, in family or individual, or nation, is along the\nlines of character.\n\nThat, therefore, to direct and assist the evolution of character is the\nchief office of education.\n\nBut perhaps we shall clear the ground better by throwing a little of\nthe teaching of the Union into categorical form:--\n\nWhat is character?\n\nThe resultant or residuum of conduct.\n\nThat is to say, a man is what he has made himself by the thoughts in\nwhich he has allowed himself, the words he has spoken, the deeds he has\ndone.\n\nHow does conduct itself originate?\n\nCommonly, in our habitual modes of thought. We think as we are\naccustomed to think, and, therefore, act as we are accustomed to act.\n\nWhat, again, is the origin of these habits of thought and act?\n\nCommonly, inherited disposition. The man who is generous, obstinate,\nhot-tempered, devout, is so, on the whole, because that strain of\ncharacter runs in his family.\n\nAre there any means of modifying inherited dispositions?\n\nYes; marriage, for the race; education, for the individual.\n\nHow may a bad habit which has its rise in an inherited disposition be\ncorrected?\n\nBy the contrary good habit: as Thomas \u00e0 Kempis has said, \u201cOne custom\novercometh another.\u201d\n\nTrace the genesis of a habit.\n\nEvery act proceeds from a thought. Every thought modifies somewhat the\nmaterial structure of the brain. That is, the nerve substance of the\nbrain forms itself to the manner of thoughts we think. The habit of act\narises from the habit of thought. The person who thinks, \u201cOh, it will\ndo;\u201d \u201cOh, it doesn\u2019t matter,\u201d forms a habit of negligent and imperfect\nwork.\n\nHow may such habit be corrected?\n\nBy introducing the contrary line of thought, which will lead to\ncontrary action. \u201cThis _must_ be done well, because----\u201d\n\nIs it enough to think such thought once?\n\nNo; the stimulus of the new idea must be applied until it is, so to\nspeak, at home in the brain, and arises involuntarily.\n\nWhat do you mean by involuntary thought?\n\nThe brain is at work unceasingly, is always thinking, or rather is\nalways being acted upon by thought, as the keys of an instrument by the\nfingers of a player.\n\nIs the person aware of all the thoughts that the brain elaborates?\n\nNo; only of those which are new and \u201cstriking.\u201d The old familiar \u201cway\nof thinking\u201d beats in the brain without the consciousness of the\nthinker.\n\nWhat name is given to this unconscious thought?\n\nUnconscious (or involuntary) cerebration.\n\nWhy is it important to the educator?\n\nBecause most of our actions spring from thoughts of which we are not\nconscious, or, anyway, which are involuntary.\n\nIs there any means of altering the trend of unconscious cerebration?\n\nYes; by diverting it into a new channel.\n\nThe \u201cunconscious cerebration\u201d of the greedy child runs upon cakes and\nsweetmeats: how may this be corrected?\n\nBy introducing a new idea--the pleasure of giving pleasure with these\ngood things, for example.\n\nIs the greedy child capable of receiving such new idea?\n\nMost certainly; because benevolence, the desire of benefiting others,\nis one of those springs of action in every human being that need only\nto be touched to make them act.\n\nGive an example of this fact.\n\nMungo Park, dying of thirst, hunger, and weariness in an African\ndesert, found himself in the vicinity of a cannibal tribe. He gave\nhimself up for lost, but a woman of the tribe found him, took\ncompassion on him, brought him milk, hid him, and nourished him until\nhe was restored and could take care of himself.\n\nAre there any other springs of action which may be touched with effect\nin every human being?\n\nYes, such as the desire of knowledge, of society, of distinction,\nof wealth; friendship, gratitude, and many more. Indeed, it is not\npossible to incite a human being to any sort of good and noble conduct\nbut you touch a responsive spring.\n\nHow, then, can human beings do amiss?\n\nBecause the good feelings have their opposite bad feelings, springs\nwhich also await a touch. Malevolence is opposed to benevolence. It is\neasy to imagine that the unstable savage woman might have been amongst\nthe first to devour the man she cherished, had one of her tribe given\nan impulse to the springs of hatred within her.\n\nIn view of these internal impulses, what is the duty of the educator?\n\nTo make himself acquainted with the springs of action in a human being,\nand to touch them with such wisdom, tenderness and moderation that the\nchild is insensibly led into the habits of the good life.\n\nName some of these habits.\n\nDiligence, reverence, gentleness, truthfulness, promptness, neatness,\ncourtesy; in fact, the virtues and graces which belong to persons who\nhave been \u201cwell brought up.\u201d\n\nIs it enough to stimulate a spring of action--say, curiosity, or the\ndesire of knowledge, once in order to secure a habit?\n\nNo; the stimulus must be repeated, and action upon it secured over and\nover many times before a habit is formed.\n\nWhat common error do people make about the formation of habits?\n\nThey allow lapses; they train a child to \u201cshut the door after him\u201d\ntwenty times, and allow him to leave it open the twenty-first.\n\nWith what result?\n\nThat the work has to be done over again, because the growth of brain\ntissue to the new habit (the forming of cell-connections) has been\ndisturbed. The result would appear to be much the same as when the\nflesh-forming process which knits up a wound is disturbed.\n\nThen the educator should \u201ctime\u201d himself in forming habits? How long may\nit take to cure a bad habit, and form the contrary good one?\n\nPerhaps a month or six weeks of careful incessant treatment may be\nenough.\n\nBut such treatment requires an impossible amount of care and\nwatchfulness on the part of the educator?\n\nYes; but not more than is given to the cure of any bodily\ndisease--measles, or scarlet fever, for example.\n\nThen the thoughts and actions of a human being may be regulated\nmechanically, so to speak, by setting up the right nerve currents in\nthe brain?\n\nThis is true only so far as it is true to say that the keys of a piano\nproduce music.\n\nBut the thoughts, which may be represented by the fingers of the\nplayer, do they not also run their course without the consciousness of\nthe thinker?\n\nThey do; not merely vague, inconsequent musings, but thoughts which\nfollow each other with more or less logical sequence, according to the\nprevious training of the thinker.\n\nWould you illustrate this?\n\nMathematicians have been known to think out abstruse problems in their\nsleep; the bard improvises, authors \u201creel off\u201d without premeditation,\nwithout any deliberate intention to write such and such things.\nThe thoughts follow each other according to the habit of thinking\npreviously set up in the brain of the thinker.\n\nIs it that the thoughts go round and round a subject like a horse in a\nmill?\n\nNo; the horse is rather drawing a carriage along the same high road,\nbut into ever new developments of the landscape.\n\nIn this light, the important thing is how you _begin_ to think on any\nsubject?\n\nPrecisely so; the initial thought or suggestion touches as it were the\nspring which sets in motion a possibly endless succession or train of\nideas; thoughts which are, so to speak, elaborated in the brain almost\nwithout the consciousness of the thinker.\n\nAre these thoughts, or successive ideas, random, or do they make for\nany conclusion?\n\nThey make for the logical conclusion which should follow the initial\nidea.\n\nThen the reasoning power may be set to work involuntarily?\n\nYes; the sole concern of this power is, apparently, to work out the\nrational conclusion from any idea presented to it.\n\nBut surely this power of arriving at logical rational conclusions\nalmost unconsciously is the result of education, most likely of\ngenerations of culture?\n\nIt exists in greater or less degree according as it is disciplined and\nexercised; but it is by no means the result of education as the word is\ncommonly understood: witness the following anecdote:[17]\n\n\u201cWhen Captain Head was travelling across the Pampas of South America,\nhis guide one day suddenly stopped him, and, pointing high into the\nair, cried out, \u2018A lion!\u2019 Surprised at such an exclamation, accompanied\nwith such an act, he turned up his eyes, and with difficulty perceived,\nat an immeasurable height, a flight of condors soaring in circles in\na particular spot. Beneath this spot, far out of sight of himself or\nguide, lay the carcass of a horse, and over this carcass stood, as the\nguide well knew, a lion, whom the condors were eyeing with envy from\ntheir airy height. The sight of the birds was to him what the sight of\nthe lion alone would have been to the traveller, a full assurance of\nits existence. Here was an act of thought which cost the thinker no\ntrouble, which was as easy to him as to cast his eyes upward, yet which\nfrom us, unaccustomed to the subject, would require many steps and some\nlabour.\u201d\n\nThen is what is called \u201cthe reason\u201d innate in human beings?\n\nYes, it is innate, and is exercised without volition by all, but gains\nin power and precision, according as it is cultivated.\n\nIf the reason, especially the trained reason, arrives at the right\nconclusion without any effort of volition on the part of the thinker,\nit is practically an infallible guide to conduct?\n\nOn the contrary, the reason is pledged to pursue a suggestion to its\nlogical conclusion only. Much of the history of religious persecutions\nand of family and international feuds turns on the confusion which\nexists in most minds between that which is logically inevitable and\nthat which is morally right.\n\nBut according to this doctrine any theory whatever may be shown to be\nlogically inevitable?\n\nExactly so; the initial idea once received, the difficulty is, not to\nprove that it is tenable, but to restrain the mind from proving that it\nis so.\n\nCan you illustrate this point?\n\nThe child who lets himself be jealous of his brother is almost startled\nby the flood of convincing proofs that he does well to be angry, which\nrush in upon him. Beginning with a mere flash of suspicion in the\nmorning, the little Cain finds himself in the evening possessed of\nirrefragable proofs that his brother is unjustly preferred to him: and\n\n \u201cAll seems infected that the infected spy\n As all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.\u201d\n\nBut supposing it is true that the child has cause for jealousy?\n\nGiven, the starting idea, and his reason is equally capable of proving\na logical certainty, whether it is true or whether it is not true.\n\nIs there any historical proof of this startling theory?\n\nPerhaps every failure in conduct, in individuals, and in nations, is\ndue to the confusion which exists as to that which is logically right,\nas established by the reason, and that which is morally right, as\nestablished by external law.\n\nIs any such distinction recognised in the Bible?\n\nDistinctly so; the _transgressors_ of the Bible are those who do that\nwhich is _right_ in their own eyes--that is, that of which their reason\napproves. Modern thought considers, on the contrary, that all men are\njustified in doing that which is right in their own eyes, acting \u201cup to\ntheir lights,\u201d \u201cobeying the dictates of their reason.\u201d\n\nFor example?\n\nA mother whose cruel usage had caused the death of her child was\nmorally exonerated lately in a court of justice because she acted\n\u201cfrom a mistaken sense of duty.\u201d\n\nBut it is not possible to err from a mistaken sense of duty?\n\nNot only possible, but inevitable, if a man accept his \u201cown reason\u201d as\nhis lawgiver and judge. Take a test case, the case of the superlative\ncrime that has been done upon the earth. There can be no doubt that\nthe persons who caused the death of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ\nacted under a mistaken sense of duty. \u201cIt is expedient that one man\ndie for the people, and that the whole nation perish not,\u201d said, most\nreasonably, those patriotic leaders of the Jews; and they relentlessly\nhunted to death this Man whose ascendency over the common people and\nwhose whispered claims to kingship were full of elements of danger to\nthe subject race. \u201cThey know not what they do,\u201d He said, Who is the\nTruth.\n\nAll this may be of importance to philosophers; but what has it to do\nwith the bringing up of children?\n\nIt is time we reverted to the teaching of Socrates. \u201cKnow thyself,\u201d\nexhorted the wise man, in season and out of season; and it will be well\nwith us when we understand that to acquaint a child with himself--what\nhe is as a human being--is a great part of education.\n\nIt is difficult to see why; surely much harm comes of morbid\nintrospection?\n\nIntrospection is morbid or diseased when the person imagines that\nall which he finds within him is peculiar to him as an individual.\nTo know what is common to all men is a sound cure for unhealthy\nself-contemplation.\n\nHow does it work?\n\nTo recognise the limitations of the reason is a safeguard in all\nthe duties and relations of life. The man who knows that loyalty is\nhis first duty in every relation, and that if he admit doubting,\ngrudging, unlovely thoughts, he cannot possibly be loyal, because such\nthoughts once admitted will prove themselves to be right and fill the\nwhole field of thought, why, he is on his guard, and writes up \u201cno\nadmittance\u201d to every manner of mistrustful fancy.\n\nThat rule of life should affect the Supreme relationship?\n\nTruly, yes; if a man will admit no beginning of mistrustful surmise\nconcerning his father and mother, his child and his wife, shall he do\nso of Him who is more than they, and more than all, the \u201cLord of his\nheart\u201d? \u201cLoyalty forbids\u201d is the answer to every questioning of His\ntruth that would intrude.\n\nBut when others, whom you must needs revere, question and tell you of\ntheir \u201chonest doubt\u201d?\n\nYou know the history of their doubt, and can take it for what it is\nworth--its origin in the suggestion, which, once admitted, must needs\nreach a logical conclusion even to the bitter end. \u201cTake heed that ye\n_enter_ not into temptation,\u201d He said, Who needed not that any should\ntell Him, for He knew what was in men.\n\nIf man is the creature of those habits he forms with care or allows in\nnegligence, if his very thoughts are involuntary and his conclusions\ninevitable, he ceases to be a free agent. One might as well concede at\nonce that \u201cthought is a mode of motion,\u201d and cease to regard man as a\nspiritual being capable of self-regulation!\n\nIt is hardly possible to concede too wide a field to biological\nresearch, if we keep well to the front the fact, that man is a\nspiritual being whose material organs act in obedience to spiritual\nsuggestion; that, for example, as the hand writes, so the brain thinks,\nin obedience to suggestions.\n\nIs the suggestion self originated?\n\nProbably not; it would appear that, as the material life is sustained\nupon its appropriate food from without, so the immaterial life is\nsustained upon _its_ food,--ideas or suggestions spiritually conveyed.\n\nMay the words \u201cidea\u201d and \u201csuggestion\u201d be used as synonymous terms?\n\nOnly in so far as that ideas convey suggestions to be effected in acts.\n\nWhat part does the man himself play in the reception of this immaterial\nfood?\n\nIt is as though one stood on the threshold to admit or reject the\nviands which should sustain the family.\n\nIs this free-will in the reception or rejection of ideas the limit of\nman\u2019s responsibility in the conduct of his life?\n\nProbably it is; for an idea once received must run its course, unless\nit be superseded by another idea, in the reception of which volition is\nagain exercised.\n\nHow do ideas originate?\n\nThey appear to be spiritual emanations from spiritual beings; thus, one\nman conveys to another the idea which is a very part of himself.\n\nIs the intervention of a bodily presence necessary for the transmission\nof an idea?\n\nBy no means; ideas may be conveyed through picture or printed\npage; absent friends would appear to communicate ideas without the\nintervention of means; natural objects convey ideas, but, perhaps, the\ninitial idea in this case may always be traced to another mind.\n\nThen the spiritual sustenance of ideas is derived directly or\nindirectly from other human beings?\n\nNo; and here is the great recognition which the educator is called\nupon to make. God, the Holy Spirit, is Himself the supreme Educator of\nmankind.\n\nHow?\n\nHe openeth man\u2019s ear morning by morning, to hear so much of the best as\nthe man is able to bear.\n\nAre the ideas suggested by the Holy Spirit confined to the sphere of\nthe religious life?\n\nNo; Coleridge, speaking of Columbus and the discovery of America,\nascribes the origin of great inventions and discoveries to the fact\nthat \u201ccertain ideas of the natural world are presented to minds,\nalready prepared to receive them, by a higher Power than Nature\nherself.\u201d\n\nIs there any teaching in the Bible to support this view?\n\nYes; very much. Isaiah, for example, says that the ploughman knows how\nto carry on the successive operations of husbandry, \u201cfor his God doth\ninstruct him and doth teach him.\u201d\n\nAre all ideas which have a purely spiritual origin ideas of good?\n\nUnhappily, no; it is the sad experience of mankind that suggestions of\nevil also are spiritually conveyed.\n\nWhat is the part of the man?\n\nTo choose the good and refuse the evil.\n\nDoes this doctrine of ideas as the spiritual food needful to sustain\nthe immaterial life throw any light on the doctrines of the Christian\nreligion?\n\nYes; the Bread of Life, the Water of Life, the Word by which man lives,\nthe \u201cmeat to eat which ye know not of,\u201d and much more, cease to be\nfigurative expressions, except that we must use the same words to name\nthe corporeal and the incorporeal sustenance of man. We understand,\nmoreover, how suggestions emanating from our Lord and Saviour, which\nare of His essence, are the spiritual meat and drink of His believing\npeople. We find it no longer a \u201chard saying,\u201d nor a dark saying, that\nwe must sustain our spiritual selves upon Him, even as our bodies upon\nbread.\n\nWhat practical bearing upon the educator has this doctrine of ideas?\n\nHe knows that it is his part to place before the child daily\nnourishment of ideas; that he may give the child the right initial idea\nin every study, and respecting each relation and duty of life; above\nall, he recognises the divine co-operation in the direction, teaching,\nand training of the child.\n\nHow would you summarise the functions of education?\n\nEducation is a discipline--that is, the discipline of the good habits\nin which the child is trained. Education is a life, nourished upon\nideas; and education is an atmosphere--that is, the child breathes the\natmosphere emanating from his parents; that of the ideas which rule\ntheir own lives.\n\nWhat part do lessons and the general work of the schoolroom play in\neducation thus regarded?\n\nThey should afford opportunity for the discipline of many good habits,\nand should convey to the child such initial ideas of interest in his\nvarious studies as to make the pursuit of knowledge on those lines an\nobject in life and a delight to him.\n\nWhat duty lies upon parents and others who regard education thus\nseriously, as a lever by means of which character may be elevated,\nalmost indefinitely?\n\nPerhaps it is incumbent upon them to make conscientious endeavours\nto further all means used to spread the views they hold; believing\nthat there is such \u201cprogress in character and virtue\u201d possible to the\nredeemed human race as has not yet been realised, or even imagined.\n\u201cEducation is an atmosphere, a discipline, a life.\u201d[18]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [17] From Archbishop Thompson\u2019s _Laws of Thought_.\n\n [18] Matthew Arnold.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV\n\n _WHENCE AND WHITHER_\n\n PART I\n\n\n\u201cThe P.N.E.U. goes on,\u201d an observer writes, \u201cwithout puff or fuss, by\nits own inherent force;\u201d and it is making singularly rapid progress.\nAt the present moment not less than ten thousand children of thinking,\neducated parents, are being brought up, more or less consciously and\ndefinitely, upon the line of the Union. Parents who read the _Parents\u2019\nReview_, or other literature of the Society, parents who belong to our\nvarious branches, or our other agencies, parents who are influenced by\nthese parents, are becoming multitudinous; and all have one note in\ncommon,--the ardour of persons working out inspiring ideas.\n\nIt is hardly possible to over-estimate the force of this league of\neducated parents. When we think of the part that the children being\nbrought up under these influences will one day play in the leading\nand ruling of the land, we are solemnised with the sense of a great\nresponsibility, and it behoves us to put to ourselves, once again, the\ntwo searching queries by which every movement should, from time to\ntime, be adjudged,--Whence? and Whither?\n\n_Whence?_ The man who is satisfied with his dwelling-place has no wish\nto move, and the mere fact of a \u201cmovement\u201d is a declaration that we\nare not satisfied, and that we are definitely on our way to some other\nends than those commonly accepted. In one respect only we venture\nboldly to hark back. Exceedingly fine men and women were brought up by\nour grandfathers and grandmothers, even by our mothers and fathers, and\nthe wise and old amongst us, though they look on with great sympathy,\nyet have an unexpressed feeling that men and women were made on the old\nlines of a stamp which we shall find it hard to improve upon. This was\nno mere chance result, nor did it come out of the spelling-book or the\nPinnock\u2019s Catechisms which we have long ago consigned to the limbo they\ndeserve.\n\nThe teaching of the old days was as bad as it could be, the training\nwas haphazard work, reckless alike of physiology and psychology; but\nour grandfathers and grandmothers had one saving principle, which,\nfor the last two or three decades, we have been, of set purpose,\nlabouring to lose. They, of the older generation, recognised children\nas reasonable beings, persons of mind and conscience like themselves,\nbut needing their guidance and control, as having neither knowledge\nnor experience. Witness the queer old children\u2019s books which have come\ndown to us; before all things, these addressed children as reasonable,\nintelligent and responsible (terribly responsible!) persons. This\nfairly represents the note of home-life in the last generation. So\nsoon as the baby realised his surroundings, he found himself a morally\nand intellectually responsible person. Now one of the secrets of\npower in dealing with our fellow beings is, to understand that human\nnature does that which it is expected to do and is that which it is\nexpected to be. We do not mean, _believed_ to do and to be, with the\nfond and foolish faith which Mrs. Hardcastle bestowed on her dear Tony\nLumpkin. Expectation strikes another chord, the chord of \u201c_I am, I can,\nI ought_,\u201d which must vibrate in every human breast, for, \u201c\u2019tis our\nnature to.\u201d The capable, dependable men and women whom we all know were\nreared upon this principle.\n\nBut now? Now, many children in many homes are still brought up on the\nold lines, but not with quite the unfaltering certitude of the old\ntimes. Other thoughts are in the air. A baby is a huge oyster (says\none eminent psychologist) whose business is to feed, and to sleep,\nand to grow. Even Professor Sully, in his most delightful book,[19]\nis torn in two. The children have conquered him, have convinced him\nbeyond doubt that they are as ourselves, only more so. But then he is\nan evolutionist, and feels himself pledged to accommodate the child to\nthe principles of evolution. Therefore, the little person is supposed\nto go through a thousand stages of moral and intellectual development,\nleading him from the condition of the savage or ape to that of\nthe intelligent and cultivated human being. If children will not\naccommodate themselves pleasantly to this theory, why, that is their\nfault, and Professor Sully is too true a child-lover not to give us the\nchildren as they are, with little interludes of the theory upon which\nthey ought to evolve. Now we have absolutely no theory to advance,\nand are, on scientific grounds, disposed to accept the theories of\nthe evolutionary psychologists. But facts are too strong for us. When\nwe consider the enormous intellectual labour the infant goes through\nduring his first year in accommodating himself to the conditions of a\nnew world, in learning to discern between far and near, solid and flat,\nlarge and small, and a thousand other qualifications and limitations\nof this perplexing world, why, we are not surprised that John Stuart\nMill should be well on in his Greek at five; that Arnold at three\nshould know all the Kings and Queens of England by their portraits; or\nthat a musical baby should have an extensive repertoire of the musical\nclassics.\n\nWe were once emphasising the fact that every child could learn to\nspeak two languages at once with equal facility, when a gentleman in\nthe audience stated that he had a son who was a missionary in Bagdad,\nmarried to a German lady, and their little son of three expressed all\nhe had to say with equal fluency in three languages--German, English,\nand Arabic, using each in speaking to those persons whose language it\nwas. \u201cNana, which does God love best, little girls or little boys?\u201d\nsaid a meditative little girl of four. \u201cOh, little girls, to be sure,\u201d\nsaid Nana, with a good-natured wish to please. \u201cThen if God loves\nlittle girls best, why was not God Himself a little girl?\u201d Which of\nus who have reached the later stages of evolution would have hit\nupon a more conclusive argument? If the same little girl asked on\nanother occasion, watching the blackbirds at the cherries: \u201cNana, if\nthe bees make honey, do the birds make jam?\u201d it was by no means an\ninane question, and only proves that we older persons are dull and\ninappreciative of such mysteries of nature as that bees should make\nhoney.\n\nThis is how we find children--with intelligence more acute, logic more\nkeen, observing powers more alert, moral sensibilities more quick, love\nand faith and hope more abounding; in fact, in all points like as we\nare, only much more so, but absolutely ignorant of the world and its\nbelongings, of us and our ways, and, above all, of how to control and\ndirect and manifest the infinite possibilities with which they are born.\n\nOur conception of a child rules our relations towards him. _Pour\ns\u2019amuser_ is the rule of child-life proper for the \u201coyster\u201d theory,\nand most of our children\u2019s books and many of our theories of\nchild-education are based upon this rule. \u201cOh! he\u2019s so happy,\u201d we say,\nand are content, believing that if he is happy he will be good; and it\nis so to a great extent; but in the older days the theory was, if you\nare good you will be happy; and this is a principle which strikes the\nkeynote of endeavour, and holds good, not only through the childish\n\u201cstage of evolution,\u201d but for the whole of life, here and hereafter.\nThe child who has learned to \u201cendeavour himself\u201d (as the Prayer Book\nhas it) has learned to live.\n\nIf our conception of _Whence?_ as regards the child, as of--\n\n \u201cA Being, breathing thoughtful breath,\n A traveller betwixt life and death,\u201d--\n\nis old, that of our grandfathers; our conception of the aims and\nmethods of education, is new, only made possible within the very last\ndecades of the century; because it rests one foot upon the latest\nadvances in the science of Biology and the other upon the potent secret\nof these latter days, that matter is the all-serviceable agent of\nspirit, and that spirit forms, moulds, is absolute lord, over matter,\nas capable of affecting the material convolutions of the brain as of\ninfluencing what used to be called the heart.\n\nKnowing that the brain is the physical seat of habit, and that\nconduct and character, alike, are the outcome of the habits we allow:\nknowing, too, that an inspiring idea initiates a new habit of thought,\nand, hence, a new habit of life; we perceive that the great work of\neducation is to inspire children with vitalising ideas as to the\nrelations of life, departments of knowledge, subjects of thought: and\nto give deliberate care to the formation of those habits of the good\nlife which are the outcome of vitalising ideas.\n\nIn this great work we seek and assuredly find the co-operation of the\nDivine Spirit, whom we recognise, in a sense rather new to _modern_\nthought, as the Supreme Educator of mankind in things that have been\ncalled secular, fully as much as in those that have been called sacred.\nWe are free to give our whole force to these two great educational\nlabours, of the inspiration of ideas and the formation of habits,\nbecause, except in the case of children somewhat mentally deficient,\nwe do not consider that the \u201cdevelopment of faculties\u201d is any part of\nour work; seeing that the children\u2019s so-called faculties are already\ngreatly more acute than our own.\n\nWe have, too, in our possession, a test for systems that are brought\nunder our notice, and can pronounce upon their educational value.\nFor example, a little while ago, the London Board Schools held an\nexhibition of work; and great interest was excited by an exhibit which\ncame from New York representing a week\u2019s work in a school. The children\nworked for a week upon \u201can apple.\u201d They modelled it in clay, they\npainted it in brushwork, they stitched the outline on cardboard, they\npricked it, they laid it in sticks (the pentagonal form of the seed\nvessel). Older boys and girls modelled an apple-tree and made a little\nladder on which to run up the apple-tree and gather the apples, and\na wheel-barrow to carry the apples away, and a great deal more of the\nsame kind. Everybody said, \u201cHow pretty, how ingenious, what a good\nidea!\u201d and went away with the notion that here, at last, was education.\nBut _we_ ask, \u201cWhat was the informing idea?\u201d The external shape, the\ninternal contents of an apple,--matters with which the children were\nalready exceedingly well acquainted. What mental habitudes were gained\nby this week\u2019s work? They certainly learned to look at the apple, but\nthink how many things they might have got familiar acquaintance with in\nthe time. Probably the children were not consciously bored, because the\nimpulse of the teachers enthusiasm carried them on. But, think of it--\n\n \u201cRabbits hot and rabbits cold,\n Rabbits young and rabbits old,\n Rabbits tender and rabbits tough,\u201d--\n\nno doubt those children had enough--of apples anyway. This \u201capple\u201d\ncourse is most instructive to us as emphasising the tendency in the\nhuman mind to accept and rejoice in any neat system which will produce\nimmediate results, rather than to bring every such little course to the\ntest of whether it does or does not further either or both of our great\neducational principles.\n\n_Whither?_ Our \u201cwhence\u201d opens to us a \u201cwhither\u201d of infinitely\ndelightful possibilities. Seeing that each of us is labouring for\nthe advance of the human race through the individual child we are\neducating, we consider carefully in what directions this advance is\ndue, and indicated, and we proceed of set purpose and, endeavour to\neducate our children so that they shall advance with the tide. \u201cCan ye\nnot discern the signs of the times?\u201d A new Renaissance is coming upon\nus, of unspeakably higher import than the last; and we are bringing\nup our children to lead and guide, and, by every means help in the\nprogress--progress by leaps and bounds--which the world is about to\nmake. But \u201cwhither\u201d is too large a question for the close of a chapter.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [19] \u201cStudies of Childhood,\u201d by Professor Sully\n (_Longmans_, 10_s._ 6_d._).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV\n\n _WHENCE AND WHITHER_\n\n PART II\n\n\nThe morphologist, the biologist, leave many without hesitation in\nfollowing the great _bouleversement_ of thought, summed up in the term\n_evolution_. They are no longer able to believe otherwise than that\nman is the issue of processes, ages long in their development; and\nwhat is more, and even more curious, that each individual child, from\nthe moment of his conception to that of his birth, appears in his own\nperson to mark an incredible number of the stages of this evolutionary\nprocess. The realisation of this truth has made a great impression\non the minds of men. We feel ourselves to be part of a process, and\nto be called upon, at the same time, to assist in the process, not\nfor ourselves exactly, but for any part of the world upon which our\ninfluence bears; especially for the children who are so peculiarly\ngiven over to us. But there comes, as we have seen, a point where we\nmust arise and make our protest. The physical evolution of man may\nadmit of no doubt; the psychical evolution, on the other hand, is not\nonly, _not proven_, but the whole weight of existing evidence appears\nto go into the opposite scale.\n\nThe age of materialism has run its course: we recognise matter as\nforce, but as altogether subject force, and that it is the spirit\nof a man which shapes and uses his material substance, in its own\nways to its own ends. Who can tell the way of the spirit? Perhaps\nthis is one of the ultimate questions upon which man has not yet\nbeen able to speculate to any purpose; but when we consider the\nalmost unlimited powers of loving and of trusting, of discriminating\nand of apprehending, of perceiving and of knowing, which a child\npossesses, and compare these with the blunted sensibilities and slower\napprehension of the grown man or woman of the same calibre, we are\ncertainly not inclined to think that growth from less to more, and from\nsmall to great, is the condition of the spiritual life: that is, of\nthat part of us which loves and worships, reasons and thinks, learns\nand applies knowledge. Rather would it seem to be true of every child\nin his degree, as of the divine and typical Child, that He giveth not\nthe Spirit by measure to him.\n\nIt is curious how the philosophy of the Bible is always well in advance\nof our latest thought. \u201cHe grew in wisdom and in stature,\u201d we are\ntold. Now what is wisdom--philosophy? Is it not the recognition of\n_relations_? First, we have to understand relations of time and space\nand matter, the natural philosophy which made up so much of the wisdom\nof Solomon; then, by slow degrees, and more and more, we learn that\nmoral philosophy which determines our relations of love and justice\nand duty to each other: later, perhaps, we investigate the profound\nand puzzling subject of the inter-relations of our own most composite\nbeing,--mental philosophy. And in all these and beyond all these we\napprehend slowly and feebly the highest relation of all, the relation\nto God, which we call religion. In this science of the relations of\nthings consists what we call wisdom, and wisdom is not born in any\nman,--apparently not even in the Son of man Himself. He grew in wisdom,\nin the sweet gradual apprehension of all the relations of life: but the\npower of apprehending, the strong, subtle, discerning spirit, whose\nfunction it is to grasp and understand, appropriate and use, all the\nrelations which bind all things to all other things--this was not given\nto Him by measure; nor, we may reverently believe, is it so given to us.\n\nThat there are differences in the measures of men, in their\nintellectual and moral stature, is evident enough; but it is well\nthat we should realise the nature of these differences, that they\nare differences in kind and not in degree; depending upon what we\nglibly call the laws of heredity, which bring it to pass that man\nin his various aspects shall make up that conceivably perfect whole\npossible to mankind. This is a quite different thing from the notion\nof a small and feeble measure of heart and intellect in the child, to\ngrow by degrees into the robust and noble spiritual development which,\naccording to the psychical evolutionist, should distinguish the adult\nhuman being.\n\nThese are quite practical and simple considerations for every one\nentrusted with the bringing up of a child, and are not to be set\naside as abstract principles, the discussion of which should serve\nlittle purpose beyond that of sharpening the wits of the schoolmen.\nAs a matter of fact, we do not _realise_ children, we under-estimate\nthem; in the divine words, we \u201cdespise\u201d them, with the best intentions\nin the world, because we confound the immaturity of their frames,\nand their absolute ignorance as to the relations of things, with\nspiritual impotence: whereas the fact probably is, that never is\nintellectual power so keen, the moral sense so strong, spiritual\nperception so piercing, as in those days of childhood which we regard\nwith a supercilious, if kindly, smile. A child is a person in whom all\npossibilities are present--present now at this very moment--not to be\neduced after years and efforts manifold on the part of the educator:\nbut indeed it is a greater thing to direct and use this wealth of\nspiritual power than to develop the so-called faculties of the child.\nIt cannot be too strongly urged that our education of children will\ndepend, _nolens volens_, upon the conception we form of them. If we\nregard them as instruments fit and capable for the carrying out of\nthe Divine purpose in the progress of the world, we shall endeavour\nto discern the signs of the times, perceive in what directions we are\nbeing led, and prepare the children to carry forward the work of the\nworld, by giving them vitalising ideas concerning, at any rate, some\ndepartments of that work.\n\nHaving settled it with ourselves that we and the children alike live\nfor the advancement of the race, that our work is immediately with\nthem, and, through them, mediately for all, and that they are perfectly\nfitted to receive those ideas which are for the inspiration of life, we\nmust next settle it with ourselves in what directions we shall set up\nspiritual activities in the children.\n\nWe have sought to establish our _whence_ in the potency of the child,\nwe will look for our _whither_ in the living thought of the day, which\nprobably indicates the directions in which the race is making progress.\nWe find that all men everywhere are keenly interested in science, that\nthe world waits and watches for great discoveries; we, too, wait and\nwatch, believing that, as Coleridge said long ago, great ideas of\nNature are imparted to minds already prepared to receive them by a\nhigher Power than Nature herself.\n\nAt a late meeting of the British Association, the President lamented\nthat the progress of science was greatly hindered by the fact that we\nno longer have field naturalists--close observers of Nature as she\nis. A literary journal made a lamentable remark thereupon. It is all\nwritten in books, said this journal, so we have no longer any need\nto go to Nature herself. Now the knowledge of Nature which we get\nout of books is not real knowledge; the use of books is, to help the\nyoung student to verify facts he has already seen for himself. We, of\nthe P.N.E.U., are before all things, Nature-lovers; we conceive that\nintimate acquaintance with every natural object within his reach is the\nfirst, and possibly, the best part of a child\u2019s education. For himself,\nall his life long, he will be soothed by--\n\n \u201cThe breathing balm,\n The silence and the calm,\n Of mute insensate things.\u201d\n\nAnd for science, he is in a position to do just the work which is most\nneeded; he will be a close loving observer of Nature at first hand,\nstoring facts, and free from all impatient greed for inferences.\n\nLooking out on the realm of Art again, we think we discern the signs\nof the times. Some of us begin to learn the lesson which a prophet has\nbeen raised up to deliver to this generation. We begin to understand\nthat mere technique, however perfect--whether in the rendering of\nflesh tints, or marbles, or of a musical composition of extreme\ndifficulty--is not necessarily high Art. It is beginning to dawn upon\nus that Art is great only in proportion to the greatness of the idea\nthat it expresses; while, what we ask of the execution, the technique,\nis that it shall be adequate to the inspiring idea. But surely these\nhigh themes have nothing to do with the bringing up of children? Yes,\nthey have; everything. In the first place, we shall permit no _pseudo_\nArt to live in the same house with our children; next, we shall bring\nour own facile tastes and opinions to some such searching test as we\nhave indicated, knowing that the children imbibe the thoughts that\nare in us, whether we will or no; and, lastly, we shall inspire our\nchildren with those great ideas which shall create a demand, anyway,\nfor great Art.\n\nIn literature, we have definite ends in view, both for our own\nchildren, and for the world through them. We wish the children to grow\nup to find joy and refreshment in the taste, the flavour of a _book_.\nWe do not mean by a book any printed matter in a binding, but a work\npossessing certain literary qualities able to bring that sensible\ndelight to the reader which belongs to a literary word fitly spoken.\nIt is a sad fact that we are losing our joy in literary form. We are\nin such haste to be instructed by facts or titillated by theories,\nthat we have no leisure to linger over the mere putting of a thought.\nBut this is our error, for words are mighty both to delight and to\ninspire. If we were not as blind as bats, we should long ago have\ndiscovered a truth very fully indicated in the Bible--that that which\nis once said with perfect fitness can never be said again, and becomes\never thereafter a living power in the world. But in literature, as in\nart, we require more than mere form. Great ideas are brooding over the\nchaos of our thought; and it is he who shall say the things we are all\ndumbly thinking, who shall be to us as a teacher sent from God.\n\nFor the children? They must grow up upon the best. There must never\nbe a period in their lives when they are allowed to read or listen\nto twaddle or reading-made-easy. There is never a time when they are\nunequal to worthy thoughts, well put; inspiring tales, well told. Let\nBlake\u2019s \u201cSongs of Innocence\u201d represent their standard in poetry; Defoe\nand Stevenson, in prose; and we shall train a race of readers who will\ndemand _literature_, that is, the fit and beautiful expression of\ninspiring ideas and pictures of life. Perhaps a printed form to the\neffect that gifts of books to the children will not be welcome in such\nand such a family, would greatly assist in this endeavour!\n\nTo instance one more point--there is a reaching out in all directions\nafter the conception expressed in the words \u201csolidarity of the race.\u201d\nWe have probably never before felt as now in absolute relation with\nall men everywhere; everything human is precious to us, the past\nbelongs to us as the present, and we linger tenderly over evidences\nof the personality of men and women who lived ages ago. An American\npoet expresses this feeling with western intensity, but he does not\nexaggerate when he tells us that _he_ is the soldier wounded in battle,\n_he_ is the galley slave, and _he_ is the hero come to the rescue, that\nevery human pulse is _his_ pulse, every fall _his_ fall, and every\nmoral victory _his_ triumph. The present writer recollects the moment\nwhen the conviction of the common sisterhood of women was brought home\nto her in a way never to be forgotten. She was driving from station\nto station in London, and saw a drunken woman carried on a door. She\nknew by the shock of pain and the tears the sight brought that the\nwoman was not outside of her, but was in some mysterious way part of\nher--her very self. This was a new perception to the girl, and one\nnever again to be lost sight of. Such shocks of recognition probably\ncome to most of us, and when they come to the Greathearts of the world\nwe get our Elizabeth Frys, our Wilberforces, our Florence Nightingales.\nDeeds of pity have been done through all the Christian ages, and,\nindeed, wherever the human heart has had free play, but to feel pity\nfor another and to be aware, however dimly, that that other is, part\nand lot, indissolubly bound up with ourselves--these are two things.\nWe venture to believe that this is the stage which the education of\nmankind, as divinely conducted, has reached in our day. In other days\nmen did good for the love of God, or to save their own souls; they\nacted uprightly because it behoved themselves to be just in all their\ndealings; but the motives which stir us in our relation to each other\nnow are more intimate, tender, indefinable, soul-compelling. What the\nissues will be when we have learned to con understandingly this new\npage in the Book of Life we cannot foretell, but we may hope that the\nKingdom of God is coming upon us.\n\nStudying reverently _these_ signs of the times, what indications do\nwe find for our guidance in the bringing up of children? The tender\nsympathy of the child must be allowed to flow in ways of help and\nkindness towards all life that anyway touches his. I once knew a little\ngirl of five, who came in from her walk under an obvious cloud of\ndistress. \u201cWhat is the matter, H----?\u201d she was asked. A quick little\n\u201cNothing,\u201d with the reticence of her family, was all that could be\ngot out of her for some minutes; but a caress broke her down, and,\nin a passion of pity, she sobbed out, \u201cA poor man, no home, no food,\nno bed to lie upon!\u201d Young as she was, the revelation of the common\nlife in humanity had come upon her; she was one with the beggar and\nsuffered with him. Children must, of course, be shielded from such\nintense suffering, but woe to mother or nurse who would shield, by\nsystematically hardening, the child\u2019s heart. This little girl should\nhave had the relief of helping, and then the pain of sympathy would not\nhave been too much for her. Whatever our own opinion of the world and\nof human nature, let us be careful how we breathe the word \u201cimpostor\u201d\ninto the ear of a child, until he is old enough to understand that if\nthe man is an impostor that does but make him the object of a deeper\npity and a wiser help--a help whose object is not to relieve but to\nreform.\n\nAgain, children are open to vanity as to all other evil dispositions\npossible to human nature. They must be educated to give and to help\nwithout any notion that to do so is goodness on their part. It is very\neasy to keep them in the attitude of mind natural to a child, that\nto serve is promotion to the person who serves, for indeed he has no\nabsolute claim to be in a position to pour benefits upon another.\nThe child\u2019s range of sympathy must be widened, his love must go out\nto far and near, rich and poor; distress abroad and distress at home\nshould appeal to him equally; and always he should give some manner\nof help _at real cost to himself_. When he is old enough, the object\nlessons of the newspapers should be brought before him. He should\nknow that atrocities in Armenia, for instance, are the cause of real\nheart-trouble in English homes; that there are cases of abstract\nright and wrong for nations as for individuals, which admit of no\nconsiderations of expediency; that to succour our neighbour in mortal\ndistress is such an occasion, and that he who has fallen among thieves\nis therefore our neighbour, whether as a nation or as an individual.\nDo not let us bring up our children in glass houses, for fear of\nthe ravages of pity upon their tender hearts. Let them know of any\ndistress which would naturally come before them, and let them ease\ntheir own pain by alleviating in some way the sufferings they sorrow\nfor. Children were not given to us with infinite possibilities of love\nand pity that we might choke the springs of pity and train them into\nhardness of heart. It is our part, on the contrary, to prepare these\nlittle ministers of grace for the larger and fuller revelation of the\nkingdom of heaven that is coming upon us.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI\n\n _THE GREAT RECOGNITION_\n\n\nMr. Ruskin has done a great service to modern thought in interpreting\nfor us the harmonious and ennobling scheme of education and philosophy\nrecorded upon one quarter of what he calls the \u201cVaulted Book,\u201d that is,\nthe Spanish Chapel attached to the Church of Sta. Maria Novella, in\nFlorence.\n\nMany of our readers have probably studied under Mr. Ruskin\u2019s guidance\nthe illuminating teaching of the frescoes which cover roof and walls;\nbut all will like to be reminded of the lessons they have pondered\nwith reverence and wonder. \u201cThe descent of the Holy Ghost is on the\nleft hand (of the roof) as you enter. The Madonna and Disciples are\ngathered in an upper chamber: underneath are the Parthians, Medes,\nElamites, &c., who hear them speak in their own tongues. Three dogs are\nin the foreground--their mythic purpose, to mark the share of the lower\nanimals in the gentleness given by the outpouring of the Spirit of\nChrist.... On this and the opposite side of the Chapel are represented\nby Simon Memmi\u2019s hand, the teaching power of the Spirit of God and\nthe saving power of the Christ of God in the world, according to the\nunderstanding of Florence in his time.\n\n\u201cWe will take the side of intellect first. Beneath the pouring forth\nof the Holy Spirit in the point of the arch beneath are the three\nEvangelical Virtues. Without these, says Florence, you can have no\nscience. Without Love, Faith, and Hope--no intelligence. Under these\nare the four Cardinal Virtues ... Temperance, Prudence, Justice,\nFortitude. Under these are the great Prophets and Apostles.... Under\nthe line of Prophets, as powers summoned by their voices are the mythic\nfigures of the seven theological or spiritual and the seven geological\nor natural sciences; and under the feet of each of them the figure of\nits Captain-teacher to the world.\u201d\n\nWe hope our readers will continue to study Mr. Ruskin\u2019s exposition of\nthe \u201cVaulted Book\u201d in _Mornings in Florence_: it is wonderfully full\nof teaching and suggestion. Our immediate concern is with the seven\nmythic figures representing the natural sciences, and with the figure\nof the Captain-teacher of each. First we have Grammar, a gracious\nfigure teaching three Florentine children; and, beneath, Priscian.\nNext, Rhetoric, strong, calm, and cool; and below, the figure of Cicero\nwith a quite beautiful face. Next, Logic, with perfect pose of figure\nand lovely countenance; and beneath her, Aristotle--intense keenness\nof search in his half-closed eyes. Next, Music, with head inclined\nin intent listening to the sweet and solemn strains she is producing\nfrom her antique instrument; and underneath, Tubal Cain, not Jubal,\nas the inventor of harmony--perhaps the most marvellous record that\nArt has produced of the impact of a great idea upon the soul of a\nman but semi-civilised. Astronomy succeeds, with majestic brow and\nupraised hand, and below her, Zoroaster, exceedingly beautiful--\u201cthe\ndelicate Persian head made softer still by the elaborately wreathed\nsilken hair.\u201d Next, Geometry, looking down, considering some practical\nproblem, with her carpenter\u2019s square in her hand, and below her,\nEuclid. And lastly, Arithmetic, holding two fingers up in the act of\ncalculating, and under her, Pythagoras wrapped in the science of number.\n\n \u201cThe thoughts of God are broader than the measures of man\u2019s mind.\u201d\n\nBut here we have the breadth of minds so wide in the sweep of their\nintelligence, so profound in their insight, that we are almost startled\nwith the perception that, pictured on these walls, we have indeed a\ntrue measure of the thoughts of God. Let us glance for a moment at\nour nineteenth century conception of education. In the first place,\nwe divide education into religious and secular. The more devout among\nus insist upon religious education as well as secular. Many of us are\ncontent to do without religious education altogether, and are satisfied\nwith what we not only _call_ secular but _make_ secular, in the sense\nin which we understand the word, _i.e._, entirely limited to the uses\nof this visible world. Many Christian people rise a little higher;\nthey conceive that even grammar and arithmetic may in some, not very\nclear, way be used for God; but the Great Recognition, that God the\nHoly Spirit is Himself, personally, the Imparter of knowledge, the\nInstructor of youth, the Inspirer of genius, is a conception so far\nlost to us that we should think it distinctly irreverent to conceive of\nthe divine teaching as co-operating with ours in a child\u2019s arithmetic\nlesson, for example. But the Florentine mind of the Middle Ages went\nfurther than this: it believed, not only that the seven Liberal Arts\nwere fully under the direct outpouring of the Holy Ghost, but that\nevery fruitful idea, every original conception, whether in Euclid, or\ngrammar, or music, was a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit,\nwithout any thought at all as to whether the person so inspired named\nhimself by the name of God, or recognised whence his inspiration came.\nAll of these seven figures are those of persons whom we should roughly\nclass as Pagans, and whom we might be lightly inclined to consider as\noutside the pale of the divine inspiration. It is truly difficult to\ngrasp the amazing boldness of this scheme of the education of the world\nwhich Florence accepted in simple faith.\n\nBut we must not accept even an inspiring idea blindly. Were these\npeople of the Middle Ages right in this plan and conception of theirs?\nPlato hints at some such thought in his contention that knowledge and\nvirtue are fundamentally identical, and that if virtue be divine in\nits origin, so must knowledge be also. Ancient Egypt, too, was not in\nthe dark in this matter. \u201cPharaoh said unto his servants, can we find\nsuch a one as this, a man in whom the Spirit of God is.\u201d Practical\ndiscernment and knowledge of every-day matters, and of how to deal\nwith emergencies, were not held by this king of Egypt to be teachings\nunworthy of the Spirit of God. \u201cThe Spirit of God came upon him and he\nprophesied among them,\u201d we are told of Saul, and we may believe that\nthis is the history of every great invention and every great discovery\nof the secrets of nature. \u201cThen David gave to Solomon his son ... the\npattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of\nthe Lord.\u201d We have here a suggestion of the source of every conception\nof beauty to be expressed in forms of art. But it is not only with high\nthemes of science and art that the divine Spirit concerns Himself. It\nsometimes occurs to one to wonder who invented, in the first place,\nthe way of using the most elemental necessaries of life. Who first\ndiscovered the means of producing fire, of joining wood, of smelting\nores, of sowing seed, of grinding corn? We cannot think of ourselves\nas living without knowing these things; and yet each one must have\nbeen a great idea when it first made a stir in the mind of the man who\nconceived it. Where did he get his first idea? Happily, we are told, in\na case so typical that it is a key to all the rest:--\n\n\u201cDoth the plowman plow all day to sow? Doth he open and break the\nclods of his ground? When he hath made plain the face thereof, doth he\nnot cast abroad the fitches and scatter the cummin, and cast in the\nprincipal wheat and the appointed barley and the rie in their place?\nFor his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him. For\nthe fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is\na cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; but the fitches are beaten\nout with a staff, and the cummin with a rod. Bread corn is bruised;\nbecause he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel\nof his cart, nor bruise it with his horsemen. This also cometh forth\nfrom the Lord of Hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in\nworking.\u201d--Isa. xxviii. 24, &c.\n\nIn the things of science, in the things of art, in the things of\npractical every-day life, his God doth instruct him and doth teach him,\nher God doth instruct her and doth teach her. Let this be the mother\u2019s\nkey to the whole of the education of each boy and each girl; not of her\n_children_; the divine Spirit does not work with nouns of multitude,\nbut with each single child. Because He is infinite, the whole world is\nnot too great a school for this indefatigable Teacher, and because He\nis infinite, He is able to give the whole of His infinite attention\nfor the whole time to each one of His multitudinous pupils. We do not\nsufficiently rejoice in the wealth that the infinite nature of our God\nbrings to each of us.\n\nAnd what subjects are under the direction of this Divine Teacher?\nThe child\u2019s faith and hope and charity--that we already knew; his\ntemperance, justice, prudence, and fortitude--that we might have\nguessed; his grammar, rhetoric, logic, music, astronomy, geometry,\narithmetic--this we might have forgotten, if these Florentine teachers\nhad not reminded us; his practical skill in the use of tools and\ninstruments, from a knife and fork to a microscope, and in the sensible\nmanagement of all the affairs of life--these also come from the Lord,\nwhich is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working. His God\ndoth instruct him and doth teach him. Let the mother visualise the\nthought as an illuminated scroll about her new-born child, and let\nher never contemplate any kind of instruction for her child, except\nunder the sense of the divine co-operation. But we must remember that\nhere as everywhere the infinite and almighty Spirit of God works\nunder limitations. Our co-operation appears to be the indispensable\ncondition of all the divine workings. We recognise this in what we call\nspiritual things, meaning the things that have to do more especially\nwith our approaches to God; but the new thing to us is, that grammar,\nfor example, may be taught in such a way as to invite and obtain the\nco-operation of the Divine Teacher, or in such a way as to exclude\nHis illuminating presence from the schoolroom. We do not mean that\nspiritual virtues may be exhibited by the teacher and encouraged in the\nchild in the course of a grammar lesson; this is no doubt true, and\nis a point to be remembered; but perhaps the immediate point is that\nthe teaching of grammar by its guiding ideas and simple principles,\nthe true, direct, and humble teaching of grammar, without pedantry and\nwithout verbiage, is, we may venture to believe, accompanied by the\nilluminating power of the Holy Spirit, of whom is all knowledge. The\ncontrary is equally true. Such teaching as enwraps a child\u2019s mind in\nfolds of many words, which his thought is unable to penetrate, which\ngives him rules, and definitions, and tables, in lieu of ideas--this is\nteaching which excludes and renders impossible the divine co-operation.\n\nThis great recognition resolves that discord in our lives of which\nmost of us are, more or less, aware. The things of sense we are\nwilling to subordinate to the things of spirit; at any rate, we are\nwilling to endeavour ourselves in this direction. We mourn over our\nfailures and try again, and recognise that here lies the Armageddon\nfor every soul of man. But there is a debateable land. Is it not a\nfact that the spiritual life is exigeant, demands our sole interest\nand concentrated energies? Yet the claims of intellect--mind, of the\n\u00e6sthetic sense--taste, press upon us urgently. We must think, we must\nknow, we must rejoice in and create the beautiful. And if all the\nburning thoughts that stir in the minds of men, all the beautiful\nconceptions they give birth to, are things apart from God, then we,\ntoo, must have a separate life, a life apart from God, a division of\nourselves into secular and religious--discord and unrest. We believe\nthat this is the fertile source of the unfaith of the day, especially\nin young and ardent minds. The claims of intellect are urgent; the\nintellectual life is a necessity not to be foregone at any hazard. It\nis impossible for these to recognise in themselves a dual nature;\na dual spirituality, so to speak; and, if there are claims which\ndefinitely oppose themselves to the claims of intellect, these other\nclaims must go to the wall; and the young man or woman, full of promise\nand power, becomes a free-thinker, an agnostic, what you will. But\nonce the intimate relation, the relation of Teacher and taught in all\nthings of the mind and spirit, be fully recognised, our feet are set in\na large room; there is space for free development in all directions;\nand this free and joyous development, whether of intellect or heart,\nis recognised as a Godward movement. Various activities, with unity\nof aim, bring harmony and peace into our lives; more, this perception\nof the intimate dealings of the divine Spirit with our spirit in the\nthings of the intellect, as well as in those of the moral nature, makes\nus as keenly alive in the one case as in the other to the insidious\npromptings of the spirit of evil; we become aware of the possibility\nof intellectual sin as of moral sin; we perceive that in the region\nof pure reason, also, it behoves us to see that we enter not into\ntemptation. We rejoice in the expansion of intellect and the expansion\nof heart and the ease and freedom of him who is always in touch with\nthe inspiring Teacher, with Whom are infinite stores of learning,\nwisdom, and virtue, graciously placed at our disposal.\n\nSuch a recognition of the work of the Holy Spirit as the Educator\nof mankind, in things intellectual as well as in things moral and\nspiritual, gives us \u201cnew thoughts of God, new hopes of Heaven,\u201d a\nsense of harmony in our efforts and of acceptance of all that we are.\nWhat stands between us and the realisation of this more blessed life?\nThis; that we do not realise ourselves as spiritual beings invested\nwith bodies,--living, emotional, a snare to us and a joy to us,--but\nwhich are, after all, the mere organs and interpreters of our spiritual\nintention. Once we see that we are dealing spirit with spirit with the\nfriend at whose side we are sitting, with the people who attend to\nour needs, we shall be able to realise how incessant is the commerce\nbetween the divine Spirit and our human spirit. It will be to us as\nwhen one stops one\u2019s talk and one\u2019s thoughts in the spring-time, to\nfind the world full of bird-music unheard the instant before. In like\nmanner, we shall learn to make pause in our thoughts, and shall hear\nin our intellectual perplexities, as well as in our moral, the clear,\nsweet, cheering and inspiring tones of our spiritual Guide. We are not\nspeaking here of what is commonly called the religious life, or of\nour definite approaches to God in prayer and praise; these things all\nChristian people comprehend more or less fully; we are speaking only of\nthe intellectual life, the development of which in children is the aim\nof our subjects and methods of instruction.\n\nSupposing we are willing to make this great recognition, to engage\nourselves to accept and invite the daily, hourly, incessant\nco-operation of the divine Spirit, in, to put it definitely and\nplainly, the schoolroom work of our children, how must we shape our\nown conduct to make this co-operation active, or even possible? We are\ntold that the Spirit is life; therefore, that which is dead, dry as\ndust, mere bare bones, can have no affinity with Him, can do no other\nthan smother and deaden His vitalising influences. A first condition\nof this vitalising teaching is that all the thought we offer to our\nchildren shall be _living_ thought; no mere dry summaries of facts will\ndo; given, the vitalising idea, children will readily hang the mere\nfacts upon the idea as upon a peg capable of sustaining all that it is\nneedful to retain. We begin by believing in the children as spiritual\nbeings of unmeasured powers--intellectual, moral, spiritual--capable\nof receiving and constantly enjoying intuitions from, the intimate\nconverse of, the divine Spirit. With this thought of a child to begin\nwith, we shall perceive that whatever is stale and flat and dull to us\nmust needs be stale and flat and dull to him, and also that there is\nno subject which has not a fresh and living way of approach. Are we\nteaching geography? The child discovers with the explorer, journeys\nwith the traveller, receives impressions new and vivid from some other\nmind which is immediately receiving these impressions; not after they\nhave been made stale and dull by a process of filtering through many\nintermediate minds, and, have found at last their way into a little\ntext-book. Is he learning history? his concern is not with strings of\nnames and of dates, nor with nice little reading-made-easy stories,\nbrought down, as we mistakenly say, to the level of his comprehension;\nwe recognise that his comprehension is at least equal to our own, and\nthat it is only his ignorance of the attendant circumstances we have to\ndeal with as luminously as we can. We recognise that history for him\nis, to live in the lives of those strong personalities which at any\ngiven time impress themselves most upon their age and country. This is\nnot the sort of thing to be got out of nice little history books for\nchildren, whether \u201cLittle Arthur\u2019s,\u201d or somebody\u2019s \u201cOutlines.\u201d We take\nthe child to the living sources of history--a child of seven is fully\nable to comprehend Plutarch, in Plutarch\u2019s own words (translated),\nwithout any diluting and with little explanation. Give him living\nthought in this kind, and you make possible the co-operation of the\nliving Teacher. The child\u2019s progress is by leaps and bounds, and\nyou wonder why. In teaching music, again, let him once perceive the\nbeautiful laws of harmony, the personality, so to speak, of Music,\nlooking out upon him from among the queer little black notes, and the\npiano lesson has ceased to be drudgery.\n\nIt is unnecessary to go further into details; every subject has its\nliving way, with what Coleridge calls \u201cits guiding idea\u201d at the head,\nand it is only as we discover this living way in each case that a\nsubject of instruction makes for the education of a child. No neat\nsystem is of any use; it is the very nature of a system to grow stale\nin the using; every subject, every division of a subject, every lesson,\nin fact, must be brought up for examination before it is offered to\nthe child as to whether it is living, vital, of a nature to invite\nthe living Intellect of the universe. One more thing is of vital\nimportance; children must have books, living books; the best are not\ntoo good for them; anything less than the best is not good enough; and\nif it is needful to exercise economy, let go everything that belongs to\nsoft and luxurious living before letting go the duty of supplying the\nbooks, and the frequent changes of books, which are necessary for the\nconstant stimulation of the child\u2019s intellectual life. We need not say\none word about the necessity for living thought in the teacher; it is\nonly so far as he is intellectually alive that he can be effective in\nthe wonderful process which we glibly call \u201ceducation.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVII\n\n _THE ETERNAL CHILD_\n\n \u201cThe Waits!\n Slowly they play, poor careful souls,\n With wistful thoughts of Christmas cheer,\n Unwitting how their music rolls\n Away the burden of the year.\n And with the charm, the homely rune,\n Our thoughts like childhood\u2019s thoughts are given,\n When all our pulses beat in tune\n With all the stars of heaven.\u201d\n --JOHN DAVIDSON.\n\n\nIn these levelling days we like to think that everybody has quite equal\nopportunities in some direction; but Christmas joy, for example, is not\nfor every one in like measure. It is not only that those who are in\nneed, sorrow, or any other adversity do not sit down to the Christmas\nfeast of joy and thanksgiving; for, indeed, a Benjamin\u2019s portion is\noften served to the sorrowful. But it takes the presence of children\nto help us to realise the idea of the Eternal Child. The Dayspring is\nwith the children, and we think their thoughts and are glad in their\njoy; and every mother knows out of her own heart\u2019s fulness what the\nBirth at Bethlehem means. Those of us who have not children catch\nechoes. We hear the wondrous story read in church, the waits chant the\ntale, the church-bells echo it, and the years that are no more come\nback to us, and our hearts are meek and mild, glad and gay, loving and\ntender, as those of little children; but, alas, only for the little\nwhile occupied by the passing thought. Too soon the dreariness of daily\nliving settles down upon us again, and we become a little impatient, do\nwe not, of the Christmas demand of joyousness.\n\nBut it is not so where there are children. The old, old story has all\nits first freshness as we tell it to the eager listeners; as we listen\nto it ourselves with their vivid interest it becomes as real and fresh\nto us as it is to them. Hard thoughts drop away like scales from our\neyes; we are young once more with the children\u2019s young life, which, we\nare mysteriously made aware, is the life eternal. What a mystery it\nis! Does not every mother, made wise unto salvation, who holds a babe\nin her arms, feel with tremulous awe that that deep saying is true for\nher also, \u201cThe same is my mother!\u201d For the little child is the true St.\nChristopher, in him is the light and life of Christ; and every birth\nis a message of salvation, and a reminder that we, too, must humble\nourselves and become as little children. This is, perhaps, the real\nsecret of the world\u2019s progress--that every babe comes into the world\nwith an evangel, which witnesses of necessity to his parents\u2019 hearts.\nThat we, too, are children, the children of God, that He would have us\nbe as children, is the message that the new-born child never fails to\nbear, however little we heed, or however soon we forget. It is well\nthat parents should ponder these things, for the child\u2019s estate is a\nholy one, and it is given to his parents to safeguard the little heir\nof blessedness.\n\nIt is not possible to enter fully into so large a subject, but it\nmay be worth while to characterise two or three of the landmarks of\nthis child\u2019s estate; for how shall we safeguard that which we do not\nrecognise, and how recognise that to which we have failed to give\ndeliberate attention. The note of childhood is, before all things,\nhumility. What we call innocence is probably resolvable into this\ngrace--repellent to the nature of man until he shall embrace it, and\nthen disclosing itself to him as divine. An old and saintly writer has\na luminous thought on this subject of humility. \u201cThere never was, nor\never will be, but one humility in the whole world, and that is the\none humility of Christ, which never any man, since the fall of Adam,\nhad the least degree of but from Christ. Humility is one, in the same\nsense and truth as Christ is one, the Mediator is one, Redemption is\none. There are not two Lambs of God that take away the sins of the\nworld. But if there was any humility besides that of Christ, there\nwould be something else besides Him that could take away the sins of\nthe world.\u201d[20] Now, if there be but one humility in the whole world,\nand that humility be the humility of Christ, and if our Lord pronounces\nthe little child also to be humble, is it not because of the indwelling\ndivinity, the glory in the child, which we call innocence?\n\nOur common notion of humility is inaccurate. We regard it as a relative\nquality. We humble ourselves to this one and that, bow to the prince\nand lord it over the peasant. This is why the grace of humility does\nnot commend itself to us even in our most sincere moods. We feel that\nthis relative humility is hardly consistent with self-respect and due\nindependence of character. We have been taught to recognise humility\nas a Christian grace, and therefore do not utter our protest; but\nthis misconception confuses our thought on an important subject. For\nhumility is absolute, not relative. It is by no means a taking of our\nplace among our fellows according to a given scale, some being above us\nby many grades and others as far below. There is no reference to above\nor below in the humble soul, which is equally humble before an infant,\na primrose, a worm, a beggar, a prince.\n\nThis, if we think of it, is the state natural to children. Every person\nand thing commands their interest; but the person or thing in action\nis deeply interesting. \u201cMay I go and make mud-pies with the boy in the\ngutter?\u201d prays the little prince, discerning no difference at all; and\nthe little boy in the gutter would meet him with equal frankness. What\nis the secret of this absolute humility, humble alike towards higher or\nlower, and unaware of distinctions? Our notion of a humble person is\none who thinks rather slightingly of himself, who says, deprecatingly,\n\u201cOh, I can\u2019t do this or that, you know, I\u2019m not clever;\u201d \u201cI\u2019m not cut\nout for public work of any sort, I\u2019ve no power or influence;\u201d \u201cAh!\nwell, I hope he\u2019ll be a better man than his father, I don\u2019t think much\nof myself anyway;\u201d \u201cYour children have great advantages, I wish mine\nhad such a mother, but I\u2019m not a bit wise.\u201d Such things are often said,\nin all sincerity, without the least _soup\u00e7on_ of the \u201cUriah Heap\u201d\nsentiment. The thing we quarrel with is, that the speakers are apt to\nfeel that they have, anyway, the saving grace of humility. It is worth\nwhile to reflect that there are no such deprecatory utterances ascribed\nto the Example of that \u201cgreat humility\u201d which we are bound to follow;\nand if there is not the slightest evidence of humility in this kind in\nthe divine life, which was all humility, we must re-cast our notions.\nChildren, too, never make deprecatory remarks; that is because they are\nhumble, and with the divine Example before us, and the example of our\nchildren, we may receive it that humility does not consist in thinking\nlittle of ourselves. It is a higher principle, a blessed state,\nonly now and then attained by us elders, but in which the children\nperpetually dwell, and in which it is the will of God that we should\nkeep them.\n\nHumility does not think much or little of itself; it does not think\nof itself at all. It is a negative rather than a positive quality,\nbeing an absence of self-consciousness rather than the presence of any\ndistinctive virtue. The person who is unaware of himself is capable of\nall lowly service, of all suffering for others, of bright cheerfulness\nunder all the small crosses and worries of everyday life. This is the\nquality that makes heroes, and this is the quality that makes saints.\nWe are able to pray, but we are hardly able to worship or to praise,\nto say, \u201c_My_ soul doth magnify the Lord,\u201d so long as in the innermost\nchamber of our hearts we are self-occupied.\n\nThe Christian religion is, in its very nature, objective. It offers\nfor our worship, reverence, service, adoration and delight, a Divine\nPerson, the Desire of the world. Simplicity, happiness and expansion\ncome from the outpouring of a human heart upon that which is altogether\nworthy. But we mistake our own needs, are occupied with our own falls\nand our own repentances, our manifold states of consciousness. Our\nreligion is subjective first, and after that, so far as we are able,\nobjective. The order should rather be objective first, and after that,\nso far as we have any time or care to think about ourselves, subjective.\n\nNow the tendency of children is to be altogether objective, not at\nall subjective, and perhaps that is why they are said to be first\nin the kingdom of heaven. This philosophic distinction is not one\nwhich we can put aside as having no bearing on everyday life. It\nstrikes the keynote for the training of children. In proportion as our\ntraining tends to develop the subjective principle, it tends to place\nour children on a lower level of purpose, character, and usefulness\nthroughout their lives: while so far as we develop the objective\nprinciple, with which the children are born, we make them capable of\nlove, service, heroism, worship.\n\nIt is curious to observe how every function of our most complex nature\nmay have its subjective or its objective development. The child may\neat and drink and rest with the most absolute disregard of what he is\nabout, his parents taking care that these things are happily arranged\nfor him, but taking equal care that his attention shall not be turned\nto the pleasures of appetite. But this is a point that we hardly need\nto dwell upon, as thoughtful parents are agreed that children\u2019s meals\nshould be so regularly pleasant and various that the child naturally\neats with satisfaction and thinks little or nothing of what he is\neating; that is, parents are careful that, in the matter of food,\nchildren shall not be self-regardful.\n\nPerhaps parents are less fully awake to the importance of regulating a\nchild\u2019s sensations. We still kiss the place to make it well, make an\n_obvious_ fuss if a string is uncomfortable or a crumpled rose-leaf\nis irritating the child\u2019s tender skin. We have forgotten the seven\nChristian virtues and the seven deadly sins of earlier ages, and do\nnot much consider in the bringing up of our children whether the grace\nof fortitude is developing under our training. Now fortitude has its\nhigher and its lower offices. It concerns itself with things of the\nmind and with things of the body, and, perhaps, it is safe to argue\nthat fortitude on the higher plane is only possible when it has become\nthe habit of the nature on the lower plane. A baby may be trained in\nfortitude, and is much the happier for such training. A child should be\ntaught that it is beneath him to take any notice of cold or heat, pain\nor discomfort. We do not perceive the sensations to which we do not\nattend, and it is quite possible to forget even a bad toothache in some\nnew and vivid interest. Health and happiness depend largely upon the\ndisregard of sensations, and the child who is encouraged to say, \u201cI\u2019m\nso cold,\u201d \u201cI\u2019m so tired,\u201d \u201cMy vest pricks me,\u201d and so on, is likely to\ndevelop into the hysterical girl or the hypochondriac man; for it is an\nimmutable law that, as with our appetites, so with our sensations, in\nproportion as we attend to them will they dominate us, until a single\nsensation of slight pain or discomfort may occupy our whole field of\nvision, making us unaware that there is any joy in living, any beauty\nin the earth.\n\nBut these are the least of the reasons why a child should be trained\nto put up with little discomforts and take no notice. The child, who\nhas been allowed to become self-regardful in the matter of sensations,\nas of appetites, has lost his child\u2019s estate, he is no longer humble;\nhe is in the condition of thinking about himself, instead of that\ninfinitely blessed condition of not being aware of himself at all. Nor\nmust we permit ourselves to make an exception to this rule in the case\nof the poor little invalid. For him, far more than for the healthy\nchild, it is important that he should be trained to take no account of\nhis sensations; and many a brave little hero suffers anguish without\nconscious thought, and therefore, of course, suffers infinitely less\nthan if he had been induced to dwell upon his pains. We say, induced,\nbecause though a child may cry with sudden distress, he does not really\nthink about his aches and pains unless his thoughts be turned to his\nailments by those about him.\n\nWe are not advising any Spartan regimen. It is not permitted to us to\ninflict hardness in order that the children may learn to endure. Our\ncare is simply to direct their consciousness from their own sensations.\nThe well-known anecdote of the man, who, before the days of chloroform,\nhad his leg cut off without any conscious sensations of pain, because\nhe determinately kept his mind occupied with other things, is an\nextreme but instructive instance of what may be done in this direction.\nAt the same time, though the child himself be taught to disregard them,\nhis sensations should be carefully watched by his elders, for they\nmust consider and act upon the danger signals which the child himself\nmust be taught to disregard. But it is usually possible to attend to a\nchild\u2019s sensations without letting him know they have been observed.\n\nThis, of the sensations, is only one example of the altruistic or\negoistic direction which the various operations of a child\u2019s complex\nnature may receive. His affections, again, are capable of receiving a\nsubjective or objective direction, according to the suggestions which\nreach him from without. Every child comes into the world richly endowed\nwith a well of love, a fountain of justice; but whether the stream of\nlove shall flow to the right or the left, whether it shall be egoistic\nor altruistic, depends on the child\u2019s earliest training. A child who\nis taught from the first the delights of giving and sharing, of loving\nand bearing, will always spend himself freely on others, will love\nand serve, seeking for nothing again; but the child who recognises\nthat he is the object of constant attention, consideration, love and\nservice, becomes self-regardful, self-seeking, selfish, almost without\nhis fault, so strongly is he influenced by the direction his thoughts\nreceive from those about him. So, too, of that other fountain, of\njustice, with which every child is born. There again, the stream may\nflow forth in either, but not in both, of the channels, the egoistic or\nthe altruistic. The child\u2019s demand for justice may be all for himself,\nor, from the very first, the rights of others may be kept before his\neyes. He may be taught to occupy himself with _his own rights and\nother people\u2019s duties_, and, if he is, his state of mind is easily\ndiscernible by the catch-words often on his lips, \u201cIt\u2019s a shame!\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s\nnot fair!\u201d or he may, on the other hand, be so filled with the notion\nof _his own duties and other people\u2019s rights_, that the claims of\nself slip quietly into the background. This kind cometh forth only by\nprayer, but it is well to clear our thoughts and know definitely what\nwe desire for our children, because only so can we work intelligently\ntowards the fulfilment of our desire. It is sad to pray, and frustrate\nthe answer by our own action; but this is, alas, too possible.\n\nDuring each coming festival of the Eternal Child, may parents ponder\nhow best to keep their own children in the blessed child-estate,\nrecollecting that the humility which Christ commends in the children\nis what may be described, philosophically, as the objective principle\nas opposed to the subjective, and that, in proportion as a child\nbecomes self-regardful in any function of his being, he loses the grace\nof humility. This is the broad principle; the practical application\nwill need constant watchfulness, and constant efforts, especially\nin holiday seasons, to keep friends and visitors from showing\ntheir love for the children in any way that shall tend to develop\nself-consciousness.\n\nThis, of humility, is not only a counsel of perfection, but is,\nperhaps, the highest counsel of perfection; and when we put it to\nparents, we offer it to those for whom no endeavour is too difficult,\nno aim too lofty; to those who are doing the most to advance the\nKingdom of Christ.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [20] William Law.\n\n\n\n\n BOOK II\n\n _ESSAYS IN PRACTICAL EDUCATION_\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n _THE PHILOSOPHER AT HOME_\n\n\n\u201cHe has _such_ a temper, ma\u2019am!\u201d\n\nAnd there, hot, flurried, and, generally at her wits\u2019 end, stood the\npoor nurse at the door of her mistress\u2019s room. The terrific bellowing\nwhich filled the house was enough to account for the maid\u2019s distress.\nMrs. Belmont looked worried. She went up wearily to what she well\nknew was a weary task. A quarter of an hour ago life had looked very\nbright--the sun shining, sparrows chirping, lilac and laburnum making\na gay show in the suburban gardens about; she thought of her three\nnestlings in the nursery, and her heart was like a singing-bird giving\nout chirps of thanks and praise. But that was all changed. The outside\nworld was as bright as ever, but she was under a cloud. She knew too\nwell how those screams from the nursery would spoil her day.\n\nThere the boy lay, beating the ground with fists and feet; emitting one\nprodigious roar after another, features convulsed, eyes protruding, in\nthe unrestrained rage of a wild creature, so transfigured by passion\nthat even his mother doubted if the noble countenance and lovely smile\nof her son had any existence beyond her fond imagination. He eyed his\nmother askance through his tumbled, yellow hair, but her presence\nseemed only to aggravate the demon in possession. The screams were more\nviolent; the beating of the ground more than ever like a maniac\u2019s rage.\n\n\u201cGet up, Guy.\u201d\n\nRenewed screams; more violent action of the limbs!\n\n\u201cDid you hear me, Guy?\u201d in tones of enforced calmness.\n\nThe uproar subsided a little, but when Mrs. Belmont laid her hand\non his shoulder to raise him, the boy sprang to his feet, ran into\nher, head-foremost, like a young bull, kicked her, beat her with his\nfists, tore her dress with his teeth, and would no doubt have ended\nby overthrowing his delicate mother, but that Mr. Belmont, no longer\nable to endure the disturbance, came up in time to disengage the raging\nchild and carry him off to his mother\u2019s room. Once in, the key was\nturned upon him, and Guy was left to \u201csubside at his leisure,\u201d said his\nfather.\n\nBreakfast was not a cheerful meal, either upstairs or down. Nurse was\nput out; snapped up little Flo, shook baby for being tiresome, until\nshe had them both in tears. In the dining-room, Mr. Belmont read the\n_Times_ with a frown which last night\u2019s debate did not warrant; sharp\nwords were at his tongue\u2019s end, but, in turning the paper, he caught\nsight of his wife\u2019s pale face and untasted breakfast. He said nothing,\nbut she knew and suffered under his thoughts fully as much as if they\nhad been uttered. Meantime, two closed doors and the wide space between\nthe rooms hardly served to dull the ear-torturing sounds that came from\nthe prisoner.\n\nAll at once there was a lull, a sudden and complete cessation of sound.\nWas the child in a fit?\n\n\u201cExcuse me a minute, Edward;\u201d and Mrs. Belmont flew upstairs,\nfollowed shortly by her husband. What was her surprise to see Guy\nwith composed features contemplating himself in the glass! He held in\nhis hand a proof of his own photograph which had just come from the\nphotographer\u2019s. The boy had been greatly interested in the process; and\nhere was the picture arrived, and Guy was solemnly comparing it with\nthat image of himself which the looking-glass presented.\n\nNothing more was said on the subject; Mr. Belmont went to the City, and\nhis wife went about her household affairs with a lighter heart than\nshe had expected to carry that day. Guy was released, and allowed to\nreturn to the nursery for his breakfast, which his mother found him\neating in much content and with the sweetest face in the world; no more\ntrace of passion than a June day bears when the sun comes out after\na thunderstorm. Guy was, indeed, delicious; attentive and obedient\nto Harriet, full of charming play to amuse the two little ones, and\nvery docile and sweet with his mother, saying from time to time the\nquaintest things. You would have thought he had been trying to make\nup for the morning\u2019s fracas, had he not looked quite unconscious of\nwrong-doing.\n\nThis sort of thing had gone on since the child\u2019s infancy. Now, a\nfrantic outburst of passion, to be so instantly followed by a sweet\nApril-day face and a sunshiny temper that the resolutions his parents\nmade about punishing or endeavouring to reform him passed away like\nhoar-frost before the child\u2019s genial mood.\n\nA sunshiny day followed this stormy morning; the next day passed in\npeace and gladness, but, the next, some hair astray, some crumpled\nrose-leaf under him, brought on another of Guy\u2019s furious outbursts.\nOnce again the same dreary routine was gone through; and, once again,\nthe tempestuous morning was forgotten in the sunshine of the child\u2019s\nday.\n\nNot by the father, though: at last, Mr. Belmont was roused to give\nhis full attention to the mischief which had been going on under his\neyes for nearly the five years of Guy\u2019s short life. It dawned upon\nhim--other people had seen it for years--that his wife\u2019s nervous\nheadaches and general want of tone might well be due to this constantly\nrecurring distress. He was a man of reading and intelligence, in touch\nwith the scientific thought of the day, and especially interested in\nwhat may be called the physical basis of character,--the interaction\nwhich is ever taking place between the material brain and the\nimmaterial thought and feeling of which it is the organ. He had even\nmade little observations and experiments, declared to be valuable by\nhis friend and ally, Dr. Steinbach, the head physician of the county\nhospital.\n\nFor a whole month he spread crumbs on the window-sill every morning at\nfive minutes to eight; the birds gathered as punctually, and by eight\no\u2019clock the \u201ctable\u201d was cleared and not a crumb remained. So far, the\nexperiment was a great delight to the children, Guy and Flo, who were\nall agog to know how the birds knew the time.\n\nAfter a month of free breakfasts: \u201cYou shall see now whether or no the\nbirds come because they see the crumbs.\u201d The prospect was delightful,\nbut, alas! this stage of the experiment was very much otherwise to the\npitiful childish hearts.\n\n\u201cOh, father, _please_ let us put out crumbs for the poor little birds,\nthey are so hungry!\u201d a prayer seconded by Mrs. Belmont, met with very\nready acceptance. The best of us have our moments of weakness.\n\n\u201cVery interesting,\u201d said the two savants. \u201cNothing could show more\nclearly the readiness with which a habit is formed in even the less\nintelligent of the creatures.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, and more than that, it shows the automatic nature of the action\nonce the habit is formed. Observe, the birds came punctually and\nregularly when there were no longer crumbs for them. They did not come,\nlook for their breakfast, and take sudden flight when it was not there,\nbut they settled as before, stayed as long as before, and then flew off\nwithout any sign of disappointment. That is, they came, as we set one\nfoot before another in walking, just out of habit, without any looking\nfor crumbs, or conscious intention of any sort, a mere automatic or\nmachine-like action with which conscious thought has nothing to do.\u201d\n\nOf another little experiment Mr. Belmont was especially proud, because\nit brought down, as it were, two quarries at a stroke; touched heredity\nand automatic action in one little series of observations. Rover, the\nfamily dog, appeared in the first place as a miserable puppy saved from\ndrowning. He was of no breed to speak of, but care and good living\nagreed with him. He developed a handsome shaggy white coat, a quiet,\nwell-featured face, and betrayed his low origin only by one inveterate\nhabit; carts he took no notice of, but never a carriage, small or\ngreat, appeared in sight but he ran yelping at the heels of the horses\nin an intolerable way, contriving at the same time to dodge the whip\nlike any street Arab. Oddly enough, it came out through the milkman\nthat Rover came of a mother who met with her death through this very\npeccadillo.\n\nHere was an opportunity. The point was, to prove not only that the\nbarking was automatic, but that the most inveterate habit, even an\ninherited habit, is open to cure.\n\nMr. Belmont devoted himself to the experiment: he gave orders that,\nfor a month, Rover should go out with no one but himself. Two pairs of\nears were on the alert for wheels; two, distinguished between carriage\nand cart. Now Rover was the master of an accomplishment of which he\nand the family were proud: he could carry a newspaper in his mouth.\nWheels in the distance, then, \u201cHi! Rover!\u201d and Rover trotted along, the\nproud bearer of the _Times_. This went on daily for a month, until at\nlast the association between wheels and newspaper was established, and\na distant rumble would bring him up--a demand in his eyes. Rover was\ncured. By-and-by the paper was unnecessary, and \u201cTo heel! good dog!\u201d\nwas enough when an ominous falling of the jaw threatened a return of\nthe old habit.\n\nIt is extraordinary how wide is the gap between theory and practice\nin most of our lives. \u201cThe man who knows the power of habit has a key\nwherewith to regulate his own life and the lives of his household, down\nto that of the cat sitting at his hearth.\u201d (_Applause._) Thus, Mr.\nBelmont at a scientific gathering. But only this morning did it dawn\nupon him that, with this key between his fingers, he was letting his\nwife\u2019s health, his child\u2019s life, be ruined by a habit fatal alike to\npresent peace, and to the hope of manly self-possession in the future.\nPoor man! he had a bad half-hour that morning on his way Citywards. He\nwas not given to introspection, but, when it was forced upon him, he\ndealt honestly.\n\n\u201cI must see Steinbach to-night, and talk the whole thing out with him.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cAh, so; the dear Guy! And how long is it, do you say, since the boy\nhas thus out-broken?\u201d\n\n\u201cAll his life, for anything I know--certainly it began in his infancy.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd do you think, my good friend\u201d--here the Doctor laid a hand on\nhis friend\u2019s arm, and peered at him with twinkling eyes and gravely\nset mouth--\u201cdo you think it possible that he has--a--_inherited_ this\nlittle weakness? A grandfather, perhaps?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean me, I know; yes, it\u2019s a fact. And I got it from my father,\nand he, from his. We\u2019re not a good stock. I know I\u2019m an irascible\nfellow, and it has stood in my way all through life.\u201d\n\n\u201cFair and softly, my dear fellow! go not so fast. I cannot let you\nsay bad things of my best friend. But this I allow; there are thorns,\nbristles all over; and they come out at a touch. How much better for\nyou and for Science had the father cured all that!\u201d\n\n\u201cAs I must for Guy! Yes, and how much happier for wife, children, and\nservants; how much pleasanter for friends. Well, Guy is the question\nnow. What do you advise?\u201d\n\nThe two sat far into the night discussing a problem on the solution of\nwhich depended the future of a noble boy, the happiness of a family.\nNo wonder they found the subject so profoundly interesting that _two_\nby the church clock startled them into a hasty separation. Both ladies\nresented this dereliction on the part of their several lords. They\nwould have been meeker than Sarah herself had they known that, not\nscience, not politics, but the bringing up of the children, was the\nengrossing topic.\n\n _Breakfast-time three days later. Scene, the dining-room._\n NURSE _in presence of_ MASTER _and_ MISTRESS.\n\n\u201cYou have been a faithful servant and good friend, both to us and the\nchildren, Harriet, but we blame you a little for Guy\u2019s passionate\noutbreaks. Do not be offended, we blame ourselves more. Your share\nof blame is that you have worshipped him from his babyhood, and have\nallowed him to have his own way in everything. Now, your part of the\ncure is, to do exactly as we desire. At present, I shall only ask you\nto remember that, Prevention is better than cure. The thing for all of\nus is to take precautions against even one more of these outbreaks.\n\n\u201cKeep your eye upon Guy; if you notice--no matter what the\ncause--flushed cheeks, pouting lips, flashing eye, frowning forehead,\nwith two little upright lines between the eyebrows, limbs held stiffly,\nhands, perhaps, closed, head thrown slightly back; if you notice any or\nall of these signs, the boy is on the verge of an outbreak. Do not stop\nto ask questions, or soothe him, or make peace, or threaten. Change his\nthoughts. That is the one hope. Say quite naturally and pleasantly, as\nif you saw nothing, \u2018Your father wants you to garden with him,\u2019 or,\n\u2018for a game of dominoes;\u2019 or, \u2018your mother wants you to help her in the\nstore-room,\u2019 or, \u2018to tidy her work-box.\u2019 Be ruled by the time of the\nday, and how you know we are employed. And be quite sure we _do_ want\nthe boy.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, sir, please excuse me, is it any good to save him from breaking\nout when the passion is there in his heart?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, Harriet, all the good in the world. Your master thinks that Guy\u2019s\npassions have become a habit, and that the way to cure him is to keep\nhim a long time, a month or two, without a single outbreak; if we can\nmanage that, the trouble will be over. As for the passion in his heart,\nthat comes with the outer signs, and both will be cured together. Do,\nHarriet, like a good woman, help us in this matter, and your master and\nI will always be grateful to you!\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019m sure, ma\u2019am,\u201d with a sob (Harriet was a soft-hearted woman, and\nwas very much touched to be taken thus into the confidence of her\nmaster and mistress). \u201cI\u2019m sure I\u2019ll do my best, especially as I\u2019ve had\na hand in it; but I\u2019m sure I never meant to, and, if I forget, I hope\nyou\u2019ll kindly forgive me.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, Harriet, you must not forget, any more than you\u2019d forget to snatch\na sharp knife from the baby. This is almost a matter of life and death.\u201d\n\n\u201cVery well, sir; I\u2019ll remember, and thank you for telling me.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nBreakfast-time was unlucky; the very morning after the above talk,\nNurse had her opportunity. Flo, for some inscrutable reason, preferred\nto eat her porridge with her brother\u2019s spoon. Behold, quick as a flash,\nflushed cheeks, puckered brow, rigid frame!\n\n\u201cMaster Guy, dear,\u201d in a quite easy, friendly tone (Harriet had\nmastered her lesson), \u201crun down to your father; he wants you to help\nhim in the garden.\u201d\n\nInstantly the flash in the eye became a sparkle of delight, the rigid\nlimbs were all active and eager; out of his chair, out of the room,\ndownstairs, by his father\u2019s side in less time than it takes to tell.\nAnd the face--joyous, sparkling, full of eager expectation--surely\nNurse had been mistaken this time? But no; both parents knew how\nquickly Guy emerged from the shadow of a cloud, and they trusted\nHarriet\u2019s discretion.\n\n\u201cWell, boy, so you\u2019ve come to help me garden? But I\u2019ve not done\nbreakfast. Have you finished yours?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, father,\u201d with a dropping lip.\n\n\u201cWell, I\u2019ll tell you what. You run up and eat your porridge and come\ndown as soon as you\u2019re ready; I shall make haste, too, and we shall get\na good half-hour in the garden before I go out.\u201d\n\nUp again went Guy with hasty, willing feet.\n\n\u201cNurse\u201d (breathless hurry and importance), \u201cI must make haste with my\nporridge. Father wants me _directly_ to help him in the garden.\u201d\n\nNurse winked hard at the fact that the porridge was gobbled. The happy\nlittle boy trotted off to one of the greatest treats he knew, and that\nday passed without calamity.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cI can see it will answer, and life will be another thing without\nGuy\u2019s passions; but do you think, Edward, it\u2019s _right_ to give the\nchild pleasures when he\u2019s naughty--in fact, to put a premium upon\nnaughtiness, for it amounts to that?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou\u2019re not quite right there. The child does not know he is naughty;\nthe emotions of \u2018naughtiness\u2019 are there; he is in a physical tumult,\nbut wilfulness has not set in; he does not yet _mean_ to be naughty,\nand all is gained if we avert the set of the will towards wrong doing.\nHe has not had time to recognise that he is naughty, and his thoughts\nare changed so suddenly that he is not in the least aware of what was\ngoing on in him before. The new thing comes to him as naturally and\ngraciously as do all the joys of the childish day. The question of\ndesert does not occur.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nFor a week all went well. Nurse was on the alert, was quick to note the\nruddy storm-signal in the fair little face; never failed to despatch\nhim instantly, and with a quiet unconscious manner, on some errand to\nfather or mother; nay, she improved on her instructions; when father\nand mother were out of the way, she herself invented some pleasant\nerrand to cook about the pudding for dinner; to get fresh water for\nDickie, or to see if Rover had had his breakfast. Nurse was really\nclever in inventing expedients, in hitting instantly on something to\nbe done novel and amusing enough to fill the child\u2019s fancy. A mistake\nin this direction would, experience told her, be fatal; propose what\nwas stale, and not only would Guy decline to give up the immediate\ngratification of a passionate outbreak--for it _is_ a gratification,\nthat must be borne in mind--but he would begin to look suspiciously\non the \u201csomething else\u201d which so often came in the way of this\ngratification.\n\nSecurity has its own risks. A morning came when Nurse was not on the\nalert. Baby was teething and fractious, Nurse was overdone, and the\nnursery was not a cheerful place. Guy, very sensitive to the moral\natmosphere about him, got, in Nurse\u2019s phrase, out of sorts. He relieved\nhimself by drumming on the table with a couple of ninepins, just as\nNurse was getting baby off after a wakeful night.\n\n\u201cStop that noise this minute, you naughty boy! Don\u2019t you see your poor\nlittle brother is going to sleep?\u201d in a loud whisper. The noise was\nredoubled, and assisted by kicks on chair-rungs and table-legs. Sleep\nvanished and baby broke into a piteous wail. This was too much; the\nNurse laid down the child, seized the young culprit, chair and all,\ncarried him to the furthest corner, and, desiring him not to move till\nshe gave him leave, set him down with a vigorous shaking. There were\ndays when Guy would stand this style of treatment cheerfully, but\nthis was not one. Before Harriet had even noted the danger signals,\nthe storm had broken out. For half-an-hour the nursery was a scene of\nfrantic uproar, baby assisting, and even little Flo. Half-an-hour is\nnothing to speak of; in pleasant chat, over an amusing book, the thirty\nminutes fly like five; but half-an-hour in struggle with a raging child\nis a day and a night in length. Mr. and Mrs. Belmont were out, so\nHarriet had it all to herself, and it was contrary to orders that she\nshould attempt to place the child in confinement; solitude and locked\ndoors involved risks that the parents would, rightly, allow no one but\nthemselves to run. At last the tempest subsided, spent, apparently, by\nits own force.\n\nA child cannot bear estrangement, disapproval; he must needs live in\nthe light of a countenance smiling upon him. His passion over, Guy set\nhimself laboriously to be good, keeping watch out of the corner of\nhis eye to see how Nurse took it. She was too much vexed to respond\nin any way, even by a smile. But her heart was touched; and though,\nby-and-by, when Mrs. Belmont came in, she did say--\u201cMaster Guy has been\nin one of his worst tempers again, ma\u2019am: screaming for better than\nhalf-an-hour\u201d--yet she did not tell her tale with the _empressement_\nnecessary to show what a very bad half-hour they had had. His mother\nlooked with grave reproof at the delinquent, but she was not proof\nagainst his coaxing ways.\n\nAfter dinner she remarked to her husband, \u201cYou will be sorry to hear\nthat Guy has had one of his worst bouts again. Nurse said he screamed\nsteadily for more than half-an-hour.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat did you do?\u201d\n\n\u201cI was out at the time, doing some shopping. But when I came back,\nafter letting him know how grieved I was, I did as you say, changed his\nthoughts and did my best to give him a happy day.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow did you let him know you were grieved?\u201d\n\n\u201cI looked at him in a way he quite understood, and you should have seen\nthe deliciously coaxing, half-ashamed look he shot up at me. What eyes\nhe has!\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, the little monkey! and no doubt he measured their effect on his\nmother; you must allow me to say that my theory certainly is not to\ngive him a happy day after an outbreak of this sort.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, I thought your whole plan was to change his thoughts, to keep him\nso well occupied with pleasant things that he does not dwell on what\nagitated him.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, but did you not tell me the passion was over when you found him?\u201d\n\n\u201cQuite over, he was as good as gold.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, the thing we settled on was to _avert_ a threatened outbreak\nby a pleasant change of thought; and to do so in order that, at last,\nthe _habit_ of these outbreaks may be broken. Don\u2019t you see, that is a\nvery different thing from pampering him with a pleasant day when he has\nalready pampered himself with the full indulgence of his passion?\u201d\n\n\u201cPampered himself! Why, you surely don\u2019t think those terrible scenes\ngive the poor child any pleasure. I always thought he was a deal more\nto be pitied than we.\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed I do. Pleasure is perhaps hardly the word; but that the display\nof temper is a form of self indulgence, there is no doubt at all. You,\nmy dear, are too amiable to know what a relief it is to us irritable\npeople to have a good storm and clear the air.\u201d\n\n\u201cNonsense, Edward! But what should I have done? What is the best course\n_after_ the child has given way?\u201d\n\n\u201cI think we must, as you suggested before, consider how we ourselves\nare governed. Estrangement, isolation, are the immediate consequences\nof sin, even of what may seem a small sin of harshness and selfishness.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, but don\u2019t you think that is our delusion? that God is loving us\nall the time, and it is _we_ who estrange ourselves?\u201d\n\n\u201cWithout doubt; and we are aware of the love all the time, but, also,\nwe are aware of a cloud between us and it; we know we are out of\nfavour. We know, too, there is only one way back, through the fire.\nIt is common to speak of repentance as a light thing, rather pleasant\nthan otherwise; but it is searching and bitter: so much so, that the\nChristian soul dreads to sin, even the sin of coldness, from an almost\ncowardly dread of the anguish of repentance, purging fire though it is.\u201d\n\nMrs. Belmont could not clear her throat to answer for a minute. She\nhad never before had such a glimpse into her husband\u2019s soul. Here were\ndeeper things in the spiritual life than any of which she yet knew.\n\n\u201cWell then, dear, about Guy; must he feel this estrangement, go through\nthis fire?\u201d\n\n\u201cI think so, in his small degree; but he must never doubt our love.\nHe must see and feel that it is always there, though under a cloud of\nsorrow which he only can break through.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nGuy\u2019s lapse prepared the way for further lapses. Not two days passed\nbefore he was again _hors de combat_. The boy, his outbreak over, was\nready at once to emerge into the sunshine. Not so his mother. His most\nbewitching arts met only with sad looks and silence.\n\nHe told his small scraps of nursery news, looking in vain for the\ncustomary answering smile and merry words. He sidled up to his mother,\nand stroked her cheek; that did not do, so he stroked her hand;\nthen her gown; no answering touch, no smile, no word; nothing but\nsorrowful eyes when he ventured to raise his own. Poor little fellow!\nThe iron was beginning to enter; he moved a step or two away from his\nmother, and raised to hers eyes full of piteous doubt and pleading.\nHe saw love, which could not reach him, and sorrow, which he was just\nbeginning to comprehend. But his mother could bear it no longer: she\ngot up hastily and left the room. Then the little boy, keeping close\nto the wall, as if even that were something to interpose between him\nand this new sense of desolation, edged off to the furthest corner of\nthe room, and sinking on the floor with a sad, new quietness, sobbed\nout lonely sobs; Nurse had had her lesson, and although she, too, was\ncrying for her boy, nobody went near him but Flo. A little arm was\npassed round his neck; a hot little cheek pressed against his curls:\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t cry, Guy!\u201d two or three times, and when the sobs came all the\nthicker, there was nothing for it but that Flo must cry too; poor\nlittle outcasts!\n\nAt last bedtime came, and his mother; but her face had still that sad,\nfar-away look, and Guy could see she had been crying. How he longed to\nspring up and hug her and kiss her as he would have done yesterday. But\nsomehow he dared not; and she never smiled nor spoke, and yet never\nbefore had Guy known how his mother loved him.\n\nShe sat in her accustomed chair by the little white bed, and beckoned\nthe little boy in his nightgown to come and say his prayers. He knelt\nat his mother\u2019s knee as usual, and then she laid her hands upon him.\n\n\u201c\u2018Our Father\u2019--oh, mother, mo--o--ther, mother!\u201d and a torrent of tears\ndrowned the rest, and Guy was again in his mother\u2019s arms, and she was\nraining kisses upon him, and crying softly with him.\n\nNext morning his father received him with open arms.\n\n\u201cSo my poor little boy had a bad day yesterday!\u201d\n\nGuy hung his head and said nothing.\n\n\u201cWould you like me to tell you how you may help ever having quite such\nanother bad day?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh yes, please, father; I thought I couldn\u2019t help.\u201d\n\n\u201cCan you tell when the \u2018Cross-man\u2019 is coming?\u201d\n\nGuy hesitated. \u201cSometimes, I think. I get all hot.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, the minute you find he\u2019s coming, even if you have begun to cry,\nsay, \u2018Please excuse me, Nurse,\u2019 and run downstairs, and then four times\nround the garden as fast as you can, without stopping to take breath!\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat a good way! Shall I try it now?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, the \u2018Cross-man\u2019 isn\u2019t there now. But I\u2019ll tell you a secret: he\nalways goes away if you begin to do something else as hard as you can;\nand if you can remember to run away from him round the garden, you\u2019ll\nfind he won\u2019t run after you; at the very worst, he won\u2019t run after you\nmore than _once_ round!\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, father, I\u2019ll try! What fun! See if I don\u2019t beat him! Won\u2019t I just\ngive Mr. \u2018Cross-man\u2019 a race! He shall be quite out of breath before we\nget round the fourth time.\u201d\n\nThe vivid imagination of the boy personified the foe, and the father\njumped with his humour. Guy was eager for the fray; the parents had\nfound an ally in their boy; the final victory was surely within\nappreciable distance.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cThis is glorious, Edward; and it\u2019s as interesting as painting a\npicture or writing a book! What a capital device the race with Mr.\n\u2018Cross-man\u2019 is! It\u2019s like \u2018Sintram.\u2019 He\u2019ll be so much on the _qui vive_\nfor \u2018Cross-man\u2019 that he\u2019ll forget to be cross. The only danger I see is\nthat of many false alarms. He\u2019ll try the race, in all good faith, when\nthere is no foe in pursuit.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s very likely; but it will do no harm. He is getting the habit of\nrunning away from the evil, and may for that be the more ready to run\nwhen \u2019tis at his heels; this, of running away from temptation, is the\nright principle, and may be useful to him in a thousand ways.\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, it may be a safeguard to him through life. How did you get the\nidea?\u201d\n\n\u201cDo you remember how Rover was cured of barking after carriages? There\nwere two stages to the cure; the habit of barking was stopped, and a\nnew habit was put in its place; I worked upon the recognised law of\nassociation of ideas, and got Rover to associate the rumble of wheels\nwith a newspaper in his mouth. I tried at the time to explain how it\nwas possible to act thus on the \u2018mind\u2019 of a dog.\u201d\n\n\u201cI recollect quite well, you said that the stuff--nervous tissue, you\ncalled it--of which the brain is made is shaped in the same sort of\nway--at least so I understood--by the thoughts that are in it, as the\ncover of a tart is shaped by the plums below. And then, when there\u2019s\na place ready for them in the brain, the same sort of thoughts always\ncome to fill it.\u201d\n\n\u201cI did not intend to say precisely that,\u201d said Mr. Belmont, laughing,\n\u201cespecially the plum part. However, it will do. Pray go on with your\nmetaphor. It is decided that plums are not wholesome eating. You put in\nyour thumb, and pick out a plum; and that the place may be filled, and\nwell filled, you pop in a--a--figures fail me--a peach!\u201d\n\n\u201cI see! I see! Guy\u2019s screaming fits are the unwholesome plum which\nwe are picking out, and the running away from Cross-man the peach\nto be got in instead. (I don\u2019t see why it should be a peach though,\nunpractical man!) His brain is to grow to the shape of the peach, and\nbehold, the place is filled. No more room for the plum.\u201d[21]\n\n\u201cYou have it; you have put, in a light way, a most interesting law,\nand I take much blame to myself that I never thought, until now, of\napplying it to Guy\u2019s case. But now I think we are making way; we have\nmade provision for dislodging the old habit and setting a new one in\nits place.\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you think the child will be a hero in a very small way, when he\nmakes himself run away from his temper?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot in a small way at all; the child will be a hero. But we cannot\nbe heroes all the time. In sudden gusts of temptation, God grant him\ngrace to play the hero, if only through hasty flight; but in what are\ncalled besetting sins, there is nothing safe but the contrary besetting\ngood habit. And here is where parents have such infinite power over the\nfuture of their children.\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t think me superstitious and stupid; but somehow this scientific\ntraining, good as I see it is, seems to me to undervalue the help we\nget from above in times of difficulty and temptation.\u201d\n\n\u201cLet me say that it is you who undervalue the virtue, and limit the\nscope of the Divine action. Whose are the laws Science labours to\nreveal? Whose are the works, body or brain, or what you like, upon\nwhich these laws act?\u201d\n\n\u201cHow foolish of me! How one gets into a way of thinking that God\ncares only for what we call spiritual things. Let me ask you one more\nquestion. I do see that all this watchful training is necessary, and do\nnot wish to be idle or cowardly about it. But don\u2019t you think Guy would\ngrow out of these violent tempers naturally, as he gets older?\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, he would not, as youth or man, fling himself on the ground and\nroar; but no doubt he would grow up touchy, fiery, open at any minute\nto a sudden storm of rage. The man who has too much self-respect for\nan open exhibition may, as you know well enough, poor wife, indulge\nin continual irritability, suffer himself to be annoyed by trifling\nmatters. No, there is nothing for it but to look upon an irate habit as\none to be displaced by a contrary habit. Who knows what cheerful days\nwe may yet have, and whether in curing Guy I may not cure myself? The\nthing can be done; only one is so lazy about one\u2019s own habits. Suppose\nyou take me in hand?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, I couldn\u2019t! and yet it\u2019s your only fault, dear.\u201d\n\n\u201cOnly fault! well, we\u2019ll see. In the meantime there\u2019s another thing I\nwish we could do for Guy--stop him in the midst of an outbreak. Do you\nremember the morning we found him admiring himself in the glass?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, with the photograph in his hand.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat was it; perhaps the Cross-man race will answer even in the middle\nof a tempest. If not, we must try something else.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt won\u2019t work.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy not?\u201d\n\n\u201cGuy will have no more rages; how then can he be stopped in\nmid-tempest?\u201d\n\n\u201cMost hopeful of women! But don\u2019t deceive yourself. Our work is only\nwell begun, but that, let us hope, is half done.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nHis father was right. Opportunities to check him in mid-career\noccurred; and Guy answered to the rein. Mr. Cross-man worked wonders.\nA record of outbreaks was kept; now a month intervened; two months; a\nyear; two years; and at last his parents forgot their early troubles\nwith their sweet-tempered, frank-natured boy.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [21] To state the case more accurately, certain cell\n connections appear to be established by habitual\n traffic in certain thoughts; but there is so much\n danger of over-stating or of localising mental\n operations, that perhaps it is safe to convey the\n practical outcome of this line of research in a\n more or less figurative way--as, the wearing of a\n field-path; the making of a bridge; a railway, &c.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n _ATTENTION._\n\n\n\u201cBut now for the real object of this letter (does it take your breath\naway to get four sheets?) We want you to help us about Kitty. My\nhusband and I are at our wits\u2019 end, and should most thankfully take\nyour wise head and kind heart into counsel. I fear we have been laying\nup trouble for ourselves and for our little girl. The ways of nature\nare, there is no denying it, very attractive in all young creatures,\nand it is so delightful to see a child do as \u2018\u2019tis its nature to,\u2019 that\nyou forget that Nature, left to herself, produces a waste, be it never\nso lovely. Our little Kitty\u2019s might so easily become a wasted life.\n\n\u201cBut not to prose any more, let me tell you the history of Kitty\u2019s\nyesterday--one of her days is like the rest, and you will be able to\nsee where we want your help.\n\n\u201cFigure to yourself the three little heads bent over \u2018copy-books\u2019 in\nour cheery schoolroom. Before a line is done, up starts Kitty.\n\n\u201c\u2018Oh, mother, may I write the next copy--shell? \u201cShell\u201d is so\nmuch nicer than--know, and I\u2019m so tired of it.\u2019\n\n\u201c\u2018How much have you done?\u2019\n\n\u201c\u2018I have written it three whole times, mother, and I really _can\u2019t_ do\nit any more! I think I could do--shell. \u201cShell\u201d is so pretty!\u2019\n\n\u201cBy-and-by we read; but Kitty cannot read--can\u2019t even spell the words\n(don\u2019t scold us, we know it is quite wrong to spell in a reading\nlesson), because all the time her eyes are on a smutty sparrow on the\ntopmost twig of the poplar; so she reads, \u2018With, birdie!\u2019 We\ndo sums; a short line of addition is to poor Kitty a hopeless and an\nendless task. \u2018Five and three make--nineteen,\u2019 is her last effort,\nthough she knows quite well how to add up figures. Half a scale on the\npiano, and then--eyes and ears for everybody\u2019s business but her own.\nThree stitches of hemming, and idle fingers plait up the hem or fold\nthe duster in a dozen shapes. I am in the midst of a thrilling history\ntalk: \u2018So the Black Prince----\u2019 \u2018Oh, mother, do you think we shall go\nto the sea this year? My pail is quite ready, all but the handle, but I\ncan\u2019t find my spade _anywhere_!\u2019\n\n\u201cAnd thus we go on, pulling Kitty through her lessons somehow; but\nit is a weariness to herself and all of us, and I doubt if the child\nlearns anything except by bright flashes. But you have no notion\nhow quick the little monkey is. After idling through a lesson she\nwill overtake us at a bound at the last moment, and thus escape the\nwholesome shame of being shown up as the dunce of our little party.\n\n\u201cKitty\u2019s dawdling ways, her restless desire for change of occupation,\nher always wandering thoughts, lead to a good deal of friction, and\nspoil our schoolroom party, which is a pity, for I want the children to\nenjoy their lessons from the very first. What do you think the child\nsaid to me yesterday in the most coaxing pretty way? \u2018There are so many\nthings nicer than lessons! Don\u2019t you think so, mother?\u2019 Yes, dear aunt,\nI see you put your finger on those unlucky words \u2018coaxing, pretty way,\u2019\nand you look, if you do not say, that awful sentence of yours about\nsin being bred of allowance. Isn\u2019t that it? It is quite true; we are in\nfault. Those butterfly ways of Kitty\u2019s were delicious to behold until\nwe thought it time to set her to work, and then we found that we should\nhave been training her from her babyhood. Well,\n\n \u2018If you break your plaything yourself, dear,\n Don\u2019t you cry for it all the same?\n I don\u2019t think it is such a comfort\n To have only oneself to blame.\u2019\n\n\u201cSo, like a dear, kind aunt, don\u2019t scold us, but help us to do better.\nIs Kitty constant to anything? you ask. Does she stick to any of the\n\u2018_many_ things so much nicer than lessons\u2019? I am afraid that here,\ntoo, our little girl is \u2018unstable as water.\u2019 And the worst of it is,\nshe is all agog to be at a thing, and then, when you think her settled\nto half-an-hour\u2019s pleasant play, off she is like any butterfly. She\nsays her, \u2018How doth the little busy bee,\u2019 dutifully, but when I tell\nher she is not a bit like a busy bee, but rather like a foolish,\nflitting butterfly, I\u2019m afraid she rather likes it, and makes up to\nthe butterflies as if they were akin to her, and were having just the\ngood time she would prefer. But you must come and see the child to\nunderstand how volatile she is.\n\n\u201c\u2018Oh, mother, _please_ let me have a good doll\u2019s wash this afternoon;\nI\u2019m quite unhappy about poor Peggy! I really think she _likes_ to be\ndirty!\u2019\n\n\u201cGreat preparations follow in the way of little tub, and soap, and big\napron; the little laundress sits down, greatly pleased with herself,\nto undress her dirty Peggy; but hardly is the second arm out of its\nsleeve, than, _presto!_ a new idea; off goes Kitty to clean out her\ndoll\u2019s-house, deaf to all nurse\u2019s remonstrances about \u2018nice hot water,\u2019\nand \u2018poor dirty Peggy.\u2019\n\n\u201cI\u2019m afraid the child is no more constant to her loves than to her\nplay; she is a loving little soul, as you know, and is always adoring\nsomebody. Now it\u2019s her father, now Juno, now me, now Hugh; and the\nrain of warm kisses, the soft clasping arms, the nestling head, are\ndelicious, whether to dog or man. But, alas! Kitty\u2019s blandishments are\na whistle you must pay for; to-morrow it is somebody else\u2019s turn, and\nthe bad part is that she has only room for one at a time. If we could\nget a little visit from you, now, Kitty would be in your pocket all day\nlong; and we, even Peggy, would be left out in the cold. But do not\nflatter yourself it would last; I think none of Kitty\u2019s attachments has\nbeen known to last longer than two days.\n\n\u201cIf the chief business of parents is to train _character_ in their\nchildren, we have done nothing for Kitty; at six years old the child\nhas no more power of application, no more habit of attention, is no\nmore able to make herself do the thing she ought to do, indeed, has\nno more desire to do the right thing, than she had at six months old.\nWe are getting very unhappy about it. My husband feels strongly that\nparents should labour at character as the Hindoo gold-beater labours\nat his vase; that _character_ is the one thing we are called upon to\neffect. And what have we done for Kitty? We have turned out a \u2018fine\nanimal,\u2019 and are glad and thankful for that; but that is all; the child\nis as wayward, as unsteady, as a young colt. Do help us, dear aunt.\nThink our little girl\u2019s case over; if you can, get at the source of the\nmischief, and send us a few hints for our guidance, and we shall be\nyours gratefully evermore.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cAnd now for my poor little great-niece! Her mother piles up charges\nagainst her, but how interesting and amusing and like the free world of\nfairy-land it would all be were it not for the _tendencies_ which, in\nthese days, we talk much about and watch little against. We bring up\nour children in the easiest, happy-go-lucky way, and all the time talk\nsolemnly in big words about the momentous importance of every influence\nbrought to bear upon them. But it is true; these naughty, winsome ways\nof Kitty\u2019s will end in her growing up like half the \u2018girls\u2019--that\nis, young women--one meets. They talk glibly on many subjects; but\ntest them, and they know nothing of any; they are ready to undertake\nanything, but they carry nothing through. This week, So-and-so is their\nmost particular friend, next week such another; even their amusements,\ntheir one real interest, fail and flag; but then, there is some useful\nthing to be learnt--how to set tiles or play the banjo! And, all the\ntime, there is no denying, as you say, that this very fickleness has a\ncharm, so long as the glamour of youth lasts, and the wayward girl has\nbright smiles and winning, graceful ways to disarm you with. But youth\ndoes not last; and the poor girl, who began as a butterfly, ends as a\ngrub, tied to the earth by the duties she never learnt how to fulfil;\nthat is, supposing she is a girl with a conscience; wanting that, she\ndances through life whatever befalls; children, husband, home, must\ntake their chance. \u2018What a giddy old grandmother the Peterfields have!\u2019\nremarked a pert young man of my acquaintance. But, indeed, the \u2018giddy\nold grandmother\u2019 is not an unknown quantity.\n\n\u201cAre you saying to yourself, a prosy old \u2018great-aunt\u2019 is as bad as a\n\u2018giddy old grandmother\u2019? I really have prosed abominably, but Kitty has\nbeen on my mind all the time, and it is quite true, you must take her\nin hand.\n\n\u201cFirst, as to her lessons: you _must_ help her to gain the power of\nattention; that should have been done long ago, but better late than\nnever, and an aunt who has given her mind to these matters takes blame\nto herself for not having seen the want sooner. \u2018But,\u2019 I fancy you are\nsaying, \u2018if the child has no faculty of attention, how can we give it\nto her? It\u2019s just a natural defect.\u2019 Not a bit of it! Attention is\nnot a faculty at all, though I believe it is worth more than all the\nso-called faculties put together; this, at any rate, is true, that no\ntalent, no genius, is worth much without the power of attention; and\nthis is the power which makes men or women successful in life.\n\n\u201cAttention is no more than this--the power of giving your mind to what\nyou are about--the bigger the better so far as the mind goes, and great\nminds do great things; but have you never known a person with a great\nmind, \u2018real genius,\u2019 his friends say, who goes through life without\naccomplishing anything? It is just because he wants the power to \u2018turn\non,\u2019 so to speak, the whole of his great mind; he is unable to bring\nthe whole of his power to bear on the subject in hand. \u2018But Kitty?\u2019\nYes, Kitty must get this power of \u2018turning on.\u2019 She must be taught to\ngive her mind to sums and reading, and even to dusters. Go slowly; a\nlittle to-day and a little more to-morrow. In the first place, her\nlessons must be made _interesting_. Do not let her scramble through a\npage of \u2018reading,\u2019 for instance, spelling every third word and then\nwaiting to be told what it spells, but see that every day she learns\na certain number of new words--six, twelve, twenty, as she is able to\nhear them; not \u2018spellings\u2019--terrible invention!--but words that occur\nin a few lines of some book of stories or rhymes; and these she should\nknow, not by spelling, but by _sight_. It does not matter whether the\nnew words be long or short, in one syllable or in four, but let them\nbe _interesting_ words. For instance, suppose her task for to-day be\n\u2018Little Jack Horner,\u2019 she should learn to know, _by sight_, thumb,\nplum, Christmas, corner, &c., before she begins to read the rhyme; make\n\u2018plum\u2019 with her loose letters, print it on her slate, let her find it\nelsewhere in her book, any device you can think of, so that \u2018plum\u2019 is\nbrought before her eyes half-a-dozen times, and each time recognised\nand named. Then, when it comes in the reading lesson, it is an old\nfriend, read off with delight. Let every day bring the complete mastery\nof a few new words, as well as the keeping up of the old ones. At the\nrate of only six a day she will learn, say, fifteen hundred in a year;\nin other words, she will have learned to read! And if it do not prove\nto be reading without tears and reading with _attention_, I shall\nnot presume to make another suggestion about the dear little girl\u2019s\neducation.\n\n\u201cBut do not let the lesson last more than ten minutes, and insist, with\nbrisk, bright determination, on the child\u2019s full concentrated attention\nof eye and mind for the whole ten minutes. Do not allow a moment\u2019s\ndawdling at lessons.\n\n\u201cI would not give her rows of figures to add yet; use dominoes or\nthe domino cards prepared for the purpose, the point being to add or\nsubtract the dots on the two halves in a twinkling. You will find that\nthe three can work together at this as at the reading, and the children\nwill find it as exciting and delightful as \u2018old soldier.\u2019 Kitty will be\nall alive here, and will take her share of work merrily; and this is a\npoint gained. Do not, if you can help it, single the little maid out\nfrom the rest and throw her on her own responsibility. \u2019Tis a \u2018heavy\nand a weary weight\u2019 for the bravest of us, and the little back will\nget a trick of bending under life if you do not train her to carry it\nlightly, as an Eastern woman her pitcher.\n\n\u201cThen, vary the lessons; now head, and now hands; now tripping feet and\ntuneful tongue; but in every lesson let Kitty and the other two carry\naway the joyous sense of--\n\n \u2018Something attempted, something done.\u2019\n\n\u201cAllow of no droning wearily over the old stale work,--which must be\nkept up all the time, it is true, but rather by way of an exciting game\nthan as the lesson of the day, which should always be a distinct _step_\nthat the children can recognise.\n\n\u201cYou have no notion, until you try, how the \u2018now-or-never\u2019 feeling\nabout a lesson quickens the attention of even the most volatile child;\nwhat you can drone through all day, you will; what _must_ be done,\nis done. Then, there is a by-the-way gain besides that of quickened\nattention. I once heard a wise man say that, if he must choose between\nthe two, he would rather his child should learn the meaning of \u2018must\u2019\nthan inherit a fortune. And here you will be able to bring moral force\nto bear on wayward Kitty. Every lesson must have its own time, and no\nother time in this world is there for it. The sense of the preciousness\nof time, of the irreparable loss when a ten minutes\u2019 lesson is thrown\naway, must be brought home.\n\n\u201cLet your own unaffected distress at the loss of \u2018golden minutes\u2019 be\nfelt by the children, and also be visited upon them by the loss of some\nsmall childish pleasure which the day should have held. It is a sad\nthing to let a child dawdle through a day and be let off scot-free. You\nsee, I am talking of the children, and not of Kitty alone, because it\nis so much easier to be good in company; and what is good for her will\nbe good for the trio.\n\n\u201cBut there are other charges: poor Kitty is neither steady in play nor\nsteadfast in love! May not the _habit_ of attending to her lessons\nhelp her to stick to her play? Then, encourage her. \u2018What! The doll\u2019s\ntea-party over! That\u2019s not the way grown-up ladies have tea; they sit\nand talk for a long time. See if you can make your tea-party last\ntwenty minutes by my watch!\u2019 This failing of Kitty\u2019s is just a case\nwhere a little gentle ridicule might do a great deal of good. It is a\nweapon to be handled warily, for one child may resent, and another take\npleasure in being laughed at; but managed with tact I do believe it\u2019s\ngood for children and grown-ups to see the comic side of their doings.\n\n\u201cI think we err in not enough holding up certain virtues for our\nchildren\u2019s admiration. Put a premium of praise on every finished thing,\nif it is only a house of cards. Steadiness in work is a step on the\nway towards steadfastness in love. Here, too, the praise of constancy\nmight very well go with good-humoured family \u2018chaff,\u2019 not about the\nnew loves, which are lawful, whether of kitten or playmate, but about\nthe discarded old loves. Let Kitty and all of them grow up to glory in\ntheir constancy to every friend.\n\n\u201cThere, I am sending you a notable preachment instead of the few\ndelicate hints I meant to offer; but never mount a woman on her\nhobby--who knows when she will get off again?\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n _AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIMENT_\n\n\nYou wish me to tell you the story of my little girl? Well, to begin at\nthe beginning. In looking back through the pages of my journal I find\nmany scattered notices of Agnes, and I always write of her, I find,\nas \u201cpoor Agnes.\u201d Now, I wonder why? The child is certainly neither\nunhealthy nor unhappy--at least, not with any reason; but again and\nagain I find this sort of entry:--\n\n\u201cAgnes displeased with her porridge; says nothing, but looks black all\nday.\u201d\n\n\u201cHarry upset his sister\u2019s work-basket, by accident, I truly believe,\nbut she can\u2019t get over it; speaks to no one, and looks as if under a\ncloud.\u201d\n\nI need not go on; the fact is, the child is sensible of many injuries\nheaped upon her; I think there is no ground for the feeling, for she is\nreally very sweet when she has not, as the children say, the black dog\non her back.\n\nIt is quite plain to me, and to others also, I think, that we have let\nthis sort of thing go on too long without dealing with it. We must take\nthe matter in hand.\n\nPlease God, our little Agnes must not grow up in this sullen habit,\nfor all our sakes, but chiefly for her own, poor child; I felt that in\nthis matter I might be of more use than Edward, who simply does not\nunderstand a temper less sunny and open than his own. I pondered and\npondered, and, at last, some light broke in upon me. I thought I should\nget hold of one principle at a time, work that out thoroughly, and then\ntake up the next, and so on, until all the springs of sullenness were\nexhausted, and all supplies from without stopped. I was beginning to\nsuspect that the laws of habit worked here as elsewhere, and that, if\nI could get our dear child to pass, say, six weeks without a \u201cfallen\ncountenance,\u201d she might lose this distressing failing for life.\n\nI meant to take most of the trouble of this experiment upon myself, but\nsomehow I never can do anything without consulting my husband. I think\nmen have clearer heads than we women; that is, they can see _both_\nsides of a question and are not carried off their feet by the one side\npresented to them.\n\n\u201cWell, Edward, our little Agnes does not get over her sulky fits; in\nfact, they last longer, and are harder to get out of than ever!\u201d\n\n\u201cPoor little girl! It is unhappy for her and for all of us. But don\u2019t\nyou think it is a sort of childish _malaise_ she will soon grow out of?\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, have you not said, again and again, that a childish fault, left\nto itself, can do no other than strengthen?\u201d\n\n\u201cTrue; I suppose the fact is I am slow to realise the fault. But you\nare right. From the point of view of _habit_ we are pledged to deal\nwith it. Have you made any plans?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes; I have been trying to work the thing out on your lines. We must\nwatch the rise of the sullen cloud, and change her thoughts before she\nhas time to realise that the black fit is coming.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are right; if we can keep the child for only a week without this\nsettling of the cloud, the mere habit would be somewhat broken.\u201d\n\nWe had not to wait for our opportunity. At breakfast next day--whether\nHarry\u2019s porridge looked more inviting than her own, or whether he\nshould not have been helped first, or whether the child had a little\npain of which she was hardly aware--suddenly, her eyes fell, brows\ndropped, lips pouted, the whole face became slightly paler than before,\nthe figure limp, limbs lax, hands nerveless--and our gentle child was\ntransformed, become entirely unlovable. So far, her feelings were in\nthe emotional stage; her injury, whatever it was, had not yet taken\nshape in her thoughts; she could not have told you what was the matter,\nbecause she did not know; but very soon the thinking brain would come\nto the aid of the quick emotions, and then she would be sulky of fixed\npurpose. Her father saw the symptoms rise and knew what that would lead\nto, and, with the promptness which has often saved us, he cried out--\n\n\u201cAgnes, come here, and hold up your pinafore!\u201d and Agnes trotted up to\nhis side, her pinafore held up very much to receive the morning dole\nof crumbs for the birds; presently, she came back radiant with the joy\nof having given the birds a good breakfast, and we had no more sulky\nfits that day. This went on for a fortnight or so, with fair but not\nperfect success. Whenever her father or I was present, we caught the\nemotion before the child was conscious of it, and succeeded in turning\nher thoughts into some pleasant channel. But poor nurse has had bad\nhours with Agnes; there would sit the child, pale and silent, for hours\ntogether, doing nothing because she liked to do it, but only because\nshe was made. And, once the fit had settled down, thick and steady as\na London fog, neither her father nor I could help in the least. Oh, the\ninconceivable settled cloudiness and irresponsiveness of that sweet\nchild face!\n\nOur tactics were at fault. No doubt they helped so far as they went.\nWe managed to secure bright days that might otherwise have been cloudy\nwhen we happened to be present at the first rise of the sullen mood.\nBut it seemed impossible to bring about so long an abstinence from\nsullen fits as would eradicate the _habit_. We pictured to ourselves\nthe dreary life that lay before our pretty little girl; the sort of\ninsulation, the distrust of her sweetness, to which even one such\nsullen fit would give rise; worse, the isolation which accompanies this\nsort of temper, and the anguish of repentance to follow. And then, I\nknow, madness is often bred of this strong sense of injured personality.\n\nIt is not a pleasant thing to look an evil in the face. Whether or no\n\u201ca little knowledge is a dangerous,\u201d certainly, it is a trying thing.\nIf we could only have contented ourselves with, \u201cOh, she\u2019ll grow out of\nit by-and-by,\u201d we could have put up with even a daily cloud. But these\nforecasts of our little girl\u2019s future made the saving of the child at\n_any_ cost our most anxious care.\n\n\u201cI\u2019ll tell you what, Mary; we must strike out a new line. In a general\nway, I do believe it\u2019s best to deal with a child\u2019s faults without\nmaking him aware that he has them. It fills the little beings with a\nridiculous sense of importance to have anything belonging to _them_,\neven a fault. But in this case, I think, we shall have to strike home\nand deal with _the cause_ at least as much as with _the effects_, and\nthat, chiefly, because we have not effects entirely under our control.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, Edward, what if there is no cure? What if this odious temper were\n_hereditary_--our precious child\u2019s inheritance from those who should\nhave brought her only good?\u201d\n\n\u201cPoor little wife! so this is how it looks to you. You women are\nsensitive creatures. Why, do you know, it never occurred to me that it\nmight be all _my_ fault. Well, I will not laugh at the fancy. Let us\ntake it seriously, even if, as it seems to me, a little morbid. Let\nus suppose that this sad sullenness of which I hear so much and see\nso little, is, indeed, Agnes\u2019s inheritance from her mother--may she\nonly inherit all the rest, and happy the man whose life she blesses!\nThe question is not \u2018How has it come?\u2019 but \u2018How are we to deal with\nit?\u2019--equally, you and I. Poor things! It\u2019s but a very half-and-half\nkind of matrimony if each is to pick out his or her own particular\nbundle of failings, and deal with it single-handed. This poor man finds\nthe prospect too much for him! As a matter of fact, though, I believe\nthat every failing of mind, body, temper, and what not, is a matter of\ninheritance, and that each parent\u2019s particular business in life is to\npass his family forward freed from that particular vicious tendency\nwhich has been his own bane--or hers, if you prefer it.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, dear, do as you will; I feel that you know best. What it would\nbe in these days of greater insight to be married to a man who would\nsay, \u2018There, that boy may thank his mother\u2019 for this or the other\nfailure. Of course, the thing is done now, but more often than not as a\nrandom guess.\u201d\n\n\u201cTo return to Agnes. I think we shall have to show her to herself in\nthis matter, to rake up the ugly feeling, however involuntary, and let\nher see how hateful it is. Yes, I do not wonder you shrink from this.\nSo do I. It will destroy the child\u2019s unconsciousness.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, Edward, how I dread to poke into the poor little wounded heart,\nand bring up worse things to startle her!\u201d\n\n\u201cI am sorry for you, dear, but I think it must be done; and don\u2019t\nyou think you are the person to do it? While they have a mother I\ndon\u2019t think I could presume to poke too much into the secrets of the\nchildren\u2019s hearts.\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019ll try; but if I get into a mess you must help me through.\u201d\n\nThe opportunity came soon enough. It was pears this time. Harry would\nnever have known whether he had the biggest or the least. But we had\ntold nurse to be especially careful in this matter. \u201cEach of the\nchildren must have the biggest or best as often as one another, but\nthere must be no fuss, no taking turns, about such trifles. Therefore,\nvery rightly, you gave Harry the bigger and Agnes the smaller pear.\u201d\n\nAgnes\u2019s pear was not touched; there the child sat, without word or sob,\nbut all gathered into herself, like a sea anemone whose tentacles have\nbeen touched. The stillness, whiteness, and brooding sullenness of the\nface, the limp figure and desolate attitude, would have made me take\nthe little being to my heart if I had not too often failed to reach\nher in this way. This went on all day, all of us suffering; and in the\nevening, when I went to hear the children\u2019s prayers before bed, I meant\nto have it out.\n\nWe were both frozen up with sadness, and the weary little one was ready\nto creep into her mother\u2019s heart again. But I must not let her yet.\n\n\u201cSo my poor Agnes has had a very sad day?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, mother,\u201d with a little quivering sob.\n\n\u201cAnd do you know we have all had a very sad day,--father, mother, your\nlittle brother, nurse--every one of us has felt as if a black curtain\nhad been hung up to shut out the sunshine?\u201d\n\nThe child was sympathetic, and shivered at the sight of the black\ncurtain and the warm sunshine shut out.\n\n\u201cAnd do you know who has put us all out in the dark and the cold? Our\nlittle girl drew the curtain, because she would not speak to any of\nus, or be kind to any of us, or love any of us all the day long; so we\ncould not get into the sunshine, and have been shivering and sad in the\ncold.\u201d\n\n\u201cMother, mother!\u201d with gasping sobs; \u201c_not_ you and father?\u201d\n\n\u201cAh! I thought my little girl would be sorry. Now let us try to find\nout how it all happened. Is it possible that Agnes noticed that her\nbrother\u2019s pear was larger than her own?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, mother, how could I?\u201d And the poor little face was hidden in\nher mother\u2019s breast, and the outbreak of sobs that followed was too\npainful. I feared it might mean actual illness for the sensitive little\nsoul. I think it was the right thing to do; but I had barely courage\nenough to leave the results in more loving hands.\n\n\u201cNever mind; don\u2019t cry any more, darling, and we will ask our Father\nabove to forgive and forget all about it. Mother knows that her dear\nlittle Agnes will try not to love herself best any more. And then the\nblack curtain will never fall, and we shall never again be a whole long\nday standing sadly out in the cold. Good-night from mother, and another\nsweet good-night from father.\u201d\n\nThe treatment seems to answer. On the slightest return of the old\nsullen symptoms we show our little girl what they mean. But the grief\nthat follows is so painful that I\u2019m afraid we could not go on with it\nfor the sake of the child\u2019s health. But, happily, we very rarely see a\nsulky face now; and when we do we turn and look upon our child, and the\nlook melts her, until she is all gentleness, penitence, and love.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n _DOROTHY ELMORE\u2019S ACHIEVEMENT: A FORECAST_\n\n\n PART I\n\nI know of no happier moment for parents than that when their eldest\ndaughter returns from school to take her place finally by her mother\u2019s\nside. It was two years that very day since we had seen Dorothy when her\nfather set out for Lausanne to bring her home; and how the children\nand I got through the few days of his absence, I don\u2019t know. The last\ntouches had been put, many times over, to her rooms--not the plain\nlittle room she had left, but a dainty bower for our young maiden, a\nlittle sitting-room opening into a pure nest of a bedroom. Our eyes\nmet, her father\u2019s and mine, and moistened as we conjured up I don\u2019t\nknow what visions of pure young life to be lived there, the virginal\nprayers to be offered at the little prayer table, the gaiety of heart\nthat should, from this nook, bubble over the house, and, who knows,\nby-and-by, the dreams of young love which should come to glorify the\ntwo little rooms.\n\nTwo or three times already had the children put fresh flowers into\neverything that would hold a flower. Pretty frocks and sweet faces,\nbright hair and bright eyes, had been ready this long time to meet\nsister Dorothy.\n\nAt last, a telegram from Dover--\u201cHome by five\u201d--and our restlessness\nsubsided into a hush of expectation.\n\nThe sound of wheels on the gravel, and we flew to the hall door and\nstood in two files, children and maids, Rover and Floss, waiting to\nwelcome the child of the house. Then, a lovely face, glad to tears,\nlooking out of a nest of furs; then, a light leap, almost before the\ncarriage drew up, and I had her in my arms, my Dorothy, the child of\nmy heart! The order of the day was \u201chigh tea,\u201d to which every one,\ndown to baby May, sat up. We two, her father and I, gave her up to the\nchildren, only exchanging notes by the species of telegraphy married\nfolk understand.\n\n\u201cIndubitably lovely!\u201d said her father\u2019s eyes; \u201cAnd what grace--what\nan elegant girl she is!\u201d answered mine; \u201cAnd do but see what tact she\nshows with the little ones;\u201d \u201cAnd notice the way she has with us, as\nif her heart were brimming with reverence and affection.\u201d Thus, we two\nwith our eyes. For a week or more we could not settle down. As it was\nthe Christmas holidays, we had not Miss Grimshaw to keep us in order,\nand so it happened that wherever Dorothy ran,--no, she went with a\nquick noiseless step, but never ran,--about the house to find out the\nold dear nooks, we all followed; a troop of children with their mother\nin the rear; their father too, if he happened to be in. Truly we were\na ridiculous family, and did our best to turn the child\u2019s head. Every\nmuch has its more-so. Dorothy\u2019s two special partisans were Elsie,\nour fifteen years old girl, fast treading in her sister\u2019s steps, and\nHerbert, our eldest son, soon to go to college. Elsie would come to my\nroom and discourse by the hour, her text being ever, \u201cDorothy says.\u201d\nAnd as for Herbs, it was pleasant to see his budding manhood express\nitself in all sorts of little attentions to his lovely sister.\n\nFor lovely she was; there could not be two opinions on that point. A\nlilymaid, tall and graceful, without a trace of awkwardness or self\nconsciousness; the exquisite complexion of the Elmores (they are a\nDevonshire family), warm, lovely rose on pearly white, no hint of\nbrunette colouring; a smile which meant spring and love and other good\nthings; and deep blue eyes reflecting the light of her smile.\n\nNever, not even during the raptures of early married life, have I known\na month of such joyous exhilaration as that which followed Dorothy\u2019s\nreturn, and I think her father would own as much.\n\nWhat a month it was! There was the pleasant earthly joy of going to\ntown to get frocks for Dorothy; then the bewilderment of not being able\nto find out what suited her best.\n\n\u201cAnything becomes her!\u201d exclaims Mdme. la Modiste; \u201cthat figure, that\ncomplexion, may wear anything.\u201d\n\nAnd then, the pleasure of entering a room--all eyes bent upon us in\nkindliness; our dear old friends hurrying forward to make much of\nthe child; the deference and gentleness of her manner to these, and\nthe warmth with which she was received by her compeers, both maidens\nand men; her grace in the dance; her simplicity in conversation; the\nperfection of her manner, which was not manner at all, but her own\nnature, in every situation. After all, she liked best to be at home;\nwas more amiable and lovely with father and mother, brothers and\nsisters, than with the most fascinating strangers. Our good child! We\nhad grown a little shy of speaking to her about the best things, but we\nknew she said her prayers: how else this outflow of sweet maiden life\nupon us all?\n\nI can imagine these ramblings of mine falling into the hands of a\nyoung pair whose life is in each other:--\u201cOh, only the outpourings of\na doting mother!\u201d and they toss the pages aside. But never believe,\nyoung people, that yours are the only ecstatic moments, yours the only\nexperiences worth recording; wait and see.\n\n\n PART II\n\nThese happy days had lasted for a month or more, when, one bright day\nin February, I remember it well, a little cloud arose. This is how\nit was: Dorothy had promised Elsie that she would drive her in the\npony-carriage to Banford to choose a doll for May\u2019s birthday. Now, it\nhappened that I wanted the little carriage to take to my \u201cMothers\u201d at\nDitchling the clothing I had bought in London with their club money. My\nerrand could not be deferred; it must be done that day or a week later.\nBut I did not see why the children\u2019s commission would not do as well\nto-morrow; and so I said, in good faith, as I was stepping into the\ncarriage, hardly noticing the silence with which my remark was received.\n\nI came home tired, after a long afternoon, looking forward to the\nwelcome of the girls. The two seniors were sitting in the firelight,\nbright enough just then to show me Dorothy sitting limp and pale in\na low chair, and Elsie watching her with a perplexed and anxious\nexpression. Dorothy did look up to say, \u201cAre you tired, mother?\u201d but\nonly her eyes looked, there was nothing behind them.\n\n\u201c_You_ look tired and cold enough, my dear; what has been the matter?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, I\u2019m very well, thank you; but I am tired, I think I\u2019ll go to\nbed.\u201d And she held up a cold cheek for the mother\u2019s kiss for which she\noffered no return.\n\nElsie and I gazed at one another in consternation; our fairy princess,\nour idol (was it indeed so?) What had come to her?\n\n\u201cWhat is the matter with Dorothy? Has she a headache?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, mother, I don\u2019t know,\u201d said the poor child, on the verge of tears.\n\u201cShe has been like this ever since you went, saying \u2018Yes,\u2019 and \u2018No,\u2019\nand \u2018No, thank you,\u2019 quite kindly, but never saying a word of herself.\nHas any one been grieving our Dorothy, or is she going to be ill? Oh,\nmother, mother!\u201d\n\n\u201cNay, child, don\u2019t cry. Dorothy is overdone; you know she has been out\ntwice this week, and three times last, and late hours don\u2019t suit her.\nWe must take better care of her, that\u2019s all.\u201d\n\nElsie was comforted, but not so her mother. I believed every word I had\nsaid to the child; but all the time there was a stir in my heart like\nthe rustling of a snake in the grass. But I put it from me.\n\nIt was with a hidden fear that I came down to breakfast. Dorothy was in\nthe room already doing the little duties of the breakfast table. But\nshe was pale and still; her hands moved, her figure hung, in the limp\nway I had noticed the night before. Her cheek, a cold \u201cGood-morning,\nmother,\u201d and a smile on her lips that brought no light to her eyes,\nwas all the morning salutation I got. Breakfast was an uncomfortable,\nconstrained meal. The children wondered what was the matter, and nobody\nknew. Her father got on best with Dorothy for he knew nothing of the\nevening\u2019s history, so he petted her as usual, making all the more of\nher for her pale looks.\n\nFor a whole week this went on, and never once was I allowed to meet\nDorothy eye to eye. The children were hardly better served, for they,\ntoo, had noticed something amiss; only her father could win any of the\nold friendliness, because he treated her as the Dorothy who had come\nhome to us, only a little done up.\n\n\u201cWe must have the doctor for that child, wife. Don\u2019t you see how she is\nlosing flesh, and how the roses she brought home are fading? She has no\nappetite and no spirits. But, why, you surely don\u2019t think our dainty\nmoth has burned her wings already? There\u2019s nobody here, unless it\u2019s\nyoung Gardiner, and she would never waste herself on a gawky lad like\nthat!\u201d\n\nThis was a new idea, and I stopped a moment to consider, for I knew of\nat least half-a-dozen young men who had been attentive to Dorothy, all\nto be preferred to this hobbledehoy young Gardiner. But, no! I could\ntrace the change from the moment of my return from Ditchling. But I\njumped at the notion of the doctor; it would, at any rate, take her out\nof herself, and--we should see.\n\nThe doctor came; said she wanted tone; advised, not physic, but fresh\nair, exercise, and early hours. So we all laid ourselves out to obey\nhis directions that day, but with no success to speak of.\n\nBut the next was one of those glorious February days when every twig\nis holding itself stiffly in the pride of coming leafage, and the\nsnowdrops in the garden beds lift dainty heads out of the brown earth.\nThe joy of the spring did it. We found her in the breakfast-room,\nsnowdrops at her throat, rosy, beaming, joyous; a greeting, sweet\nand tender, for each, and never had we known her talk so sparkling,\nher air so full of dainty freshness. There was no relapse after this\nsudden cure. Our good friend Dr. Evans called again, to find her in\nsuch flourishing health that ten minutes\u2019 raillery of \u201cmy poor patient\u201d\nwas the only attention he thought necessary. But, \u201cH\u2019m! Mighty sudden\ncure!\u201d as he was going out, showed that he too found something odd in\nthis sudden change.\n\nIn a day or two we had forgotten all about our bad week. All went well\nfor awhile. At the end of five weeks, however, we were again pulled\nup--another attack of sudden indisposition, so outsiders thought. What\ndid I think? Well, my thoughts were not enviable.\n\n\u201cFather, I wish you would call at Walker\u2019s and choose me some flowers\nfor this evening.\u201d It was the evening of the Brisbanes\u2019 dance, and\nI had half an idea that Arthur Brisbane had made some impression on\nDorothy. His state of mind was evident enough. But, without thinking\ntwice, I interrupted with--\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you think what we have in the \u2018house\u2019 will do, dear? What could\nmake up better than stephanotis and maidenhair?\u201d\n\nDorothy made no answer, and her father, thinking all was right, went\noff at once; he was already rather late. We thought no more of the\nmatter for a minute or two, when, at the same moment, Elsie and I\nfound our eyes fixed upon Dorothy. The former symptoms followed--days\nof pallor and indisposition, which were, at the same time, days of\nestrangement from us all. Again we had in Dr. Evans, \u201cjust to look\nat her,\u201d and this time I noticed--not without a foolish mother\u2019s\nresentment--that his greeting was other than cordial, \u201cWell, young\nlady, and what\u2019s gone amiss this time?\u201d he said, knitting his bushy\nbrows, and gazing steadily at her out of the eyes which could be keen\nas well as kind. Dorothy flushed and fidgeted under his gaze, but gave\nonly the cold unsatisfactory replies we had been favoured with. The\nprescription was as before; but again the recovery was sudden, and\nwithout apparent cause.\n\n\n PART III\n\nTo make a long story short, this sort of thing went on, at longer or\nshorter intervals, through all that winter and summer and winter again.\nMy husband, in the simplicity of his nature, could see nothing but--\n\n\u201cThe child is out of sorts; we must take her abroad for a month or two;\nshe wants change of air and scene.\u201d\n\nThe children were quicker-eyed; children are always quick to resent\nunevenness of temper in those about them. A single angry outbreak,\nharsh word, and you may lay yourself out to please them for months\nbefore they will believe in you again. Georgie was the first to let the\ncat out of the bag.\n\n\u201cDorothy is in a sulky fit again, mother; I wish she wouldn\u2019t!\u201d\n\nElsie, who has her father\u2019s quick temper, was in the room.\n\n\u201cYou naughty ungrateful little boy, you! How can you say such a thing\nof Dorothy? Didn\u2019t she sit all yesterday morning making sails for your\nboat?\u201d\n\nGeorgie, a little mollified, \u201cYes, but why need she be sulky to-day?\nWe all loved her yesterday, and I\u2019m sure I want to to-day!\u201d\n\nNow that the mask was fallen and even the children could see what was\namiss, I felt that the task before me must not be put off. I had had\ngreat misgivings since the first exhibition of Dorothy\u2019s sullen temper;\nnow I saw what must be done, and braced myself for a heavy task. But\nI could not act alone; I must take my husband into my confidence, and\nthat was the worst of it.\n\n\u201cGeorge, how do you account for Dorothy\u2019s fits of wretchedness?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, my dear, haven\u2019t I told you? The child is out of sorts, and must\nhave change. We\u2019ll have a little trip up the Rhine, and perhaps into\nSwitzerland, so soon as the weather is fit. It will be worth something\nto see her face light up at some things I mean to show her!\u201d\n\n\u201cI doubt if there is anything the matter with her health; remember how\nperfectly well and happy she is between these fits of depression.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat is it, then? You don\u2019t think she\u2019s in love, do you?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot a bit of it; her heart is untouched, and her dearest loves are\nhome loves.\u201d\n\nMy husband blew his nose, with a \u201cBless the little girl! I could find\nit in my heart to wish it might always be so with her. But what is your\nnotion? I can see you have got to the bottom of the little mystery.\nTrust you women for seeing through a stone wall.\u201d\n\n\u201cEach attack of what we have called \u2018poorliness\u2019 has been a fit of\nsullenness, lasting sometimes for days, sometimes for more than a week,\nand passing off as suddenly as it came.\u201d\n\nMy dear husband\u2019s face clouded with serious displeasure; never before\nhad it worn such an expression for me. I had a sense of separation from\nhim, as if we two, who had so long been one, were two once more.\n\n\u201cThis is an extraordinary charge for a mother to bring against her\nchild. How have you come to this conclusion?\u201d\n\nAlready was my husband become my judge. He did not see that I was ill,\nagitated, still standing, and hardly able to keep my feet. And there\nwas worse to come: how was I to go through with it?\n\n\u201cWhat causes for resentment can Dorothy conceivably have?\u201d he repeated,\nin the same cold judicial tone.\n\n\u201cIt is possible to feel resentment, it is possible to nurse resentment,\nto let it hang as a heavy cloud-curtain between you and all you love\nthe best, without any adequate cause, without any cause that you can\nsee yourself when the fit is over!\u201d\n\nMy voice sounded strange and distant in my own ears: I held by the back\nof a chair to steady myself: but I was not fainting: I was acutely\nalive to all that was passing in my husband\u2019s mind. He looked at me\ncuriously, inquisitively, but not as if I belonged to him, and were\npart and parcel of his life.\n\n\u201cYou seem to be curiously familiar with a state of feeling which I\nshould have judged to be the last a Christian lady would know anything\nabout.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, my husband, don\u2019t you see? You are killing me. I am not going\nthrough this anguish for nothing. I _do_ know what it is. And if\nDorothy, my poor child, suffers, it is all my fault! There is nothing\nbad in her but what she has got from me.\u201d\n\nGeorge was moved; he put his arm round me in time to save me. But I\nwas not surprised, a few days later, to find my first grey hairs. If\nthat hour were to be repeated, I think I could not bear it.\n\n\u201cPoor wife! I see; it is to yourself you have been savagely cruel, and\nnot to our little girl. Forgive me, dear, that I did not understand at\nonce; but we men are slow and dull. I suppose you are putting yourself\n(and me too) to all this pain because there is something to be gained\nby it. You see some way out of the difficulty, if there is one!\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t say \u2018if there is one.\u2019 How could I go through all this pain if I\ndid not think some way of helping our darling would come out of it?\u201d\n\n\u201cAh! appearances were against you, but I knew you loved the child all\nthe time. Clumsy wretch that I am, how could I doubt it? But, to my\nmind, there are two difficulties: First, I cannot believe that you ever\ncherished a thought of resentment; and next, who could associate such a\nfeeling with our child\u2019s angelic countenance? No, my dear; believe me,\nyou are suffering under a morbid fancy. \u2019Tis you, and not Dorothy, who\nneed entire change of scene and thought.\u201d\n\nHow should I convince him? And how again run the risk of his even\nmomentary aversion? But if Dorothy were to be saved, the thing must be\ndone. And, oh, how could he for a moment suppose that I should deal\nunlovingly with my firstborn? \u201cBe patient with me, George. I want to\ntell you everything from the beginning.\n\n\u201cDo you remember when you wooed me in the shady paths of our old\nrectory garden, how I tried hard to show you that I was not the loved\nand lovely home-daughter you pictured? I told you how I was cross about\nthis and that; how little things put me out for days, so that I was\nunder a cloud, and really _couldn\u2019t_ speak to, or care about anybody;\nhow, not I, but (forgive the word) my plain sister Helen, was the\nbeloved child of the house, adored by the children, by my parents, by\nall the folk of the village, who must in one way or other have dealings\nwith the parson\u2019s daughters. Do you recollect any of this?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, but what of it? I have never for a moment rued my choice, nor\nwished that it had fallen on our good Helen, kindest of friends to us\nand ours.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd you, dear heart, put all I said down to generosity and humility;\nevery effort I made to show you the truth was put down to the count of\nsome beautiful virtue, until at last I gave it up; you _would_ only\nthink the more of me, and think the less kindly of my dear home people,\nbecause, indeed, they didn\u2019t \u2018appreciate\u2019 me. How I hated the word. I\u2019m\nnot sure I was sorry to give up the effort to show you myself as I was.\nThe fact is, your love made me all it believed me to be, and I thought\nthe old things had passed away.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, dear, and wasn\u2019t I right? Have we had a single cloud upon our\nmarried life?\u201d\n\n\u201cAh, dear man, little you know what the first two years of married\nlife were to me. If you read your newspaper, I resented it; if you\nspent half-an-hour in your smoking den, or an hour with a friend, if\nyou admired another woman, I resented each and all, kept sulky silence\nfor days, even for weeks. And you, all the time, thought no evil, but\nwere sorry for your poor \u2018little wife,\u2019 made much of her, and loved her\nall the more, the more sullen and resentful she became. She was \u2018out\nof sorts,\u2019 you said, and planned a little foreign tour, as you are now\ndoing for Dorothy. I do believe you loved me out of it at last. The\ntime came when I felt myself hunted down by these sullen rages. I ran\naway, took immense walks, read voraciously, but could not help myself\ntill our first child came; God\u2019s gift, our little Dorothy. Her baby\nfingers healed me as not even your love could do. But, oh, George,\ndon\u2019t you see?\u201d\n\n\u201cMy poor Mary! Yes, I see; your healing was bought at the little\nchild\u2019s expense, and the plague you felt within you was passed on to\nher. This, I see, is your idea; but I still believe it is a morbid\nfancy, and I still think my little trip will cure both mother and\ndaughter.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou say well, mother and daughter. The proverb should run, not a burnt\nchild dreads the fire, but a burnt child will soonest catch fire! I\nfeel that all my old misery will come back upon me if I am to see the\nsame thing repeated in Dorothy.\u201d George sat musing for a minute or two,\nbut my fear of him was gone; his face was full of tenderness for both\nof us.\n\n\u201cDo you know, Mary, I doubt if I\u2019m right to treat this effort of yours\nwith a high hand, and prescribe for evils I don\u2019t understand. Should\nyou mind very much our calling our old friend, Dr. Evans, into council?\nI believe, after all, it will turn out to be an affair for him rather\nthan for me.\u201d\n\nThis was worse than all. Were the miseries of this day to know no end?\nShould we, my Dorothy and her mother, end our days in a madhouse? I\nturned my eyes on my husband, and he understood.\n\n\u201cNonsense, wife, not that! Now you really are absurd, and must allow\nme the relief of laughing at you. There, I feel better now, but I\nunderstand; a few years ago a doctor was never consulted about this\nkind of thing unless it was supposed to denote insanity. But we have\nchanged all that, and you\u2019re as mad as a hatter to get the notion.\nYou\u2019ve no idea how interesting it is to hear Evans talk of the mutual\nrelations between thought and brain, and on the other hand, between\nthought and character. Homely an air as he has, he is up to all that\u2019s\ngoing on. You know he went through a course of study at Leipsic, where\nthey know more than we about the brain and its behaviour, and then, he\nruns across every year to keep himself abreast with the times. It isn\u2019t\nevery country town that is blessed with such a man.\u201d\n\nI thought I was being let down gently to the everyday level, and\nanswered as we answer remarks about the weather, until George said--\n\n\u201cWell, when shall we send for Evans? The sooner we get more light on\nthis matter, the better for all of us.\u201d\n\n\u201cVery well, send for him to-morrow; tell him all I have told you, and,\nif you like, I shall be here to answer further questions.\u201d\n\n\n PART IV\n\n\u201cMrs. Elmore is quite right; this is no morbid fancy of hers. I have\nobserved your pretty Miss Dorothy, and had my own speculations. Now,\nthe whole thing lies in a nutshell.\u201d\n\n\u201cCan you deal with our trouble, doctor?\u201d I cried out.\n\n\u201cDeal with it, my dear madam? Of course I can. Your Dorothy is a good\ngirl, and will yield herself to treatment. As to that, you don\u2019t want\nme. The doctor is only useful on the principle that lookers on see most\nof the game. Once understand the thing, and it is with you the cure\nmust lie.\u201d\n\n\u201cPlease explain; you will find me very obedient.\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019m not so sure of that; you know the whole of my mental property has\nnot been gathered in this right little, tight little island. You ladies\nlook very meek; but directly one begins to air one\u2019s theories--which\nare not theories, by the way, but fixed principles of belief and\nconduct--you scent all manner of heterodoxy, and because a valuable\nline of scientific thought and discovery is new to you, you take up\narms, with the notion that it flies in the face of the Bible. When, as\na matter of fact, every new advance in science is a further revelation,\ngrowing out, naturally, from that we already have.\u201d\n\n\u201cTry me, doctor; your \u2019doxy shall be my \u2019doxy if you will only take us\nin hand, and I shall be ready enough to believe that your science is by\nrevelation.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, here goes. In for a penny, in for a pound. In the first place,\nI want to do away with the sense of moral responsibility, both for\nyourself and Dorothy, which is wearing you out. Or, rather, I want\nto circumscribe its area and intensify its force. Dorothy has,\nperhaps, and conceivably her mother has also, inherited her peculiar\ntemperament; but you are not immediately responsible for that.\nShe, again, has fostered this inherited trait, but neither is she\nimmediately responsible for the fact.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow do you mean, doctor? That we can\u2019t help it, and must take our\nnature as we find it? But that is worse than ever. No; I cannot believe\nit. Certainly my husband has done a great deal to cure me.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo doubt he has. And how he has done it, without intention, I dare\nsay, I hope by-and-by to show you. Perhaps you now and then remark,\nWhat creatures of habit we are!\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd what of that? No one can help being struck now and then with the\nfact; especially, no mother.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, and what does this force of habit amount to? and how do you\naccount for it?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, I suppose it amounts to this, that you can do almost anything\nonce you get into the way of it. Why, I don\u2019t know; I suppose it\u2019s the\nnatural constitution of the mind.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe \u2018natural constitution of the mind\u2019 is a conversational counter\nwith whose value I am not acquainted. That you can get into the way of\ndoing almost anything, is simple fact; but you must add, of thinking\nanything, of feeling anything, before you begin to limit the force of\nhabit.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think I begin to see what you mean. We, my child and I, are not so\nmuch to blame now for our sullen and resentful feelings, because we\nhave got the habit of them. But surely habits may be cured?\u201d\n\n\u201cAh, once we begin to see that, we are to blame for them. We must ask,\nHow are we to set about the cure? What\u2019s to be _done_? What hopeless\nidiots we are, the best of us, not to see that the very existence of an\nevil is a demand for its cure, and that, in the moral world, there\u2019s a\ndock for every nettle!\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd then, surely, the sins of the fathers visited upon the children,\nis a bitter law. How could Dorothy help what she inherited?\u201d\n\n\u201cDorothy could not help it, but you could; and what have you two\nexcellent parents been about to defer until the child is budding into\nwomanhood this cure which should have been achieved in her infancy?\nSurely, seventeen years ago at least, you must have seen indications\nof the failing which must needs be shown up now, to the poor girl\u2019s\ndiscredit.\u201d\n\nI grew hot all over under this home thrust, while George looked half\ndubious, half repentant, not being quite sure where his offence lay.\n\n\u201cIt is doubly my fault, doctor, I see it all now. When Dorothy was a\nchild I _would_ not face the fact. It was too awful to think my child\nwould be as I still was. So we had many little fictions that both nurse\nand mother saw through: the child was poorly, was teething still, was\noverdone. The same thing, only more so, went on during her schoolroom\nlife. Dorothy was delicate, wanted stamina, must have a tonic. And\nthis, though we had a governess who tried to convince me that it\nwas temper and not delicacy that ailed my little girl. The worst of\ndeceiving yourself is that you get to believe the lie. I saw much less\nof the schoolroom than of the nursery party, and firmly believed in\nDorothy\u2019s frequent attacks of indisposition.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, supposing you had faced the truth, what would you have done?\u201d\n\n\u201cThere is my excuse; I had no idea that anything could be done.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, please, don\u2019t write me down a pagan if I try to show you what\nmight have been done, and may yet be done.\u201d\n\n\u201cDoctor Evans!\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, yes, \u2019tis a fact; you good women are convinced that the setting\nof a broken limb is a work for human skill, but that the cure of a\nfault of disposition is for Providence alone to effect, and you say\nyour prayers and do nothing, looking down from great heights upon us\nwho believe that skill and knowledge come in here too, and are meant to\ndo so in the divine scheme of things. It\u2019s startling when you come to\nthink of it, that every pair of parents have the absolute _making_ of\ntheir child!\u201d\n\n\u201cBut what of _inherited_ failings--such cases as this of ours?\u201d\n\n\u201cPrecisely a case in point. Don\u2019t you see, such a case is just a\nproblem set before parents with a, \u2018See, how will you work out this so\nas to pass your family on free from taint?\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s a noble thought of yours, Evans. It gives every parent a\nshare in working out the salvation of the world, even to thousands\nof generations. Come, Mary, we\u2019re on our promotion! To pass on our\nchildren free from the blemishes they get from us is a thing worth\nliving for.\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed it is. But don\u2019t think me narrow-minded, doctor, nor that I\nshould presume to think hard things of you men of science, if I confess\nthat I still think the ills of the flesh fall within the province of\nman, but the evils of the spirit within the province of God.\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019m not sure but that I\u2019m of your mind; where we differ is as to\nthe boundary line between flesh and spirit. Now, every fault of\ndisposition and temper, though it may have begun in error of the spirit\nin ourselves or in some ancestor, by the time it becomes a fault of\ncharacter is _a failing of the flesh_, and is to be dealt with as\nsuch--that is, by appropriate treatment. Observe, I am not speaking of\noccasional and sudden temptations and falls, or of as sudden impulses\ntowards good, and the reaching of heights undreamed of before. These\nthings are of the spiritual world, and are to be spiritually discerned.\nBut the failing or the virtue which has become habitual to us is flesh\nof our flesh, and must be treated on that basis whether it is to be\nuprooted or fostered.\u201d\n\n\u201cI confess I don\u2019t follow: this line of argument should make the work\nof redemption gratuitous. Every parent can save his child, and every\nman can save himself.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, my dear; there you\u2019re wrong. I agree with Evans. \u2019Tis we who lose\nthe efficacy of the great Redemption by failing to see what it _has_\naccomplished. That we have still to engage in a spiritual warfare,\nenabled by spiritual aids, Dr. Evans allows. His point is, as I\nunderstand it, why embarrass ourselves with these less material ills of\nthe flesh which are open to treatment on the same lines, barring the\ndrugs, as a broken limb or a disordered stomach. Don\u2019t you see how it\nworks? We fall, and fret, and repent, and fall again; and are so over\nbusy with our own internal affairs, that we have no time to get that\nknowledge of the Eternal which is the life of the living soul?\u201d\n\n\u201cAll this is beyond me. I confess it is neither the creed nor the\npractice in which I was brought up. Meantime, how is it to affect\nDorothy? That is the practical question.\u201d\n\nDr. Evans threw a smiling \u201cI told you so\u201d glance at my husband, which\nwas a little annoying; however, he went on:--\n\n\u201cTo be sure; that is the point. Poor Dorothy is just now the occasional\nvictim of a troop of sullen, resentful thoughts and feelings, which\nwear her out, shut out the sunshine, and are as a curtain between her\nand all she loves. Does she want these thoughts? No; she hates and\ndeplores them on her knees, we need not doubt; resolves against them;\ngoes through much spiritual conflict. She is a good girl, and we may\nbe sure of all this. Now we must bring physical science to her aid.\nHow those thoughts began we need not ask, but there they are; they\ngo patter, patter, to and fro, to and fro, in the nervous tissue of\nthe brain, until--here is the curious point of contact between the\nmaterial and the immaterial, we see by results that there is such\npoint of contact, but how or why it is so we have not even a guess\nto offer--until the nervous tissue is modified under the continued\ntraffic in the same order of thoughts. Now, these thoughts become\nautomatic; they come of themselves, and spread and flow as a river\nmakes and enlarges its bed. Such habit of thought is set up, and\nmust go on indefinitely, in spite of struggles, unless--and here is\nthe word of hope--a contrary habit is set up, diverting the thoughts\ninto some quite new channel. Keep the thoughts running briskly in the\nnew channel, and, behold, the old connections are broken while a new\ngrowth of brain substance is perpetually taking place. The old thoughts\nreturn, and there is no place for them, and Dorothy has time to make\nherself think of other things before they can establish again the old\nlinks. There is, shortly, the philosophy of ordering our thoughts--the\nfirst duty of us all.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is very wonderful, and should help us. Thank you very much; I\nhad no idea that our _thoughts_ were part and parcel, as it were, of\nany substance. But I am not sure yet how this is to apply to Dorothy.\nIt seems to me that it will be very difficult for her, poor child,\nto bring all this to bear on herself. It will be like being put into\ntrigonometry before you are out of subtraction.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are right, Mrs. Elmore, it will be a difficult piece of work, to\nwhich she will have to give herself up for two or three months. If I\nam not mistaken in my estimate of her, by that time we shall have a\ncure. But if you had done the work in her childhood, a month would have\neffected it, and the child herself would have been unconscious of\neffort.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow sorry I am. Do tell me what I should have done.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe tendency was there, we will allow; but you should never have\nallowed the _habit_ of this sort of feeling to be set up. You should\nhave been on the watch for the outward signs--the same then as now,\nsome degree of pallor, with general limpness of attitude, and more or\nless dropping of the lips and eyes. The moment one such sign appeared,\nyou should have been at hand to seize the child out of the cloud she\nwas entering, and to let her bask for an hour or two in love and light,\nforcing her to meet you eye to eye, to find only love and joy in yours.\nEvery sullen attack averted is so much against setting up the habit;\nand habit, as you know, is a chief factor in character.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd can we do nothing for her now?\u201d\n\n\u201cCertainly you can. Ignore the sullen humours, let gay life go on as\nif she was not there, only drawing her into it now and then by an\nappeal for her opinion, or for her laugh at a joke. Above all, when\ngood manners compel her to look up, let her meet unclouded eyes, full\nof pleasure in her; for, believe, whatever cause of offence she gives\nto you, she is far more deeply offensive to herself. And you should do\nthis all the more because, poor girl, the brunt of the battle will fall\nupon her.\u201d\n\n\u201cI see you are right; all along, her sullenness has given way before\nher father\u2019s delight in her, and indeed it is in this way that my\nhusband has so far cured me. I suppose you would say he had broken the\nhabit. But won\u2019t you see her and talk to her? I know you can help her\nmost.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, to tell you the truth, I was going to ask you if I might; her\nsensitive nature must be gently handled; and, just because she has\nno such love for me as for her parents, I run less risk of wounding\nher. Besides, I have a secret to tell which should help her in the\nmanagement of herself.\u201d\n\n\u201cThank you, Evans; we are more grateful than I can say. Will you strike\nwhile the iron\u2019s hot? Shall we go away and send her to you, letting her\nsuppose it is a mere medical call?\u201d\n\n\n PART V\n\n\u201cGood-morning, Miss Dorothy; do you know I think it\u2019s quite time this\nstate of things should come to an end. We are both tired of the humbug\nof treating you for want of health when you are quite strong and well.\u201d\n\nDorothy looked up with flushed face (I had it all later from both Dr.\nEvans and Dorothy herself), and eyes half relieved, half doubtful, but\nnot resentful, and stood quietly waiting.\n\n\u201cAll the same, I think you are in a bad way, and are in great need of\nhelp. Will you bear with me while I tell you what is the matter, and\nhow you may be cured?\u201d\n\nDorothy was past speaking, and gave a silent assent.\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t be frightened, poor child, I don\u2019t speak to hurt you, but to\nhelp. A considerable part of a life which should be all innocent gaiety\nof heart, is spent in gloom and miserable isolation. Some one fails to\ndot his i\u2019s, and you resent it, not in words or manner, being too well\nbrought up; but the light within you is darkened by a flight of black\nthoughts. \u2018He (or she) shouldn\u2019t have done it! It\u2019s too bad! They\ndon\u2019t care how they hurt me! I should never have done so to her!\u2019--and\nso on without end. Presently you find yourself swathed in a sort of\ninvisible shroud; you cannot reach out a living hand to anybody, nor\nspeak in living tones, nor meet your dear ones eye to eye with a living\nand loving glance. There you sit, like a dead man at the feast. By this\ntime you have forgotten the first offence, and would give the world to\nget out of this death-in-life. You cry, you say your prayers, beg to\nbe forgiven and restored, but your eyes are fixed upon yourself as a\nhateful person, and you are still wrapped in the cloud; until, suddenly\n(no doubt in answer to your prayers), a hug from little May, the first\nprimrose of the year, a lark, filling the world with his gladness, and,\npresto! the key is turned, the enchanted princess liberated, glad as\nthe lark, sweet as the flower, and gay as the bright child!\u201d\n\nNo answer: Dorothy\u2019s arms laid on the table, and her face hidden upon\nthem. At last, in a choked voice--\u201cPlease go on, doctor!\u201d\n\n\u201cAll this may be helped,\u201d a start: \u201cmay, within two or three months, be\ncompletely cured, become a horrid memory and nothing more!\u201d A gasp, and\nstreaming eyes raised, where the light of hope was struggling with fear\nand shame.\n\n\u201cThis is very trying for you, dear child! But I must get on with my\ntask, and when I have done, it\u2019s my belief you\u2019ll forget the pain for\njoy. In the first place, you are not a very wicked girl because these\nugly thoughts master you; I don\u2019t say, mind you, that you will be\nwithout offence once you get the key between your fingers; but as it\nis, you need not sit in judgment on yourself any more.\u201d\n\nThen Dr. Evans went on to make clear to Dorothy what he had already\nmade clear to us of the interaction of thought and brain; how that\nThought, Brain, & Co., were such close allies that nobody could tell\nwhich of the two did what: that they even ran a business of their own,\nindependently of _Ego_, who was supposed to be the active head of the\nfirm, and so on.\n\nDorothy listened with absorbed intentness, as if every word were\nsaving; but the light of hope died slowly out.\n\n\u201cI think I see what you mean; these black thoughts come and rampage\neven against the desire of the _Ego_, I, myself: but, oh doctor, don\u2019t\nyou see, that\u2019s all the worse for me?\u201d\n\n\u201cStop a bit, stop a bit, my dear young lady, I have not done yet. _Ego_\nsees things are going wrong and asserts himself; sets up new thoughts\nin a new course, and stops the old traffic, and in course of time, and\na very short time too, the old nerve connections are broken, and the\nold way under tillage; no more opening for traffic there. Have you got\nit?\u201d\n\n\u201cI think so. I\u2019m to think of something else, and soon there will be no\nroom in the brain for the ugly thoughts which distress me. But that\u2019s\njust the thing I can\u2019t do!\u201d\n\n\u201cBut that is exactly the only thing you have power to do! Have you any\nidea what the will is, and what are its functions?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know much about it. I suppose your will should make you able\nto do the right thing when you feel you can\u2019t! You should say, I\nwill, and go and do it. But you don\u2019t know how weak I am. It makes no\ndifference to me to say, I will!\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, now, to own up honestly, I don\u2019t think it ever made much\ndifference to anybody outside of the story-books. All the same, Will is\na mighty fellow in his own way, but he goes with a sling and a stone,\nand not with the sword of Goliath. He attacks the giant with what seems\na child\u2019s plaything, and the giant is slain. This is how it works.\nWhen ill thoughts _begin_ to molest you, turn away your mind with a\nvigorous turn, and _think of something else_. I don\u2019t mean think good\nforgiving thoughts, perhaps you are not ready for that yet; but think\nof something interesting and pleasant; the new dress you must plan, the\nfriend you like best, the book you are reading; best of all, fill heart\nand mind suddenly with some capital plan for giving pleasure to some\npoor body whose days are dull. The more exciting the thing you think\nof, the safer you are. Never mind about fighting the evil thought. This\nis the one thing you have to do; for this is, perhaps, the sole power\nthe will has. It enables you to change your thoughts; to turn yourself\nround from gloomy thoughts to cheerful ones. Then you will find that\nyour prayers will be answered, for you will know what to ask for, and\nwill not turn your back on the answer when it comes. There, child, I\nhave told you the best secret of an old man\u2019s life, and have put into\nyour hands the key of self-government and a happy life. Now you know\nhow to be better than he that taketh a city.\u201d\n\n\u201cThank you a thousand times for your precious secret. You have lifted\nmy feet out of the slough. I _will_ change my thoughts (may I say\nthat?). You shall find that your key does not rust for want of use. I\ntrust I may be helped from above never to enter that cloud again.\u201d\n\nAnd she did not. It is five years since she had that talk in the\nlibrary with Dr. Evans (he died within the year, to our exceeding\nregret). What battles she fought we never heard; never again was\nthe subject alluded to. For two years she was our constantly loving\nand joyous home daughter; for three, she has been Arthur Brisbane\u2019s\nhappy-hearted wife; and her little sunbeam of an Elsie--no fear that\nshe will ever enter the cloud in which mother and grandmother were so\nnearly lost.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n _CONSEQUENCES_\n\n\nHave you ever played at \u201cConsequences,\u201d dear reader? This is how it\ngoes. He said to her, \u201cIt\u2019s a cold day.\u201d She said to him, \u201cI like\nchocolates.\u201d The consequence was, they were both put to death, and the\nworld said, \u201cIt serves them right.\u201d\n\nJust so exquisitely inconsequent is the game of \u201cconsequences\u201d in\nreal life--at which many a child is an unwilling player, and just so\narbitrary their distribution. We are all born heirs to all the Russias\nif a certain aptness at autocratic government can be construed into a\ntitle. Watch the children in the street play at keeping school; how\nthe schoolmistress lavishes \u201chanders,\u201d how she corners and canes her\nscholars! And the make-believe scholars enter into the game. They would\ndo the same if they had the chance, and their turn will come.\n\nHow does it work in real life, this turn for autocracy, which, you may\nobserve, gives zest to most of the children\u2019s games?\n\nLittle Nancy is inclined to be fretful; her nurse happens to be\nparticularly busy that morning looking out the children\u2019s summer\nclothing. She is a kind-hearted woman, and fond of Nancy, but, \u201cWhy\ndoes the child whine so?\u201d And a hasty box on the little ear emphasises\nthe indignant query. There is mischief already, which is the cause of\nthe whining; and, by that concussion, Nancy is \u201cput to death,\u201d like\nthe people in the game; not for a year or two, though, and nobody\nassociates nurse with the family sorrow; and she, for her part, never\nthinks again of that hasty blow. But, you object, nurse is ignorant,\nthough kind; with the child\u2019s parents, it is otherwise. Yes, but not\nentirely otherwise. Mr. Lindsay, who is a book-lover, goes into his\nden to find his little boy of four, making \u201ccard-houses,\u201d with some\nchoice new volumes he has clambered after; down they go bump, and the\ncorners are turned, and the books unsightly objects evermore. \u201cWhat\nare you doing here, child? Go to the nursery, and don\u2019t let me see you\nhere again!\u201d Ah, me! Does he know how deep it cuts? Does he know that\nthe ten minutes romp with \u201cfather\u201d in his room is the supreme joy of\nthe day for little Dick? And does he know that everything is for ever\nand ever to a little child, whose experience has not yet taught him\nthe trick of hoping when things look dark? But, \u201cIt is for the child\u2019s\ngood;\u201d is it? Dick does not yet know what is wrong. \u201cNever touch books\nwhich are not given you to play with,\u201d would have instructed him, and\nhindered similar mischief in the future.\n\nHow is it that devoted nurse and affectionate father cause injurious\n\u201cconcussions,\u201d moral and physical, to a child\u2019s tender nature? A good\ndeal is to be set down to ignorance or thoughtlessness; they do not\nknow, or they do not consider, how this and that must affect a child.\nBut the curious thing is that grown-up people nearly always err on the\nsame lines. The arbitrary exercise of authority on the part of parent,\nnurse, governess, whoever is set in authority over him, is the real\nstone of stumbling and rock of offence in the way of many a child. Nor\nis there room for the tender indulgent mother to congratulate herself\nand say, \u201cI always thought Mrs. Naybor was too hard on her children,\u201d\nfor the most ruinous exercise of arbitrary authority is when the mother\nmakes herself a law unto her child, with power to excuse him from his\nduties, and to grant him (more than papal) indulgences. This sort of\ntender parent is most tenacious of her authority, no one is permitted\nto interfere with her rule--for rule it is, though her children are\nnotably unruly. She answers all suggestions and expostulation with\none formula: My children shall never have it to say that their mother\nrefused them anything it was in her power to give.\n\n\u201cIn her power.\u201d This mother errs in believing that her children are\nhers--in her power, body and soul. Can she not do what she likes with\nher own?\n\nIt is worth while to look to the springs of conduct in human nature for\nthe source of this common cause of the mismanagement of children. There\nmust be some unsuspected reason for the fact that persons of weak and\nof strong nature should err in the same direction.\n\nIn every human being there are implanted, as we know, certain so-called\nprimary or natural desires, which are among the springs or principles\nout of which his action or conduct flows. These desires are neither\nvirtuous nor vicious in themselves: they are quite involuntary: they\nhave place equally in the savage and savant: he who makes his appeal\nto any one of those primary desires is certain of a hearing. Thus,\nevery man has an innate desire of companionship: every man wants to\n_know_, however little worthy the objects of his curiosity: we all want\nto stand well with our neighbours, however fatuously we lay ourselves\nout for esteem: we would, each of us, fain be the best at some one\nthing, if it be only a game of chance which excites our emulation; and\nwe would all have rule, have authority, even if our ambition has no\ngreater scope than the rule of a dog or a child affords. These desires\nbeing primary or natural, the absence of any one of them in a human\nbeing makes that person so far unnatural. The man who hates society\nis a misanthrope; he who has no curiosity is a clod. But, seeing that\na man may make shipwreck of his character and his destiny by the\nexcessive indulgence of any one of these desires, the regulation,\nbalancing, and due ordering of these springs of action is an important\npart of that wise self-government which is the duty of every man,\nespecially of every Christian man.\n\nIt is not that the primary desires are the only springs of action; we\nall know that the affections, the appetites, the emotions, play their\npart, and that reason and conscience are the appointed regulators of\nmachinery which may be set in motion by a hundred impulses. But the\nsubject for our consideration is the punishments inflicted on children;\nand we shall not arrive at any safe conclusion unless we regard these\npunishments from the point of view of the punisher as well as from that\nof the punished.\n\nNow every one of the primary desires, as well as of the affections and\nappetites, has a tendency to run riot if its object be well within\nits grasp. The desire of society undirected and unregulated may lead\nto endless gadding about and herding together. The fine principle\nof curiosity may issue in an inordinate love of gossip, and of poor\ndisconnected morsels of knowledge served up in scraps, which are of the\nnature of gossip. Ambition, the desire of power, comes into play when\nwe have a live thing to order, and we rule child and servant, horse and\ndog. And it is well that we should. The person who is (comparatively)\nwithout ambition has no capacity to rule. Have you a nurse who\n\u201cmanages\u201d children well? She is an ambitious woman, and her ambition\nfinds delightful scope in the government of the nursery. At the same\ntime, the love of power, unless it be duly and carefully regulated\nand controlled, leads to arbitrary behaviour--that is, to lawless,\ninjurious behaviour--towards those under our rule. Nay, we may be so\ncarried away, intoxicated, by a fierce lust of power that we do some\nterrible irrevocable deed of cruelty to a tender child-body or soul,\nand wake up to never-ending remorse. We meant no harm; we meant to\nteach obedience, and, good God! we have killed a child.\n\nWithin the last few years tales have been told in the newspapers of\nthe savage abuse of power, free for the time being from external\ncontrol; tales, which, be they true or not, should make us all commune\nwith our hearts and be still. For, we may believe it, they who have\ndone these things are no worse than we could be. They had opportunity\nto do ill deeds, and they did them. We have not been so far left to\nourselves. But let us look ourselves in the face; let us recognise\nthat the principle which has betrayed others into the madness of crime\nis inherent in us also, and that whether it shall lead us to heights\nof noble living or to criminal cruelty is not a matter to be left to\nthe chapter of accidents. We have need of the divine grace to prevent\nand follow us, and we have need to consciously seek and diligently use\nthis grace to keep us who are in authority in the spirit of meekness,\nremembering always that the One who is entrusted with the rod of iron\nis meek and lowly of heart.\n\nIn proportion as we keep ourselves fully alive to our tendency in\nthis matter of authority may we trust ourselves to administer the law\nto creatures so tender in body and soul as are the little children.\nWe shall remember that a word may wound, that a look may strike as a\nblow. It may indeed be necessary to wound in order to heal, but we\nshall examine ourselves well before we use the knife. There will be\nno hasty dealing out of reproof and punishment, reward and praise,\naccording to the manner of mood we are in. We shall not only be aware\nthat our own authority is deputed, and to be used with the meekness\nof wisdom; but we shall be infinitely careful in our choice of the\npersons in whose charge we place our children. It is not enough that\nthey be good Christian people. We all know good Christian persons\nof an arbitrary turn who venture to wield that rod of iron which is\nsafe in the hands of One alone. Let them be good Christian persons of\nculture and self-knowledge, not the morbid self-knowledge that comes\nof introspection, but that far wider, humbler cognisance of self that\ncomes of a study of the guiding principles and springs of action common\nto us all as human beings, and which brings with it the certainty\nthat--\u201cI am just such an one as the rest, might even be as the worst,\nwere it not for the grace of God and careful walking.\u201d\n\nIt is no doubt much easier to lay down our authority and let the\nchildren follow their own lead, or be kept in order by another, than to\nexercise constant watchfulness in the exercise of our calling. But this\nis not in our option; we must _rule_ with diligence. It is necessary\nfor the children that we should; but we must keep ourselves continually\nin check, and see that our innate love of power finds lawful outlet in\nthe building up of a child\u2019s character, and not in the rude rebuff, the\njibe and sneer, the short answer and hasty slap which none of us older\npeople could conceivably endure ourselves, and yet practise freely on\nthe children \u201cfor their good.\u201d\n\n\u201cTo this day,\u201d says an American author,[22] \u201cthe old tingling pain\nburns my cheeks as I recall certain rude and contemptuous words which\nwere said to me when I was very young, and stamped on my memory for\never. I was once called \u2018a stupid child\u2019 in the presence of strangers.\nI had brought the wrong book from my father\u2019s study. Nothing could be\nsaid to me to-day which would give me a tenth part of the hopeless\nsense of degradation which came from those words. Another time, on\nthe arrival of an unexpected guest to dinner, I was sent, in a great\nhurry, away from the table to make room, with the remark that \u2018it was\nnot of the least consequence about the child; she could just as well\nhave her dinner afterward.\u2019 \u2018The child\u2019 would have been only too happy\nto help in the hospitality of the sudden emergency if the thing had\nbeen differently put; but the sting of having it put that way I never\nforgot. Yet, in both these instances, the rudeness was so small in\ncomparison with what we habitually see that it would be too trivial to\nmention, except for the bearing of the fact that the pain it gave has\nlasted until now.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat, is it severity in these maudlin days to call a child \u2018stupid\u2019? A\npretty idiot he\u2019ll make of himself when the world comes to bandy names\nwith him if he\u2019s to be brought up on nothing but the butter and honey\nof soft speeches.\u201d This is a discordant protest, not at all in harmony\nwith the notions of perfect child-living with which we are amusing\nourselves in these days; but we cannot afford to turn a deaf ear to it.\n\u201cDon\u2019t make a fool of the child,\u201d was the warning young mothers used\nto get from their elders. But we have changed all that, and a child\u2019s\nparadise must be prepared for the little feet to walk in. \u201cHe\u2019s so\nhappy at school,\u201d we are told, and we ask no more. We have reversed the\nold order; it used to be, \u201cIf he\u2019s good, he will be happy;\u201d now we say,\n\u201cIf he\u2019s happy, he will be good.\u201d Goodness and happiness are regarded\nas convertible terms, only we like best to put \u201chappy\u201d as the cause,\nand \u201cgood\u201d as the consequent. And the child brought up on these lines\nis both happy and good without much moral effort of self-compelling\non his own part, while our care is to surround him with happy-making\ncircumstances until he has got into the trick, as it were, of being\ngood.\n\nBut there\u2019s something rotten in the state of Denmark. Once upon a time\nthere was a young mother who conceived that every mother might be\nthe means of gracing her offspring with fine teeth: \u201cFor,\u201d said she,\n\u201cit stands to reason that for every year of wear and grind you save\nthe child\u2019s teeth, the man will have a fine set a year the longer.\u201d\n\u201cNonsense, my dear madam,\u201d said the doctor, \u201cyou are ruining the\nchild\u2019s teeth with all this pappy food; they\u2019ll be no stronger than\negg-shells. Give him plenty of hard crusts to crunch, a bone to gnaw;\nhe must have something to harden his teeth upon.\u201d Just so of the moral\n\u201cteeth\u201d by means of which the child must carve out a place for himself\nin this full world. He must endure hardness if you would make a man of\nhim. Blame as well as praise, tears as well as smiles, are of human\nnature\u2019s daily food; pungent speech is a \u2018tool of the tongue\u2019 not\nto be altogether eschewed in the building of character; let us call\na spade a spade, and the child who brings the wrong book \u201cstupid,\u201d\nwhether before strangers or behind them. Much better this than a\nchamber-conference with \u201cMother\u201d about every trifle, which latter is\napt to lead to a habit of morbid self-introspection.\n\nWe are, in truth, between Scylla and Charybdis: on this side, the\nsix-headed, many-toothed monster of our own unbridled love of power;\non that, the whirlpool of emasculating softness which would engulf\nthe manly virtues of our poor little Ulysses. If you must choose, let\nit be Scylla rather than Charybdis, counsels our Circe; better lose\nsomething through the monster with the teeth, than lose yourself in the\nwhirlpool. But is there not a better way?\n\n Weigh his estate and thine; accustom\u2019d, he,\n To all sweet courtly usage that obtains\n Where dwells the King. How, with thy utmost pains,\n Canst thou produce what shall full worthy be?\n One, \u201cgreatest in the kingdom,\u201d is with thee,\n Whose spirit yet beholds the Father\u2019s face,\n And, thence replenish\u2019d, glows with constant grace;\n Take fearful heed lest he despis\u00e9d be!\n Order thy goings softly, as before\n A Prince; nor let thee out unmannerly\n In thy rude moods and irritable: more,\n Beware lest round him wind of words rave free.\n Refrain thee; see thy speech be sweet and rare:\n Thy ways, consider\u2019d; and thine aspect, fair.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [22] \u201cBits of Talk about Home Matters,\u201d by Helen Hunt\n Jackson.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n _MRS. SEDLEY\u2019S TALE_\n\n\nIt is very strange how a moral weakness in her child gives a mother the\nsame sense of yearning pity that she has for a bad bodily infirmity. I\nwonder if that is how God feels for us when we go on year by year doing\nthe thing we hate? I think a mother gets to understand many things\nabout the dealings of God that are not plain to others. For instance,\nhow it helps me to say, \u201cI believe in the forgiveness of sins,\u201d when I\nthink of my poor little Fanny\u2019s ugly fault. Though there is some return\nof it nearly every day, what could I do but forgive?\n\nBut forgiveness that does not heal is like the wretched ointments with\nwhich poor people dress their wounds. In one thing I know I have not\ndone well; I have hardly said a word to John about the poor little\ngirlie\u2019s failing, though it has troubled me constantly for nearly a\nyear. But I think he suspects there is something wrong; we never talk\nquite freely about our shy pretty Fanny. Perhaps that is one reason for\nit. She is such a nervous timid little being, and looks so bewitching\nwhen the long lashes droop, the tender mouth quivers, and the colour\ncomes and goes in the soft cheek, that we are shy of exposing, even\nto each other, the faults we see in our graceful fragile little girl.\nPerhaps neither of us quite trusts the other to deal with Fanny, and to\nuse the knife sparingly.\n\nBut this state of things must not go on: it is a miserable thing to\nwrite down, but I cannot believe a word the child says! And the evil\nis increasing. Only now and then used Fanny to be detected in what we\ncalled a fib, but now the terrible doubt lest that little mouth may be\nat any moment uttering lies takes the delight out of life, and accounts\nfor the pale looks which give my kind husband so much concern.\n\nFor example, only within the last day or two I have noticed the\nfollowing and other such examples:--\n\n\u201cFanny, did you remember to give my message to cook?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, mother.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd what did she say?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat she wouldn\u2019t be able to make any jam to-day because the fruit had\nnot come.\u201d\n\nI went into the kitchen shortly after, and found cook stirring the\ncontents of a brass pan, and, sad to say, I asked no questions. It was\none of Fanny\u2019s circumstantial statements of the kind I have had most\nreason to doubt. Did she lie because she was afraid to own that she\nhad forgotten? Hardly so: knowing the child\u2019s sensitive nature, we\nhave always been careful not to visit her small misdemeanours with any\npunishment whenever she \u201cowned up.\u201d And then, cowardice would hardly\ncause her to invent so reasonable an answer for cook. Again:\n\n\u201cDid you meet Mrs. Fleming\u2019s children?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, yes, mother! and Berty was so rude! He pushed Dotty off the\ncurb-stone!\u201d\n\nNurse, who was sitting by the fire with baby, raised her eyebrows in\nsurprise, and I saw the whole thing was an invention. Another more\nextraordinary instance:\n\n\u201cMother, when we were in the park we met Miss Butler, just by the\nfountain, you know; and she kissed me, and asked me how my mother\nis\u201d--said _\u00e0-propos_ of nothing, in the most quiet, easy way.\n\nI met Miss Butler this morning, and thanked her for the kind inquiries\nshe had been making through my little girl; and--\u201cDo you think Fanny\ngrown?\u201d\n\nMiss Butler looked perplexed; Fanny was a great favourite of hers,\nperhaps because of the loveliness of which her parents could not\npretend to be unaware.\n\n\u201cIt is more than a month since I have seen the little maid, but I shall\nlook in soon, and gladden her mother\u2019s heart with all the praises my\nsweet Fan deserves!\u201d\n\nLittle she knew that shame, and not pride, dyed my cheek; but I could\nnot disclose my Fanny\u2019s sad secret to even so near a friend.\n\nBut to talk it out with John is a different matter. He ought to know.\nAnd, certainly, men have more power than women to see into the reasons\nand the bearings of things. There had I been thinking for months in a\ndesultory kind of way as to the why and wherefore of this ingrained\nwant of truthfulness in the child, and yet I was no nearer the solution.\n\nA new departure in the way of lying made me at last break the ice with\nJohn; indeed, this was the only subject about which we had ever had\nreserves.\n\n\u201cMother, Hugh was so naughty at lessons this morning! He went close up\nto Miss Clare while she was writing, nudged her elbow on purpose, and\nmade her spill the ink all over the table-cloth.\u201d\n\nI chanced to meet Miss Clare in the hall, and remarked that I heard she\nhad found Hugh troublesome this morning.\n\n\u201cTroublesome? Not at all; he was quite industrious and obedient.\u201d\n\nI said nothing about the ink, but went straight to the schoolroom to\nfind the table neat as Miss Clare always leaves it, and no sign of\neven a fresh inkspot. What possessed the child? This inveterate and\ninventive untruthfulness was like a form of madness. I sat in dismay\nfor an hour or more, not thinking, but stunned by this new idea--that\nthe child was not responsible for her words; and yet, could it be so?\nNone of our children were so merry at play, so intelligent at lessons.\nWell, I would talk it over with John without the loss of another day.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cJohn, I am miserable about Fanny. Do you know the child tells fibs\nconstantly?\u201d\n\n\u201cCall them lies; an ugly thing deserves an ugly name. What sort of\nlies? What tempts her to lie?\u201d\n\nJohn did not seem surprised. Perhaps he knew more of this misery than I\nsupposed.\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s the thing! Her fi--lies are so uncalled-for, so unreasonable,\nthat I do not know how to trust her.\u201d\n\n\u201cUnreasonable? You mean her tales don\u2019t hang together; that\u2019s a\ncommon case with liars. You know the saying--\u2018Liars should have good\nmemories\u2019?\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t call the poor child a liar, John; I believe she is more to be\npitied than blamed. What I mean is, you can\u2019t find rhyme or reason for\nthe lies she tells.\u201d And I gave my husband a few instances like those I\nhave written above.\n\n\u201cVery extraordinary! There\u2019s a hint of malice in the Hugh and the\nink-bottle tale, and a hint of cowardice in that about the jam; but for\nthe rest, they are inventions pure and simple, with neither rhyme nor\nreason, as you say.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t believe a bit in the malice. I was going to correct her for\ntelling an unkind tale about Hugh, but you know how she hangs on\nher brother, and she told her tale with the most innocent face. I am\nconvinced there was no thought of harming him.\u201d\n\n\u201cAre you equally sure that she never says what is false to cover a\nfault; in fact, out of cowardice?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo; I think I have found her out more than once in ingenious\nsubterfuges. You know what a painfully nervous child she is. For\ninstance, I found the other day a blue cup off that cabinet, with\nhandle gone, hidden behind the woodwork. Fanny happened to come in at\nthe moment, and I asked her if she knew who had broken it.\n\n\u201c\u2018No, mother, I don\u2019t know, but I think it was Mary, when she was\ndusting the cabinet; indeed, I\u2019m nearly sure I heard a crash.\u2019\n\n\u201cBut the child could not meet my eye, and there was a sort of blenching\nas of fear about her.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, as a rule, you do not notice these symptoms?\u201d\n\n\u201cAs a rule, poor Fanny\u2019s tarradiddles come out in the most quiet, easy\nway, with all the boldness of innocence; and even when she is found\nout, and the lie brought home to her, she looks bewildered rather than\nconvicted.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy dear, I wish you would banish the whole tribe of foolish and\nharmful expressions whose tendency is to make light of sin. Call a\nspade a spade. A \u2018tarradiddle\u2019 is a thing to make merry over; a fib you\nsmile and wink at; but a _lie_--why, the soul is very far gone from\noriginal righteousness that can endure the name, even while guilty of\nthe thing.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s just it; I cannot endure to apply so black a name to the\nfailings of our child; for, do you know, I begin to suspect that poor\nlittle Fanny does it unawares--does not know in the least that she has\ndeparted from the fact. I have had a horrible dread upon me from time\nto time that her defect is a mental, and not a moral one. That she has\nnot the clear perception of true and false with which the most of us\nare blessed.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhe--ew!\u201d from John; but his surprise was feigned. I could see now\nthat he had known what was going on all the time, and had said nothing,\nbecause he had nothing to say; in his heart he agreed with me about\nour lovely child. The defect arose from a clouded intelligence, which\nshowed itself in this way only, now; but how dare we look forward? Now\nI saw why poor John was so anxious to have the offence called by the\nblackest moral name. He wished to save us from the suspicion of an\nevil--worse because less open to cure. We looked blankly at each other,\nJohn trying to carry it all off with a light air, but his attempt was a\nconspicuous failure.\n\nI forgot to say that my sister Emma was staying with us, the \u2018clever\nwoman of the family,\u2019 who was \u201cgoing in\u201d for all sorts of things, to\ncome out, we believed, at the top of her profession as a lady doctor.\nShe had taken no part in the talk about Fanny--rather tiresome of her,\nas I wanted to know what she thought; but now, while we were vainly\ntrying to hide from each other our dismay, she broke out into a long\nlow laugh, which, to say the least of it, seemed a little unfeeling.\n\n\u201cOh, you absurd parents! You are too good and earnest, and altogether\ntoo droll! Why in the world, instead of sitting there with blank\neyes--conjuring up bogeys to frighten each other--why don\u2019t you look\nthe thing in the face, and find out by the light of modern thought what\nreally ails Fan? Poor pet! \u2018Save me from my parents!\u2019 is a rendering\nwhich might be forgiven her.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen you don\u2019t think there\u2019s any mental trouble?\u201d we cried in a\nbreath, feeling already as if a burden were lifted, and we could\nstraighten our backs and walk abroad.\n\n\u201c\u2018Mental trouble?\u2019 What nonsense! But there, I believe all you parents\nare alike. Each pair thinks their own experiences entirely new; their\nown children the first of the kind born into the world. Now, a mind\nthat had had any scientific training would see at once that poor\nFanny\u2019s lies--if I must use John\u2019s terrible bad word--inventions, I\nshould have called them, are symptomatic, as you rightly guessed,\nAnnie, of certain brain conditions; but of brain disease--oh, no! Why,\nfoolish people, don\u2019t you see you are entertaining an angel unawares?\nThis vice of \u2018lying\u2019 you are mourning over is the very quality that\ngoes to the making of poets!\u201d\n\n\u201cPoets and angels are well in their places,\u201d said John, rather crossly,\n\u201cbut my child must speak the truth. What she states for a fact, I must\nknow to be a fact, according to the poor common-sense view of benighted\nparents.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd there is your work as parents. Teach her truth, as you would teach\nher French or sums--a little to-day, a little more to-morrow, and every\nday a lesson. Only as you teach her the nature of truth will the gift\nshe has be effectual. But I really should like to know what is your\nnotion about truth--are we born with it, or educated up to it?\u201d\n\n\u201cI am not sure that we care to be experimented upon, and held up to\nthe world as blundering parents,\u201d said I; \u201cperhaps we had better keep\nour crude notions to ourselves.\u201d I spoke rather tartly, I know, for I\nwas more vexed for John than for myself. That he should be held up to\nridicule in his own house--by a sister of mine, too!\n\n\u201cNow I have vexed you both. How horrid I am! And all the time, as I\nwatch you with the children, I don\u2019t feel good enough to tie your\nshoes. Don\u2019t I say to myself twenty times a day, \u2018After all, the\ninsight and love parents get from above is worth a thousandfold more\nthan science has to teach\u2019?\u201d\n\n\u201cNay, Emma, \u2019tis we who have to apologise for being jealous of\nscience--that\u2019s the fact--and quick to take offence. Make it up,\nthere\u2019s a good girl! and let Annie and me have the benefit of your\nadvice about our little girl, for truly we are in a fog.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, I think you were both right in considering that her failing had\ntwo sources: moral cowardice the first; she does something wrong, or\nwrong in her eyes, and does not tell--why?\u201d\n\n\u201cAye, there\u2019s the difficulty; why is she afraid to tell the truth? I\nmay say that we have never punished her, or ever looked coldly on her\nfor any fault but this of prevarication. The child is so timid that we\nfeared severe measures might make the truth the more difficult.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere I think you are right. And we have our fingers on one of the\nweak places: Fanny tells lies out of sheer fear--moral weakness;\ncauseless it may be, but there it is. And I\u2019m not so sure that it is\ncauseless; she is always in favour for good behaviour, gentleness,\nobedience, and that kind of thing; indeed, this want of veracity seems\nto me her one fault. Now, don\u2019t you think the fear of having her\nparents look coldly on her and think less well of her may be, to such a\ntimid, clinging child, a great temptation to hide a fault?\u201d\n\n\u201cVery likely; but one does not see how to act. Would you pass over her\nfaults altogether without inquiry or notice?\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019m afraid you must use the knife there boldly, for that is the\ntenderest way in the end. Show little Fan the depth of your love--that\nthere is _no_ fault you cannot forgive in her, but that the one fault\nwhich hurts you most is, not to hear the exact truth.\u201d\n\n\u201cI see. Suppose she has broken a valuable vase and hides the fact, I am\nto unearth her secret--not, as I am very much inclined to do, let it\nlie buried for fear of involving her in worse falsehood, but show her\nthe vase and tax her with hiding it.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd her immediate impulse will be to say, \u2018I didn\u2019t.\u2019 No; make sure\nof your ground, then show her the pieces; say the vase was precious,\nbut you do not mind about that; the thing that hurts you is that she\ncould not trust her mother. I can imagine one of the lovely scenes you\nmothers have with your children too good for outsiders to look in upon.\u201d\n\nThe tears came into my eyes, for I could imagine the scene too. I could\nsee the way to draw my child closer and closer by _always_ forgiving,\nalways comprehending and loving her, and always protesting against the\nfalsehood which _would_ rise between us. I was lost in a delicious\nreverie--how I might sometime come to show her that her mother\u2019s\never-ready forgiveness was but a faint picture of what some one calls\nthe \u201call-forgiving gentleness of God,\u201d when I heard John break in:--\n\n\u201cYes, I can see that if we both make a point of free and tender\nforgiveness of every fault, on condition that she owns up, we may in\ntime cure her of lying out of sheer fear. But I don\u2019t see that she gets\nthe principle of truth any more. The purely inventive lies go on as\nbefore, and the child is not to be trusted.\u201d\n\n\u201c\u2018Purely inventive,\u2019 there you have it. Don\u2019t you see? The child is\nfull of imagination, and figures to herself endless scenes, evolved\nlike the German student\u2019s camel. The thousand and one things which\n_might_ happen are so real to her that the child is, as you said,\nbewildered; hardly able to distinguish the one which has happened. Now,\nit\u2019s perfect nonsense to lament over this as a moral failing--it is a\nwant of mental balance; not that any quality is deficient, but that\nher conceptive power runs away with her perceptive; she sees the many\nthings that might be more readily than the thing that is. Doesn\u2019t she\ndelight in fairy tales?\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, to tell the truth, we have thought them likely to foster her\nfailing, and have kept her a good deal on a diet of facts.\u201d\n\n\u201cI shouldn\u2019t wonder if you are wrong there. An imperious imagination\nlike Fanny\u2019s demands its proper nourishment. Let her have her\ndaily meal: \u2018The Babes in the Wood,\u2019 \u2018The Little Match-Girl,\u2019 \u2018The\nSnow-Maiden,\u2019 tales and legends half-historic, above all, the lovely\nstories of the Bible; whatever she can figure to herself and live over\nand over; but _not_ twaddling tales of the daily doings of children\nlike herself, whether funny or serious. The child wants an opening into\nthe larger world where all things are possible and where beautiful\nthings are always happening. Give her in some form this necessary food,\nand her mind will be so full of delicious imaginings, that she will be\nunder no temptation to invent about the commonplaces of every-day life.\u201d\n\nMy husband laughed: \u201cMy dear Emma, you must let us do our best with the\ndisease; the cure is too wild! \u2018Behold, this dreamer cometh!\u2019--think of\nsending the child through life with this label.\u201d\n\n\u201cYour quotation is unfortunate, and you have not heard me out. I do\nbelieve that to starve her imagination would be to do real wrong to\nthe child. But, at the same time, you must diligently cultivate the\nknowledge and the love of the truth. Now, the truth is no more than the\nfact as it is; and \u2019tis my belief that Fanny\u2019s falsehoods come entirely\nfrom want of perception of the fact through pre-occupation of mind.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, what must we do?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, give her daily, or half-a-dozen times a day, lessons in truth.\nSend her to the window: \u2018Look out, Fanny, and tell me what you see.\u2019\nShe comes back, having seen a cow where there is a horse. She looks\nagain and brings a true report, and you teach her that it is not true\nto say the thing which is not. You send a long message to the cook,\nrequiring the latter to write it down as she receives it and send you\nup the slate; if it is all right, the kiss Fanny gets is for speaking\nthe truth: gradually, she comes to revere truth, and distinguishes\nbetween the facts of life where truth is all in all, and the wide\nrealms of make-believe, where fancy may have free play.\u201d\n\n\u201cI do believe you are right, Emma; most of Fanny\u2019s falsehoods seem to\nbe told in such pure innocence, I should not wonder if they do come\nout of the kingdom of make-believe. At any rate, we\u2019ll try Emma\u2019s\nspecific--shall we, John?\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, yes; and carefully, too. It seems to me to be reasonable, the\nmore so, as we don\u2019t find any trace of malice in Fanny\u2019s misleading\nstatements.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, if there were, the treatment would be less simple; first, you\nshould deal with the malice, and then _teach_ the love of truth in\ndaily lessons. That is the mistake so many people make. They think\ntheir children are capable of loving and understanding _truth_ by\nnature, which they are not. The best parents have to be on the watch to\nhinder all opportunities of misstatement.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd now, that you may see how much we owe you, let me tell you of\nthe painful example always before our eyes, which has done more than\nanything to make me dread Fanny\u2019s failing. It is an open secret, I\nfear, but do not let it go further out of this house. You know Mrs.\nCasterton, our friend\u2019s wife? It is a miserable thing to say, but you\ncannot trust a word she utters. She tells you, Miss So-and-So has a bad\nkind of scarlet fever, and even while she is speaking you know it is\nfalse; husband, children, servants, neighbours, none can be blind to\nthe distressing fact, and she has acquired the sort of simpering manner\na woman gets when she loses respect and self-respect. What if Fanny had\ngrown up like her?\u201d\n\n\u201cPoor woman! and this shame might have been spared her, had her parents\nbeen alive to their duty.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n _ABILITY_\n\n\n\u201cBe _sure_ you call at Mrs. Milner\u2019s, Fred, for the address of her\nlaundress.\u201d\n\n\u201cAll right, mother!\u201d And Fred was half-way down the path before his\nmother had time to add a second injunction. A second? Nay, a seventh,\nfor this was already the sixth time of asking; and Mrs. Bruce\u2019s\nhalf-troubled expression showed she placed little faith in her son\u2019s\n\u201cAll right.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know what to do with Fred, doctor; I am not in the least sure\nhe will do my message. Indeed, to speak honestly, I am sure he will\nnot. This is a trifling matter; but when the same thing happens twenty\ntimes a day--when his rule is to forget everything he is desired to\nremember--it makes us anxious about the boy\u2019s future.\u201d\n\nDr. Maclehose drummed meditatively on the table, and put his lips\ninto form for a whistle. This remark of Mrs. Bruce\u2019s was \u201cnuts\u201d to\nhim. He had assisted, professionally, at the appearance of the nine\nyoung Bruces, and the family had no more esteemed friend and general\nconfidant. For his part, he liked the Bruces. Who could help it? The\nparents intelligent and genial, the young folk well looking, well\ngrown, and open-hearted, they were just the family to make friends.\nAll the same, the doctor found in the Bruces occasion to mount his pet\nhobby:--\u201cMy Utopia is the land where the family doctor has leave to\nplay schoolmaster to the parents. To think of a fine brood like the\nyoung Bruces running to waste in half-a-dozen different ways through\nthe invincible ignorance of father and mother! Nice people, too!\u201d\n\nFor seventeen years Dr. Maclehose had been deep in the family counsels,\nyet never till now had he seen the way to put in his oar anent any\nquestion of bringing up the children. Wherefore he drummed on the\ntable, and pondered:--\u201cFair and softly, my good fellow; fair and\nsoftly! Make a mess of it now, and it\u2019s my last chance; hit the nail on\nthe head, and, who knows?\u201d\n\n\u201cDoes the same sort of thing go on about his school work?\u201d\n\n\u201cPrecisely; he is always in arrears. He has forgotten to take a book,\nor to write an exercise, or learn a lesson; in fact, his school life is\na record of forgets and penalties.\u201d\n\n\u201cWorse than that Dean of Canterbury, whose wife _would_ make him\nkeep account of his expenditure; and thus stood the entries for one\nweek:--\u2018Gloves, 5s.; Forgets, \u00a34, 15s.\u2019 His writing was none too\nlegible, so his wife, looking over his shoulder, cried, \u2018Faggots!\nFaggots! What in the world! Have you been buying wood?\u2019 \u2018No, my dear;\nthose are _forgets_;\u2019--his wife gave it up.\u201d\n\n\u201cA capital story; but what is amusing in a Dean won\u2019t help a boy to get\nthrough the world, and we are both uneasy about Fred.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe is one of the \u2018Boys\u2019 Eleven,\u2019 isn\u2019t he?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, yes, and is wild about it: and there, I grant you, he never\nforgets. It\u2019s, \u2018Mother, get cook to give us an early dinner: we must\nbe on the field by two!\u2019 \u2018Don\u2019t forget to have my flannels clean for\nFriday, will you mumsy?\u2019 he knows when to coax. \u2018Subscription is due\non Thursday, mother!\u2019 and this, every day till he gets the money.\u201d\n\n\u201cI congratulate you, my dear friend, there\u2019s nothing seriously amiss\nwith the boy\u2019s brain.\u201d\n\n\u201cGood heavens, doctor! Whoever thought there was? You take my breath\naway!\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, well, I didn\u2019t mean to frighten you, but, don\u2019t you see, it\ncomes to this: either it\u2019s a case of chronic disease, open only to\nmedical treatment, if to any; or it is just a case of defective\neducation, a piece of mischief bred of allowance which his parents\ncannot too soon set themselves to cure.\u201d\n\nMrs. Bruce was the least in the world nettled at this serious view of\nthe case. It was one thing for her to write down hard things of her\neldest boy, the pride of her heart, but a different matter for another\nto take her _au s\u00e9rieux_.\n\n\u201cBut, my dear doctor, are you not taking a common fault of youth too\nseriously? It\u2019s tiresome that he should forget so, but give him a\nyear or two, and he will grow out of it, you\u2019ll see. Time will steady\nhim. It\u2019s just the volatility of youth, and for my part I don\u2019t like\nto see a boy with a man\u2019s head on his shoulders.\u201d The doctor resumed\nhis drumming on the table. He had put his foot in it already, and\nconfounded his own foolhardiness.\n\n\u201cWell, I daresay you are right in allowing something on the score of\nyouthful volatility; but we old doctors, whose business it is to study\nthe close connection between mind and matter, see our way to only one\nconclusion, that any failing of mind or body, left to itself, can do no\nother than strengthen.\u201d\n\n\u201cHave another cup of tea, doctor? I am not sure that I understand.\nI know nothing about science. You mean that Fred will become more\nforgetful and less dependable the older he gets?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t know that I should have ventured to put it so baldly, but\nthat\u2019s about the fact. But, of course, circumstances may give him a\nbent in the other direction, and Fred may develop into such a careful\nold sobersides that his mother will be ashamed of him.\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t laugh at me, doctor; you make the whole thing too serious\nfor a laughing matter.\u201d To which there was no answer, and there was\nsilence in the room for the space of fully three minutes, while the two\npondered.\n\n\u201cYou say,\u201d in an imperious tone, \u201cthat \u2018a fault left to itself must\nstrengthen.\u2019 What are we to do? His father and I wish, at any rate, to\ndo our duty.\u201d Her ruffled maternal plumage notwithstanding, Mrs. Bruce\nwas in earnest, all her wits on the alert. \u201cCome, I\u2019ve scored one!\u201d\nthought the doctor; and then, with respectful gravity, which should\nsoothe any woman\u2019s _amour propre_,\n\n\u201cYou ask a question not quite easy to answer. But allow me, first, to\ntry and make the principle plain to you: that done, the question of\nwhat to do settles itself. Fred never forgets his cricket or other\npleasure engagements? No? And why not? Because his interest is excited;\ntherefore his whole attention is fixed on the fact to be remembered.\nNow, as a matter of fact, what you have regarded with full attention,\nit is next to impossible to forget. First get Fred to fix his attention\non the matter in hand, and you may be sure he won\u2019t forget it.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat may be very true; but how can I make a message to Mrs. Milner as\ninteresting to him as the affairs of his club?\u201d\n\n\u201cAh! There you have me. Had you begun with Fred at a year old the thing\nwould have settled itself. The _habit_ would have been formed.\u201d\n\nTo the rescue, Mrs. Bruce\u2019s woman\u2019s wit:--\u201cI see; he must have the\n_habit_ of paying attention, so that he will naturally take heed to\nwhat he is told, whether he cares about the matter or not.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy dear madam, you\u2019ve hit it; all except the word \u2018naturally.\u2019 At\npresent Fred is in a delightful state of nature in this and a few other\nrespects. But the educational use of _habit_ is to correct nature.\nIf parents would only see this fact, the world would become a huge\nreformatory, and the next generation, or, at any rate, the third, would\ndwell in the kingdom of heaven as a regular thing, and not by fits and\nstarts, and here and there, which is the best that happens to us.\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019m not sure I see what you mean; but,\u201d said this persistent woman,\n\u201cto return to this habit of attention which is to reform my Fred--do\ntry and tell me what to do. You gentlemen are so fond of going off\ninto general principles, while we poor women can grasp no more than a\npractical hint or two to go on with. My boy would be cut up to know how\nlittle his fast friend, the doctor, thinks of him!\u201d\n\n\u201c\u2018Poor women,\u2019 truly! and already you have thrown me with two\nstaggering buffets. My theories have no practical outcome, and, I\nthink little of Fred, who has been my choice chum ever since he left\noff draperies! It remains for the vanquished to \u2018behave pretty.\u2019 Pray,\nma\u2019am, what would you like me to say next?\u201d\n\n\u201cTo \u2018habit,\u2019 doctor, to \u2018habit\u2019; and don\u2019t talk nonsense while the\nprecious time is going. We\u2019ll suppose that Fred is just twelve months\nold to-day. Now, if you please, tell me how I\u2019m to make him begin to\npay attention. And, by the way, why in the world didn\u2019t you talk to me\nabout it when the child really was young?\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t remember that you asked me; and who would be pert enough to\nthink of schooling a young mother? Not I, at any rate. Don\u2019t I know\nthat every mother of a first child is infallible, and knows more about\nchildren than all the old doctors in creation? But, supposing you had\nasked me, I should have said--Get him each day to occupy himself a\nlittle longer with one plaything than he did the day before. He plucks\na daisy, gurgles over it with glee, and then in an instant it drops\nfrom the nerveless grasp. Then you take it up, and with the sweet\ncoaxings you mothers know how to employ, get him to examine it, in his\ninfant fashion, for a minute, two minutes, three whole minutes at a\ntime.\u201d\n\n\u201cI see; fix his thoughts on one thing at a time, and for as long as\nyou can, whether on what he sees or what he hears. You think if you\ngo on with that sort of thing with a child from his infancy he gets\naccustomed to pay attention?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot a doubt of it; and you may rely on it that what is called\n_ability_--a different thing from genius, mind you, or even\ntalent--ability is simply the power of fixing the attention steadily\non the matter in hand, and success in life turns upon this cultivated\npower far more than on any natural faculty. Lay a case before a\nsuccessful barrister, an able man of business, notice how he absorbs\nall you say; tell your tale as ill as you like, he keeps the thread,\nstraightens the tangle, and by the time you have finished, has the\nwhole matter spread out in order under his mind\u2019s eye. Now comes in\ntalent, or genius, or what you will, to deal with the facts he has\ntaken in. But attention is the attribute of the trained intellect,\nwithout which genius makes shots in the dark.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, don\u2019t you think attention itself is a natural faculty, or talent,\nor whatever we should call it?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot a bit of it; it is entirely the result of training. A man may be\nborn with some faculty or talent for figures, or drawing, or music, but\nattention is not a faculty at all; it is simply the power of bending\nsuch faculties as one has to the work in hand; it is a key to success\nwithin the reach of every one, but the power to turn it comes of\ntraining. Circumstances may compel a man to train himself, but he does\nso at the cost of great effort, and the chances are ten to one against\nhis making the effort. For the child, on the other hand, who has been\ntrained by his parents to fix his thoughts, all is plain sailing. He\nwill succeed, not a doubt of it.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut I thought school-work, Latin and mathematics, and those sorts of\nthings, should give this kind of intellectual training?\u201d\n\n\u201cThey should; but it\u2019s the merest chance whether the right spring is\ntouched, and from what you say of Fred\u2019s school-work, I should say it\nwas not touched in his case. \u2019Tis incredible how much solid learning\na boy will contrive to let slip by him instead of into him! No; I\u2019m\nafraid you must tackle the difficulty yourself. It would be a thousand\npities to let a fine fellow like Fred run to waste.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat can I do?\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, we must begin where we are; Fred _can_ attend, and therefore\nremember: and he remembers what interests him. Now, to return to your\nquestion, How are you to make a message to Mrs. Milner as interesting\nto him as the affairs of his cricket club? There is no interest in the\nthing itself; you must put interest into it from without. There are a\nhundred ways of doing this: try one, and when that is used up, turn to\nanother. Only, with a boy of Fred\u2019s age, you cannot form the habit of\nattention as you could with a child. You can only aid and abet; give\nthe impulse; the training he must do for himself.\u201d\n\n\u201cMake it a little plainer, doctor; I have not yet reduced your remarks\nto the practical level of something I can do.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo? Well, Fred must train himself, and you must feed him with motives.\nRun over with him what we have been saying about attention. Let him\nknow how the land lies; that you cannot help him, but that if he wants\nto make a man of himself he must _make_ himself attend and remember.\nTell him it will be a stand-up fight, for this habit is contrary to\nnature. He will like that; \u2019tis boy nature to show fight, and the\nbigger and blacker you make the other side, the more will he like\nto pitch in. When I was a boy I had to fight this very battle for\nmyself, and I\u2019ll tell you what I did. I stuck up a card every week,\ndivided down the middle. One side was for \u2018Remembers\u2019; the other side\nfor \u2018Forgets.\u2019 I took myself to task every night--the very effort was\na help--and put a stroke for every \u2018Remember\u2019 and \u2018Forget\u2019 of the\nday. _I_ scored for every \u2018Remember,\u2019 and \u2018t\u2019other fellow\u2019 for every\n\u2018Forget.\u2019 You don\u2019t know how exciting it got. If by Thursday I had\nthirty-three \u2018Remembers\u2019 and he thirty-six \u2018Forgets\u2019 it behoved me to\nlook alive; it was not only that \u2018Forget\u2019 might win the game, which was\nup on Saturday night, but unless \u2018Remember\u2019 scored ten in advance, the\ngame was \u2018drawn\u2019--hardly a remove from lost.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s delicious! But, I wish, doctor, you would speak to Fred\nyourself. A word from you would go a long way.\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019ll look out for a chance, but an outsider cannot do much; everything\nrests with the boy himself, and his parents.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n _POOR MRS. JUMEAU!_\n\n\n\u201cNow, young people, when I go out, let there be no noise in the house;\nyour mother is ill, so let her little folk be thoughtful for her!\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, is mother sick again?\u201d said little Ned with falling countenance.\n\n\u201cPoor Neddie! he doesn\u2019t like mother to be ill. We all have to be so\nquiet, and, then, there\u2019s nowhere to be! It isn\u2019t like home when mother\nisn\u2019t about.\u201d\n\n\u201cMary is right,\u201d chimed in Charlie, the eldest of the family; \u201cif I\nwere big enough, I should run away and go to sea, mother\u2019s so often\nbad! But, father, isn\u2019t it funny? Yesterday she was quite well, and\ndoing all sorts of horrid things, helping the maids to clear out\ncupboards; and now, I dare say, she is too ill to move or speak, and\nto-morrow, perhaps, she\u2019ll be our jolly mother again, able to go\nshrimping with us, or anything else.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s because your dear mother has no self, Charlie, boy; no sooner\ndoes she feel a bit better than she does more than she can for us\nall, and then she is knocked up again. I wish we could teach her to\nbe selfish, for our sakes as well as hers, for to have her with us is\nbetter than anything she can do for us; eh, Charlie?\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed, yes! We\u2019d take lots of care of her if she\u2019d let us. But her\nillness must be queer. You know when we had scarlet fever, father?\nWell, for weeks and weeks, after the fever was gone, I had no more\nstrength than a tom-tit; and you know I could not go about and do\nthings, however unselfish I was (but I\u2019m not, though). That\u2019s what is\nso queer. Do you think Dr. Prideau understands about mother?\u201d\n\n\u201cMuch better than you do, depend upon it, Charlie; but I confess your\nmother\u2019s illness is puzzling to all of us. There, children, off with\nyou! I must write a letter or two before I go out.\u201d\n\nMr. Jumeau forgot to write his letters, and sat long, with his head\nbetween his hands, pondering the nature of his wife\u2019s ailments. What\nCharlie had put with a boy\u2019s rude bluntness had already occurred to\nhim in a dim way. Mrs. Jumeau\u2019s illness certainly did not deprive her\nof bodily vigour; the attacks came on suddenly, left her as suddenly,\nand left her apparently in perfect health and gay spirits. And this was\nthe more surprising, because, while an \u201cattack\u201d lasted, the extreme\nprostration, pallid countenance, and blue lips of the sufferer were\npainful to behold. Besides, his wife was so absolutely truthful by\nnature, so unselfish and devoted to her husband and family, that it was\nas likely she should be guilty of flagrant crime as that she should\nsimulate illness. This sort of thing had gone on for several years.\nMr. Jumeau had spent his substance on many physicians, and with little\nresult. \u201cNo organic disease.\u201d \u201cOverdone.\u201d \u201cGive her rest, nourishing\nfood, frequent change of scene and thought; no excitement; Nature will\nwork the cure in time--_in time_, my good sir. We must be patient.\u201d\nThis sort of thing he had heard again and again; doctors did _not_\ndiffer, if that were any consolation.\n\nHe went up to have a last look at the sufferer. There she lay,\nstretched out with limbs composed, and a rigidity of muscle terribly\nlike death. A tear fell on the cold cheek of his wife as Mr. Jumeau\nkissed it, and he went out aching with a nameless dread, which, if put\ninto words, would run--some day, and she will wake no more out of this\ndeath-like stillness.\n\nAnd she? She felt the tear, heard the sigh, noted the dejected\nfootfalls of her husband, and her weak pulse stirred with a movement\nof--was it joy? But the \u201cattack\u201d was not over; for hours she lay there\nrigid, speechless, with closed eyes, taking no notice of the gentle\nopening of the door now and then when one or another came to see how\nshe was. Were not her family afraid to leave her alone? No; we get used\nto anything, and the Jumeaus, servants and children, were well used to\nthese \u201cattacks\u201d in the mistress of the house. Dr. Prideau came, sent\nby her husband, and used even violent measures to restore her, but to\nno effect; she was aware of these efforts, but was not aware that she\nresisted them effectually.\n\nBusiness engagements were pressing, and it was late before Mr. Jumeau,\nanxious as he was, was able to return to his wife. It was one of those\nlovely warm evenings we sometimes get late in May, when even London\nwindows are opened to let in the breath of the spring. Nearly at the\nend of the street he heard familiar strains from _Parsifal_, played\nwith the vigour Wagner demands. His wife? It could be no one else. As\nhe drew nearer, her exquisite touch was unmistakable. The attack was\nover, then? Strange to say, his delight was not unmixed. What were\nthese mysterious attacks, and how were they brought on?\n\nThe evening was delightful. Mrs. Jumeau was in the gayest spirits:\nfull of tenderness towards her husband, of motherly thought for her\nchildren, now fast asleep; ready to talk brightly on any subject except\nthe attack of the morning; any allusion to this she would laugh off as\na matter of too little consequence to be dwelt upon. The next morning\nshe was down bright and early, having made up her mind to a _giro_\nwith the children. They did not go a-shrimping, according to Charlie\u2019s\nforecast, but Kew was decided upon as \u201cjust the thing,\u201d and a long day\nin the gardens failed to tire mother or children.\n\n\u201cI must get to the bottom of this,\u201d thought Mr. Jumeau.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cYour question is embarrassing; if I say, Mrs. Jumeau is suffering from\n_hysteria_, you will most likely get a wrong notion and discredit my\nwords.\u201d\n\nMr. Jumeau\u2019s countenance darkened. \u201cI should still be inclined to trust\nthe evidence of my senses, and believe that my wife is unfeignedly ill.\u201d\n\n\u201cExactly as I expected: simulated ailments and hysteria are hopelessly\nconfounded; but no wonder; hysteria is a misnomer, used in the vaguest\nway, not even confined to women. Why, I knew a man, a clergyman in the\nNorth, who suffered from \u2018clergyman\u2019s sore throat\u2019; he was a popular\nevangelical preacher, and there was no end to the sympathy his case\nevoked; he couldn\u2019t preach, so his devoted congregation sent him, now\nto the South of France, now to Algiers, now to Madeira. After each\ndelightful sojourn he returned, looking plump and well, but unable to\nraise his voice above a hardly audible whisper. This went on for three\nyears or so. Then his Bishop interfered; he must provide a curate in\npermanent charge, with nearly the full emoluments of the living. The\nfollowing Sunday he preached, nor did he again lose his voice. And this\nwas an earnest and honest man, who would rather any day be at his work\nthan wandering idly about the world. Plainly, too, in the etymological\nsense of the word, his complaint was not hysteria. But this is not\nan exceptional case: keep any man in his dressing-gown for a week or\ntwo--a bad cold, say--and he will lay himself out to be pitied and\npetted, will have half the ailments under the sun, and be at death\u2019s\ndoor with each. And this is your active man; a man of sedentary habits,\nnotwithstanding his stronger frame, is nearly as open as a woman to the\nadvances of this stealthy foe. Why, for that matter, I\u2019ve seen it in a\ndog! Did you never see a dog limp pathetically on his three legs that\nhe might be made much of for his lameness, until his master\u2019s whistle\ncalls him off at a canter on all fours?\u201d\n\n\u201cI get no nearer; what have these illustrations to do with my wife?\u201d\n\n\u201cWait a bit, and I\u2019ll try to show you. The throat would seem to be\na common seat of the affection. I knew a lady--nice woman she was,\ntoo--who went about for years speaking in a painful whisper, whilst\neverybody said, \u2018Poor Mrs. Marjoribanks!\u2019 But one evening she managed\nto set her bed-curtains alight, when she rushed to the door, screaming,\n\u2018Ann! Ann! the house is on fire! Come at once!\u2019 The dear woman believed\never after, that \u2018something burst\u2019 in her throat, and described the\nsensation minutely; her friends believed, and her doctor did not\ncontradict. By the way, no remedy has proved more often effectual than\na house on fire, only you will see the difficulties. I knew of a case,\nhowever, where the \u2018house-afire\u2019 prescription was applied with great\neffect. \u2019Twas in a London hospital for ladies; a most baffling case;\npatient had been for months unable to move a limb--was lifted in and\nout of bed like a log, fed as you would pour into a bottle. A clever\nyoung house-surgeon laid a plot with the nurses. In the middle of the\nnight her room was filled with fumes, lurid light, &c. She tried to\ncry out, but the smoke was suffocating; she jumped out of bed and made\nfor the door--more choking smoke--threw up the sash--fireman, rope,\nladder--she scrambled down, and was safe. The whole was a hoax, but\nit cured her, and the nature of the cure was mercifully kept secret.\nAnother example: A friend of mine determined to put a young woman under\n\u2018massage\u2019 in her own home; he got a trained operator, forbade any of\nher family to see her, and waited for results. The girl did not mend;\n\u2018very odd! some reason for this,\u2019 he muttered; and it came out that\nevery night the mother had crept in to wish her child good-night; the\ntender visits were put a stop to, and the girl recovered.\u201d\n\n\u201cYour examples are interesting enough, but I fail to see how they\nbear; in each case, you have a person of weak or disordered intellect\nsimulating a disease with no rational object in view. Now the\nbeggars who know how to manufacture sores on their persons have the\nadvantage--they do it for gain.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have told my tale badly; these were not persons of weak or\ndisordered intellect; some of them very much otherwise; neither did\nthey consciously simulate disease; not one believed it possible to make\nthe effort he or she was surprised into. The whole question belongs to\nthe mysterious borderland of physical and psychological science--not\npathological, observe; the subject of disease and its treatment is\nhardly for the lay mind.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am trying to understand.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is worth your while; if every man took the pains to understand the\nlittle that is yet to be known on this interesting subject he might\nsecure his own household, at any rate, from much misery and waste of\nvital powers; and not only his household, but perhaps himself--for, as\nI have tried to show, this that is called \u2018hysteria\u2019 is not necessarily\nan affair of sex.\u201d\n\n\u201cGo on; I am not yet within appreciable distance of anything bearing on\nmy wife\u2019s case.\u201d\n\n\u201cAh, the thing is a million-headed monster! hardly to be recognised\nby the same features in any two cases. To get at the _rationale_ of\nit, we must take up human nature by the roots. We talk glibly in these\ndays of what we get from our forefathers, what comes to us through our\nenvironment, and consider that in these two we have the sum of human\nnature. Not a bit of it; we have only accounted for some peculiarities\nin the individual; independently of these, we come equipped with stock\nfor the business of life of which too little account is taken. The\nsubject is wide, so I shall confine myself to an item or two.\n\n\u201cWe all come into the world--since we are beings of imperfect\nnature--subject to the uneasy stirring of some few primary desires.\nThus, the gutter child and the infant prince are alike open to the\nworkings of the desire for esteem, the desire for society, for power,\n&c. One child has this, and another that, desire more active and\nuneasy. Women, through the very modesty and dependence of their nature,\nare greatly moved by the desire for esteem. They must be thought of,\nmade much of, at any price. A man desires esteem, and he has meetings\nin the marketplace, the chief-room at the feast; the _p\u00e9troleuse_,\nthe city outcast, must have notoriety--the esteem of the bad--at any\nprice, and we have a city in flames, and Whitechapel murders. Each\nfalls back on his experience and considers what will bring him that\nesteem, a gnawing craving after which is one of his earliest immaterial\ncognitions. But the good woman has comparatively few outlets. The\nesteem that comes to her is all within the sphere of her affections.\nEsteem she must have; it is a necessity of her nature.\n\n \u201c\u2018_Praise_, blame, love, kisses, tears, and smiles,\u2019\n\nare truly to her, \u2018human nature\u2019s daily food.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, experience comes to her aid. When she is ill, she is the centre\nof attraction, the object of attention, to all who are dear to her; she\nwill be ill.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou contradict yourself, man! don\u2019t you see? You are painting, not a\ngood woman, but one who will premeditate, and act a lie!\u201d\n\n\u201cNot so fast! I am painting a good woman. Here comes in a condition\nwhich hardly any one takes into account. Mrs. Jumeau will lie with\nstiffened limbs and blue pale face for hours at a time. Is she\nsimulating illness? you might as well say that a man could simulate\na gunshot wound. But the thing people forget is, the intimate\nrelation and co-operation of body and mind; that the body lends\nitself _involuntarily_ to carry out the conceptions of the thinking\nbrain. Mrs. Jumeau does not _think_ herself into pallor, but every\ninfinitesimal nerve fibre, which entwines each equally infinitesimal\ncapillary which brings colour to the cheek, is intimately connected\nwith the thinking brain, in obedience to whose mandates it relaxes\nor contracts. Its relaxation brings colour and vigour with the free\nflow of the blood, its contraction, pallor, and stagnation; and the\nfeeling as well as the look of being sealed in a death-like trance. The\nwhole mystery depends on this co-operation of thought and substance of\nwhich few women are aware. The diagnosis is simply this, the sufferer\nhas the craving for outward tokens of the esteem which is essential\nto her nature; she recalls how such tokens accompany her seasons of\nillness, the sympathetic body perceives the situation, and she is ill;\nby-and-by, the tokens of esteem cease to come with the attacks of\nillness, but the habit has been set up, and she goes on having \u2018attacks\n\u2019 which bring real suffering to herself, and of the slightest agency in\nwhich she is utterly unconscious.\u201d\n\nConviction slowly forced itself on Mr. Jumeau; now that his wife was\nshown entirely blameless, he could concede the rest. More, he began to\nsuspect something rotten in the State of Denmark, or women like his\nwife would never have been compelled to make so abnormal a vent for a\ncraving proper to human nature.\n\n\u201cI begin to see; what must I do?\u201d\n\n\u201cIn Mrs. Jumeau\u2019s case, I may venture to recommend a course which would\nnot answer with one in a thousand. Tell her all I have told you. Make\nher mistress of the situation.--I need not say, save her as much as you\ncan from the anguish of self-contempt. Trust her, she will come to the\nrescue, and devise means to save herself; and, all the time, she will\nwant help from you, wise as well as tender. For the rest, those who\nhave in less measure--\n\n \u201c\u2018The reason firm, the temp\u2019rate will\u2019--\n\n\u2018massage,\u2019 and other devices for annulling the extraordinary physical\nsensibility to mental conditions, and, at the same time, excluding the\npatient from the possibility of the affectionate notice she craves,\nmay do a great deal. But this mischief which, in one shape or other,\nblights the lives of, say, forty per cent. of our best and most highly\norganised women, is one more instance of how lives are ruined by an\neducation which is not only imperfect, but proceeds on wrong lines.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow could education help in this?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, let them know the facts, possess them of even so slight an\noutline as we have had to-night, and the best women will take measures\nfor self-preservation. Put them on their guard, that is all. It is not\nenough to give them accomplishments and all sorts of higher learning;\nthese gratify the desire of esteem only in a very temporary way. But\nsomething more than a danger-signal is wanted. The woman, as well\nas the man, must have her share of the world\u2019s work, whose reward\nis the world\u2019s esteem. She must, even the cherished wife and mother\nof a family, be in touch with the world\u2019s needs, and must minister\nof the gifts she has; and that, because it is no dream that we are\nall brethren, and must therefore suffer from any seclusion from the\n_common_ life.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nMrs. Jumeau\u2019s life was not \u201cspoilt.\u201d It turned out as the doctor\npredicted; for days after his revelations she was ashamed to look her\nhusband in the face; but then, she called up her forces, fought her own\nfight and came off victorious.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n \u201c_A HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO YOU!_\u201d\n\n\nThe Christmas holidays! Boys and girls at school are counting off the\ndays till the home-coming. Young men and maidens, who have put away\nchildish things, do not reckon with date-stones, but consult their\nBradshaws. The little ones at home are storing up surprises. The father\nsays genially, \u201cWe shall soon have our young folk at home again.\u201d\nThe mother? Nobody, not the youngest of the schoolgirls, is so glad\nas she. She thinks of setting out for church on Christmas Day with,\nlet us hope, the whole of her scattered flock about her. Already she\npictures to herself how each has altered and grown, and yet how every\none is just as of old. She knows how Lucy will return prettier and more\nlovable than ever; Willie, more amusing; Harry, kinder; and how the\nelders will rejoice in baby May!\n\nAnd yet, there is a shade of anxiety in the mother\u2019s face as she\nplans for the holidays. The brunt of domestic difficulties falls,\nnecessarily, upon her. It is not quite easy to arrange a household\nfor a sudden incursion of new inmates whose stay is not measured by\ndays. Servants must be considered, and may be tiresome. Amusements,\ninterests, must be thought of, and then---- Does the mother stop short\nand avoid putting into shape the \u201cand then,\u201d which belongs to the\nholiday weeks after Christmas Day is over?\n\n\u201cLet us have a happy Christmas, any way,\u201d she says; \u201cwe must leave the\nrest.\u201d\n\nWhat is it? Pretty Lucy\u2019s face clouds into sullenness. Kind Harry\nis quick to take offence, and his outbursts spoil people\u2019s comfort.\nWillie, with all his nonsense, has fits of positive moroseness. Tom\nargues--is always in the right. Alice--is the child always quite\nstraightforward? There is reason enough for the strain of anxiety that\nmingles with the mother\u2019s joy. It is not easy to keep eight or nine\nyoung people at their best for weeks together, without their usual\nemployments, when you consider that, wanting their elders\u2019 modicum of\nself-control, they may have their father\u2019s failings, and their mother\u2019s\nfailings, and ugly traits besides hardly to be accounted for. Is it a\ncounsel of perfection that mothers should have \u201cQuiet Days\u201d of rest for\nbody and mind, and for such spiritual refreshment as may be, to prepare\nthem for the exhausting (however delightful) strain of the holidays?\n\nMuch arrears of work must fall to the heads of the house in the young\nfolk\u2019s holidays. They will want to estimate, as they get opportunity,\nthe new thought that is leavening their children\u2019s minds; to modify,\nwithout appearing to do so, the opinions the young people are\nforming. They must keep a clear line of demarcation between duties\nand pastimes, even in the holidays; and they must resume the work of\ncharacter-training, relinquished to some extent while the children are\naway at school. But, after all, the holiday problem is much easier than\nit looks, as many a light-hearted mother knows.\n\nThere is a way of it, a certain \u201cOpen sesame,\u201d which mothers know,\nor, if they do not, all the worse for the happiness of Holiday House.\nOccupation? Many interests? Occupation, of course; we know what\nbefalls idle hands; but \u201cinterests\u201d are only successful in conjunction\nwith the password; without it, the more excitingly interesting the\ninterests the more apt are they to disturb the domestic atmosphere and\nmake one sulky, and another domineering, and a third selfish, and each\n\u201cnaughty\u201d in that particular way in which \u201c\u2019tis his nature to.\u201d\n\nEvery mother knows the secret, but some may have forgotten the magic\nof it. Paradoxical as the statement may sound, there is no one thing\nof which it is harder to convince young people than that their parents\nlove them. They do not talk about the matter, but supposing they did,\nthis would be the avowal of nine children out of ten:\n\n\u201cOh, of course, mother loves me in a way, but not as she loves X.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow \u2018in a way\u2019?\u201d\n\n\u201cYou know what I mean. She _is_ mother, so of course she cares about\nthings for me and all that.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut how does she love X.?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, I can\u2019t explain; she\u2019s fond of her, likes to look at her, and\ntouch her, and--now don\u2019t go and think I\u2019m saying things about mother.\nShe\u2019s quite fair and treats us all _just_ alike; but who could help\nliking X. best? I\u2019m so horrid! Nobody cares for me.\u201d\n\nPut most of the children (including X.) of good and loving parents into\nthe Palace of Truth, children of all ages, from six, say, to twenty,\nand this is the sort of thing you would get. Boys would, as a rule,\ncredit \u201cmother,\u201d and girls, \u201cfather,\u201d with the more love; but that is\nonly by comparison; the one parent is only \u201cnicer\u201d than the other. As\nfor appropriating or recognising the fulness of love lavished on them,\nthey simply do not do it.\n\nAnd why? Our little friend has told us; mother and father are quite\nfair, there is no fault to be found in them, but \u201cI\u2019m so horrid, nobody\ncares for me.\u201d There you have the secret of \u201cnaughtiness.\u201d There is\nnothing more pathetic than the sort of dual life of which the young\nare dimly conscious. On the one hand there are premonitions of full\nand perfect being, the budding wings of which their thoughts are full,\nand for which their strong sense of justice demands credit. Mother\nand father ought to know how great and good and beautiful they are\nin possibility, in prospective. They must have the comprehension,\nappreciation, which, if they cannot get in the drawing-room, they will\nseek in the kitchen or the stable-yard. Alnaschar visions? If so, it is\nnot young Alnaschar, but his parents, who kick over the basket of eggs.\n\nIf the young folk are pugnacious about their \u201crights,\u201d and are\nover-ready with their \u201cIt\u2019s not fair!\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s a shame!\u201d it is because\nthey reckon their claims by the great possible self, while, alas! they\nmeasure what they get by the actual self, of which they think small\nthings. There is no word for it but \u201chorrid;\u201d bring them to book, and\nthe scornful, or vain, or bumptious young persons we may know are alike\nin this--every one of them is \u201chorrid\u201d in his or her own eyes.\n\nNow, if you know yourself to be horrid, you know that, of course,\npeople do not love you; how can they? They are kind to you and all\nthat, but that is because it\u2019s their business, or their nature, or\ntheir duty to be kind. It has really nothing to do with you personally.\nWhat you want is some one who will find you out, and be kind to you,\nand love you just for your own sake and nothing else. So do we reason\nwhen we are young. It is the old story. The good that I would I do not,\nbut the evil that I would not, that I do. Only we feel things more\nacutely when we are young, and take sides alternately with ourselves\nand against ourselves; small is the wonder that their elders find young\npeople \u201cdifficult;\u201d that is just what they find themselves.\n\n\u201cFudge!\u201d says the reader, who satisfies himself with the surface,\nand recalls the fun and frolic and gaiety of heart, the laughter and\nnonsense and bright looks of scores of young people he knows: of course\nthey are gay, _because_ they are young; but we should have many books\nabout the sadness of youth if people in their \u201cteens\u201d might have the\nmaking of them. Glad and sad are not a whole octave apart.\n\nHow soon does this trouble of youth begin? That very delightful little\nperson, the Baby, is quite exempted. So, too, are the three, four,\nand five-year-old darlings of the nursery. They gather on your knee,\nand take possession of you, and make no doubt at all of your love or\ntheir deserts. But a child cannot always get out of the nursery before\nthis doubt with two faces is upon him. I know a boy of four, a healthy\nintelligent child, full of glee and frolic and sense, who yet has many\nsad moments because one and another do not love him, and other very\njoyful, grateful moments because some little gift or attention assures\nhim of love. His mother, with the delicate tact mothers have, perceives\nthat the child needs to be continually reinstated in his own esteem.\nShe calls him her \u201conly boy,\u201d treats him half as her little lover, and\nso evens him with the two bright little sisters whom, somehow, and\nwithout any telling, poor Georgie feels to be sweeter in temper and\nmore lovable than he. An exceedingly instructive little memorial of a\nchild who died young came under our notice some time ago. His parents\nkept their children always in an atmosphere of love and gladness; and\nit was curious to notice that this boy, a merry, bright little fellow,\nwas quite incapable of realising his parents\u2019 love. That they should\nlove his sister was natural, but how _could_ they love him?\n\nThe little ones in the nursery revel in love, but how is it with even\nthe nursery elders? Are they not soon taught to give place to the\nlittle ones and look for small show of love, because they are \u201cbig\nboys\u201d and \u201cbig girls\u201d? The rather sad aloofness and self-containedness\nof these little folk in some families is worth thinking about. Even\nthe nursery is a microcosm, suffering from the world\u2019s ailment,\nlove-hunger, a sickness which drives little children and grown-up\npeople into naughty thoughts and wicked ways.\n\nI knew a girl whose parents devoted themselves entirely to training\nher; they surrounded her with care and sufficient tenderness; they\ndid not make much of her openly, because they held old-fashioned\nnotions about not fostering a child\u2019s self-importance and vanity.\nThey were so successful in suppressing the girl\u2019s self-esteem that it\nnever occurred to her that all their cares meant love until she was\nwoman-grown, and could discern character, and, alas! had her parents\nno more to give them back love for love. The girl herself must have\nbeen unloving? In one sense, all young beings are unloving; in another,\nthey are as vessels filled, brimming over with love seeking an outlet.\nThis girl would watch her mother about a room, walk behind her in the\nstreets--adoringly. Such intense worship of their parents is more\ncommon in children than we imagine. A boy of five years was asked\nwhat he thought the most beautiful thing in the world. \u201cVelvet,\u201d he\nreplied, with dreamy eyes, evidently thinking of his mother in a velvet\ngown. His parents are the greatest and wisest, the most powerful, and\nthe best people within the narrow range of the child\u2019s world. They are\nroyal personages--his kings and queens. Is it any wonder he worships,\neven when he rebels?\n\nBut is it not more common, now-a-days, for children to caress and\npatronise their parents, and make all too sure of their love?\nIt may be; but only where parents have lost that indescribable\nattribute--dignity? authority?--which is their title to their\nchildren\u2019s love and worship; and the affection which is lavished too\ncreaturely-wise on children fails to meet the craving of their nature.\nWhat is it they want, those young things so gaily happy with doll or\nbat or racquet? They want to be reinstated; they labour, some poor\nchildren almost from infancy, under a sad sense of demerit. They find\nthemselves so little loveworthy, that no sign short of absolute telling\nwith lip and eye and touch will convince them they are beloved.\n\nBut if one whom they trust and honour, one who _knows_, will, seeing\nhow faulty they are, yet love them, regarding the hateful faults as\nalien things to be got rid of, and holding them, in spite of the\nfaults, in close measureless love and confidence, why, then, the young\nlives expand like flowers in sunny weather, and where parents know this\nsecret of loving there are no morose boys nor sullen girls.\n\nActions do not speak louder than words to a young heart; he must\nfeel it in your touch, see it in your eye, hear it in your tones, or\nyou will never convince child or boy that you love him, though you\nlabour day and night for his good and his pleasure. Perhaps this is\nthe special lesson of Christmas-tide for parents. The Son came--for\nwhat else we need not inquire now--to reinstate men by _compelling_\nthem to believe that they--the poorest shrinking and asham\u00e8d souls of\nthem--that they live enfolded in infinite personal love, desiring with\ndesire the response of love for love. And who, like the parent, can\nhelp forward this \u201cwonderful redemption\u201d? The boy who knows that his\nfather and his mother love him with measureless patience in his faults,\nand love him out of them, is not slow to perceive, and receive, and\nunderstand the dealings of the higher Love.\n\nBut why should good parents, more than the rest of us, be expected to\nexhibit so divine a love? Perhaps because they are better than most of\nus; anyway, that appears to be their vocation. And that it is possible\nto fulfil even so high a calling we all know, because we know good\nmothers and good fathers.\n\nParents, love your children, is, probably, an unnecessary counsel to\nany who read this paper; at any rate, it is a presuming one. But let\nus say to reserved undemonstrative parents who follow the example of\nrighteous Abraham and _rule_ their households,--Rule none the less, but\nlet your children feel and see and be quite sure that you love them.\n\nWe do not suggest endearments in public, which the young folk cannot\nalways abide. But, dear mother, take your big schoolgirl in your arms\njust once in the holidays, and let her have a good talk, all to your\ntwo selves; it will be to her like a meal to a hungry man. For the\nyouths and maidens--remember, they would sell their souls for love;\nthey do it too, and that is the reason of many of the ruined lives we\nsigh over. Who will break down the partition between supply and demand\nin many a home where there are hungry hearts on either side of the\nwall?\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n _PARENTS IN COUNCIL_\n\n\n PART I\n\n\u201cNow, let us address ourselves to the serious business of the evening.\nHere we are:\n\n \u2018Six precious (pairs), and all agog,\n To dash through thick and thin!\u2019\n\n_Imprimis_--our desire is for reform! Not reform by Act of Parliament,\nif you please; but, will the world believe?--we veritably desire to _be\nreformed_! And that, as a vicarious effort for the coming race. Why, to\nhave conceived the notion entitles us to sit by for our term of years\nand see how the others do it!\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t be absurd, Ned, as if it were all a joke! We\u2019re dreadfully in\nearnest, and can\u2019t bear to have the time wasted. A pretty President you\nare.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, my dear, that\u2019s the joke; how can a man preside over a few\nfriends who have done him the honour to dine at his table?\u201d\n\n\u201cMrs. Clough is quite right. It\u2019s \u2018Up boys, and at it!\u2019 we want to be;\nso, my dear fellow, don\u2019t let any graceful scruples on your part hinder\nwork.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen, Henderson, as the most rabid of us all, you must begin.\u201d\n\n\u201cI do not know that what I have to say should come first in order; but\nto save time I\u2019ll begin. What I complain of is the crass ignorance\nof us--of myself, I mean. You know what a magnificent spectacle the\nheavens have offered these last few frosty nights. Well, one of our\nyoungsters has, I think, some turn for astronomy. \u2018Look, father, what a\ngreat star! It\u2019s big enough to make the night light without the moon.\nIt isn\u2019t always there; what\u2019s its name, and where does it go?\u2019 The boy\nwas in the receptive \u2018How I wonder what you are\u2019 mood; anything and\neverything I could have told him would have been his--a possession for\nlife.\n\n\u201c\u2018That\u2019s not a star, it\u2019s a planet, Tom,\u2019 with a little twaddle about\nhow planets are like our earth, more or less, was all I had for his\nhungry wonder. As for how one planet differs from another in glory, his\nsifting questions got nothing out of me; what nothing has, can nothing\ngive. Again, he has, all of his own wit, singled out groups of stars\nand, like Hugh Miller, wasn\u2019t it?--pricked them into paper with a pin.\n\u2018Have they names? What is this, and this?\u2019 \u2018Those three stars are the\nbelt of Orion\u2019--the sum of my acquaintance with the constellations, if\nyou will believe it! He bombarded me with questions all to the point. I\ntried bits of book knowledge which he did not want. It was a \u2018bowing\u2019\nacquaintance, if no more, with the glorious objects before him that\nthe child coveted, and he cornered me till his mother interfered with,\n\u2018That will do, Tom: don\u2019t tease father with your questions.\u2019 A trifling\nincident, perhaps, but do you know I didn\u2019t sleep a wink that night,\nor rather, I did sleep, and dreamt, and woke for good. I dreamt the\nchild was crying for hunger and I had not a crust to give him. You\nknow how vivid some dreams are. The moral flashed on me. The child had\nbeen crying to me with the hunger of the mind. He had asked for bread\nand got a stone. A thing like that stirs you. From that moment I had\na new conception of a parent\u2019s vocation and of my unfitness for it.\nI determined that night to find some way to help ourselves and the\nthousands of parents in the same ignorant case.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, but, Henderson, you don\u2019t mean to say that every parent should\nbe an astronomer? Why, how can a man with other work tackle the study\nof a lifetime?\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, but I do think our veneration for science frightens us off open\nground. Huxley somewhere draws a line between science and what he calls\n\u2018common information,\u2019 and this I take to mean an acquaintance with the\nfacts about us, whether of Nature or of society. It\u2019s a shameful thing\nto be unable to answer such questions as Tom\u2019s. Every one should know\nsomething about such facts of Nature as the child is likely to come\nacross. But how to get at this knowledge! Books? Well, I don\u2019t say but\nyou may get to know _about_ most things from books, but as for knowing\nthe thing itself, let me be introduced by him that knew it before me!\u201d\n\n\u201cI see what you mean; we want the help of the naturalist, an enthusiast\nwho will not only teach but fire us with the desire to know.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut don\u2019t you find, Morris, that even your enthusiast, if he\u2019s a\nman of science, is slow to recognise the neutral ground of common\ninformation?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat may be; but, as for getting what we want--pooh! it\u2019s a question\nof demand and supply. If you don\u2019t mind my talking about ourselves\nI should like just to tell you what we did last summer. Perhaps you\nmay know that I dabble a little in geology--only dabble--but every\ntyro must have noticed how the features of a landscape depend on its\ngeological formation, and not only the look of the landscape, but the\noccupations of the people. Well, it occurred to me that if, instead of\nthe hideous \u2018resources\u2019--save the word!--of a watering-place, what if\nwe were to study the \u2018scape\u2019 of a single formation? The children would\nhave that, at any rate, in visible presentation, and would hold a key\nto much besides.\n\n\u201cMy wife and I love the South Downs, perhaps for auld sake\u2019s sake, so\nwe put up at a farmhouse in one of the lovely \u2018Lavants\u2019 near Goodwood.\nChalk and a blackboard were inseparably associated; and a _hill_ of\nchalk was as surprising to the children as if all the trees were bread\nand cheese. Here was _wonder_ to start with, wonder and desire to\nknow. Truly, a man hath joy in the answer of his mouth! The delight,\nthe deliciousness of pouring out answers to their eager questions!\nand the illimitable receptivity of the children! This was the sort of\nthing--after scrawling on a flint with a fragment of chalk:--\n\n\u201c\u2018What is that white line on the flint, Bob?\u2019--\u2018Chalk, father,\u2019\nwith surprise at my dulness; and then the unfolding of the tale of\nwonder--thousands of lovely infinitely small shells in that scrawl of\nchalk; each had, ages and ages ago, its little inmate, and so on. Wide\neyes and open mouths, until sceptical Dick--\u2018Well, but, father, how did\nthey get here? How could they crawl or swim to the dry land when they\nwere dead?\u2019 More wonders, and a snub for that small boy. \u2018Why, this\nhillside we are sitting on is a bit of that old sea-bottom!\u2019 And still\nthe marvel grew, until, trust me, there is not a feature of the chalk\nthat is not written down in _le journal intime_ of each child\u2019s soul.\nThey know the soft roll of the hills, the smooth dip of the valleys,\nthe delights of travellers\u2019 joy, queer old yews, and black-berrying in\nthe sudden \u2018bottoms\u2019 of the chalk. The endless singing of a solitary\nlark--nothing but larks--the trailing of cloud-shadows over the hills,\nthe blue skies of Sussex, blue as those of Naples--these things are\ntheirs to have and to hold, and are all associated with the chalk; they\nhave the sense of the earth-mother, of the connection of things, which\nmakes for poetry.\n\n\u201cThen their mother has rather a happy way of getting pictures printed\non the \u2018sensitive plate\u2019 of each. She hits on a view, of narrow range\ngenerally, and makes the children look at it well and then describe it\nwith closed eyes. One never-to-be forgotten view was seized in this\nway. \u2018First grass, the hill-slopes below us, with sheep feeding about:\nand then a great field of red poppies--there\u2019s corn, but we can\u2019t see\nit; then fields and fields of corn, quite yellow and ripe, reaching out\na long way; next, the sea, very blue, and three rather little boats\nwith white sails; a lark a long way up in the sky singing as loud as a\nband of music; and _such_ a shining sun!\u2019 No doubt our little maid will\nhave all that to her dying day; and isn\u2019t it a picture worth having?\u201d\n\n\u201cMr. Morris\u2019s hint admits of endless expansion; why, you could cover\nthe surface formations of England in the course of the summer holidays\nof a boy\u2019s schooldays, and thus give him a key to the landscape, fauna,\nand flora of much of the earth\u2019s surface. It\u2019s admirable.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat a salvage! The long holidays, which are apt to hang on hand,\nwould be more fully and usefully employed than schooldays, and in ways\nfull of out-of-door delights. I see how it would work. Think of the\ndales of Yorkshire, where the vivid green of the mountain limestone\nforms a distinct line of junction with the dim tints of the heather on\nthe millstone grit of the moors, of the innumerable rocky nests where\nthe ferns of the limestone--hartstongue, limestone polypody, beech\nfern, and the rest--grow delicately green and perfect as if conserved\nunder glass. Think of the endless ferns and mosses and the picturesque\noutlines of the slate, both in the Lake Country and in Wales. What\ncollections the children might form, always having the geological\nformation of the district as the leading idea.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou are getting excited, Mrs. Tremlow. For my part, I cannot rise to\nthe occasion. It is dull to have \u2018delicious!\u2019 \u2018delightful!\u2019 \u2018lovely!\u2019\nhailing about one\u2019s ears, and to be out of it. Pray, do not turn me out\nfor the admission, but my own feeling is strongly against this sort of\ndabbling in science. In this bird\u2019s-eye view of geology, for instance,\nwhy in the world did you begin with the chalk? At least you might have\nstarted with, say, Cornwall.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is just one of the points where the line is to be drawn; you\nspecialists do one thing thoroughly--begin at the beginning, if a\nbeginning there is, and go on to the end, if life is long enough. Now,\nwe contend that the specialist\u2019s work should be laid on a wide basis of\ncommon information, which differs from science in this amongst other\nthings--you take it as it occurs. A fact comes under your notice; you\nwant to know why it is, and what it is; but its relations to other\nfacts must settle themselves as time goes on, and the other facts turn\nup. For instance, a child of mine should know the \u2018blackcap\u2019 by its\nrich note and black upstanding headgear, and take his chance of ever\nknowing even the name of the family to which his friend belongs.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd surely, Mr. Morris, you would teach history in the same way; while\nyou are doing a county, or a \u2018formation\u2019--isn\u2019t it?--you get fine\nopportunities for making history a real thing. For instance, supposing\nyou are doing the--what is it?--of Dorsetshire? You come across Corfe\nCastle standing in a dip of the hills, like the trough between two\nwaves, and how real you can make the story of the bleeding prince\ndragged over the downs at the heels of his horse.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, and speaking of the downs, do you happen to know, Mrs. Tremlow,\nthe glorious downs behind Lewes, and the Abbey and the Castle below,\nall concerned in the story of the great battle; and the ridge of Mount\nHarry across which De Montfort and his men marched while the royal\nparty were holding orgies in the Abbey, and where, in the grey of the\nearly morning, each man vowed his life to the cause of liberty, face\ndownwards to the cool grass, and arms outstretched in the form of a\ncross? Once you have made a study on the spot of one of those historic\nsites, why, the place and the scene is a part of you. You couldn\u2019t\nforget it if you would.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is interesting, and it touches on a point to which I want to\ncall your attention; have you noticed that in certain districts you\ncome across, not only the spots associated with critical events, but\nmonuments of the leading idea of centuries? Such as these are the\nruined abbeys which still dominate every lovely dale in Yorkshire; the\ntwelfth-century churches, four or five of which--in certain English\ncounties--you come across in the course of a single day\u2019s tramp, and of\nwhich there is hardly a secluded out-of-the-way nook in some counties\nthat has not its example to show; such, again, are the endless castles\non the Welsh border, the Roman camps on the downs, each bearing witness\nto the dominant thought, during a long period, whether of war, or, of\na time when men had some leisure from fighting.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd not only so. Think of how the better half of English literature\nhas a local colouring; think of the thousand spots round which there\nlingers an aroma of poetry and of character, which seems to get into\nyour brain somehow, and leave there an image of the man, a _feeling_\nof his work, which you cannot arrive at elsewhere. The Quantocks,\nGrasmere, Haworth Moors, the Selborne \u2018Hanger,\u2019 the Lincolnshire\nlevels--it is needless to multiply examples of spots where you may see\nthe raw material of poetry, and compare it with the finished work.\u201d\n\n\u201cAll this is an inspiring glimpse of the possible; but surely,\ngentlemen, you do not suppose that a family party, the children, say,\nfrom fifteen downwards, can get in touch with such wide interests in\nthe course of a six weeks\u2019 holiday? I doubt if, even amongst ourselves,\nany but you, Mr. Meredith, and Mr. Clough, have this sort of grasp of\nhistorical and personal associations.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe must leave that an open question, Mrs. Henderson; but what I\ndo contend for is, that children have illimitable capacity for all\nknowledge which reaches them in some sort through the vehicle of the\nsenses: what they _see_ and delight in you may pin endless facts,\ninnumerable associations, upon, and children have capacity for them\nall: nor will they ever treat you to lack-lustre eye and vacant\ncountenance. Believe me \u2018\u2019tis their nature to\u2019 hunger after knowledge\nas a labouring man hungers for his dinner; only, the _thing_ must come\nin the first, the words which interpret it in the second place.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou mean that everything they see is to lead to a sort of object\nlesson?\u201d\n\n\u201cIndeed I do not! Object lesson! talkee, talkee, about a miserable\ncut-and-dried scrap, hardly to be recognised by one who knows the\nthing. I should not wonder if it were better for a child to go without\ninformation than to get it in this unnatural way. No, let him see\nthe thing big and living before him, behaving according to its wont.\nSpecimens are of infinite use to the scientist whose business it is to\ngeneralise, but are misleading to the child who has yet to learn his\nindividuals. I don\u2019t doubt for a minute that an intelligent family out\nfor a holiday might well cover all the ground we have sketched out, and\nmore; but who in the world is to teach them? A child\u2019s third question\nabout the fowls of the air or the flowers of the field would probably\nfloor most of us.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s coming to the point. I wondered if we ever meant to touch our\nsubject again to-night. To skim over all creation in an easy, airy way\nis exciting, but, from an educational standpoint, \u2019tis comic to the\nfather with a young swarm at home who care for none of these things.\u201d\n\n\u201cOf course they don\u2019t, Withers, if they have never been put in the\nway of it; but try \u2019em, that\u2019s all. Now, listen to my idea; I shall\nbe too glad if any one strikes out a better, but we must come to a\npoint, and pull up the next who wanders off on his own hobby. Each of\nus wishes to cover all, or more, or some of, the ground suggested in\nour desultory talk. Difficulty, we can\u2019t teach because we don\u2019t know.\nWe are in a corner with but one way out. _We must learn_ what we should\nteach. How? Well, let us form ourselves into a college, or club, or\nwhat you like. Now, it\u2019s simply the A B C of many things we wish to\nlearn. Once organised, we shall see our way to the next step. Even in\nthe small party here to-night, some know something of geology, some are\nat home in the byways of history; what we cannot evolve from our midst\nwe must get from outside, and either amateur recruits or professional\nfolk must be pressed into service; recruits would be much the best,\nfor they would learn as well as teach. Then, when we are organised, we\nmay consider whether our desire is to exhaust a single district in the\nway suggested, or to follow some other plan. Only, please, if it be a\ndistrict, let it be a wide one, so that our intercourse be confined to\n\u2018speaking\u2019 in passing, like ships at sea. Don\u2019t, for pity\u2019s sake, let\nit be a social thing, with tennis, talk, and tea!\u201d\n\n\u201cSuppose we do enrol ourselves, how frequent do you think should be our\nmeetings?\u201d\n\n\u201cWe\u2019ll leave that question; in the meantime, those in favour of\nMr. Morris\u2019s motion that we form ourselves into a society for the\nconsideration of matters affecting the education of children--the\nparents\u2019 part of the work, that is--will signify the same in the usual\nway.\u201d\n\n\u201cCarried unanimously!\u201d[23]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [23] Ancient history now; a forecast fulfilled in the\n formation of the Parents\u2019 National Educational Union.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n _PARENTS IN COUNCIL_\n\n\n PART II\n\n\u201cWe have listened to you, gentlemen, with great deference. We have\nprofited much, and perceive a great field of work before us. I hope we\nmay get a little outside help. I heard the other day of a young lady\nlearned in mosses who is in the habit of taking the children she knows\non \u2018mossing\u2019 expeditions. But what I wish to say is, education, like\ncharity, begins at home, and you have chosen to lead us far afield at\nthe very outset!\u201d\n\n\u201cTruly, we did go off at a canter! But don\u2019t you think \u2019tis a matter\nfor curtain discipline? If your son Tom had not \u2018wondered what you are\u2019\nwe might have begun quite at the beginning, if there is one; or, most\nlikely, should have been till this moment wondering where to begin. We\nare grateful to you, Henderson, for starting us anywhere; and more so\nto Mrs. Henderson for her axiom, Education begins at home.\u201d\n\n\u201cI daresay experienced people get to know all about it,\u201d said Mrs.\nClough; \u201cbut the mother of even two or three little ones has a sense\nof being at sea without rudder or compass. We know so little about\nchildren, or, indeed, about human beings at all! Parents before our\ntime had something to go upon; and the young mother could ask counsel\nof her elders on all matters from \u2018cinder tea\u2019 to the choice of a\nschool. But now science is abroad; many of the old wise saws turn out,\nnot only mischievous, but ridiculous. We can\u2019t keep hold of the old, we\ncan\u2019t get hold of the new, and there we are, like Mahomet\u2019s coffin.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou have described our quandary exactly, Mrs. Clough! And what you\nsay accounts for many things. The older people complain that the\nchildren of these days are growing up lax, self-pleasing, disobedient,\nirreverent. Now, I think myself there is a great deal that\u2019s fine in\nour children. They are much more of _persons_ than we were at their\nage; but that they do pretty much what is right in their own eyes, are\nneither obedient nor reverent, nor even respectful, is, I am afraid, a\ntrue bill. But don\u2019t you see how it is? We are afraid of them. We feel\nas a navvy might, turned in to dust the drawing-room ornaments! The\nmere touch of his clumsy great fingers may be the ruin of some precious\nthing. We parents, no doubt, get tenderness and insight from above to\nenable us for our delicate work; so I suppose it is our own fault that\nthe children are beyond us.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow do you mean, Mrs. Meredith? And if you, mothers, don\u2019t know what\nto do with the children, who does? The enlightened father lays himself\nout for a snub if he sets up for an authority at home.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, yes! you men make ludicrous blunders about children. But that\u2019s\nno help. A young mother gets a tender human creature into her keeping,\nfull of possibilities. Her first concern is, not only to keep it in\nhealth, but, so to speak, to fill it with reserves of health to last\na lifetime. At once her perplexities begin. I shall not even ask to\nbe excused for venturing upon details; the affairs of a young human\nbeing are important enough to engage the attention of Queen, Lords,\nand Commons, did they but know it. Well, a mother I know wished her\nchild to be clothed delicately, as befits a first-born. She sent\nto Ireland for a delicious baby trousseau of lace and cambric. You\ngentlemen don\u2019t understand. Hardly had the dear little garments gone\nthrough their first wash, when somebody tells her that \u2019oo\u2019 a\u2019 \u2019oo\u2019\nis the only wear for babies and grown ups. I doubt if to this day she\nknows why, but there was a _soup\u00e7on_ of science in the suggestion, so\nthe sweet cambrics were discarded and fine woollens took their place.\nBy-and-by, when the child came to feed like other mortals, there was\na hail of pseudo-science about her ears. \u2018Grape-sugar,\u2019 \u2018farinaceous\nfoods,\u2019 \u2018saliva,\u2019 and what not; but this was less simple than the wool\nquestion. She could make nothing of it, so asked her doctor how to feed\nthe child. Further complications arose: \u2018the child sees everything;\u2019\n\u2018the child knows everything;\u2019 \u2018what you make him now he will be through\nlife;\u2019 \u2018the period of infancy is the most important in his life.\u2019 My\npoor friend grew bewildered, with the result that, in her ignorant\nanxiety to do right, she is for ever changing the child\u2019s diet, nurse,\nsleeping hours, airing hours, according to the last lights of the most\nscientific of her acquaintance; and \u2019tis my belief the little one would\nbe a deal better off brought up like its mother before it.\u201d\n\n\u201cThen, Mrs. Meredith, you would walk in the old paths?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot a bit of it! Only I want to see where I\u2019m going. I think we live\nin an age of great opportunities. But my contention is, that you cannot\nbring up children on hearsay in these days; there is some principle\ninvolved in the most everyday matter, and we must go to school to\nlearn the common laws of healthy living and well-being.\u201d\n\n\u201cMrs. Meredith is right: here is serious work sketched out for us, and\nof a kind as useful for ourselves as for our children. We _must_ learn\nthe first principles of human physiology.\u201d\n\n\u201cWould not it do to learn what is called Hygiene? I have a notion that\nis physiology made easy; that is, you are just taught what to do,\nwithout going _fully_ into the cause why.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo, we must stick to physiology: I don\u2019t believe a bit in learning\n_what_ to do, unless founded upon a methodical, not scrappy, knowledge\nof _why_ we do it. You see, all parts of the animal economy are so\ninter-dependent, that you cannot touch this without affecting that.\nWhat we want to get at is, the laws for the well-being of every part,\nthe due performance of every function.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, man, you would have every one of us qualify to write M.D. to his\nname.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot so; we shall not interfere with the doctors; we leave sickness\nto them; but the preservation of health, the increase in bodily\nvigour, must be our care. In this way, we acquaint ourselves fully\nwith the structure of the skin, for example, with its functions,\nand the inter-dependence between these and the functions of certain\ninternal organs. Now, secure vigorous action of the skin, and you gain\nexhilaration of spirits, absolute joy for the time, followed by a rise\nin the sense of general well-being, _i.e._, happiness. You remember\nhow a popular American poet sits on a gate in the sun after his bath,\nusing his flesh-brushes for hours, until he is the colour of a boiled\nlobster, and \u2018more so.\u2019 He might be more seemly employed, but his _joy_\nis greater than if daily telegrams brought him word of new editions\nof his poems. Well, if due action of the skin is a means to a joyous\nlife, to health and a genial temper, what mother is there who would\nnot secure these for her child? But the thing is not so simple as it\nlooks. It is not merely a case of bath and flesh-brush: diet, clothes,\nsleep, bedroom, sunshine, happy surroundings, exercise, bright talk, a\nthousand things must work together to bring about this \u2018happy-making\u2019\ncondition. What is true of the skin is true all round, and we cannot go\nto work with a view to any single organ or function; all work together:\nand we must aim at a thorough grip of the subject. Is it, then, decided\n\u2018without one if or but,\u2019 that we get ourselves instructed in the\nscience of living?\u201d\n\n\u201cThe \u2018science of living\u2019--yes, but that covers much beyond the range of\nphysiology. Think of the child\u2019s mind, his moral nature, his spiritual\nbeing. It seems to me that we already make too much of the body.\nOur young people are encouraged to sacrifice everything to physical\ntraining; and there is a sensuousness well hit-off in George Eliot\u2019s\n\u2018Gwendoline,\u2019 in the importance given to every detail of the bath and\nthe toilet. One is weary of the endless magnification of the body and\nits belongings. And, what is more, I believe we are defeating our own\nends. \u2018Groom\u2019 the skin, develop the muscles, by all means; but there\nis more to be thought of, and I doubt if to live to the flesh, even in\nthese ways, is permissible.\u201d\n\n\u201cRight, Mrs. Meredith! But don\u2019t think for a moment that physiology\nlends itself to the cult of muscle. Here is a youth whose _biceps_\nare his better part: like most of us, he gets what he aims at--some\nlocal renown as an athlete. But what does he pay for the whistle? His\nviolent \u2018sports\u2019 do not materially increase the measure of blood which\nsustains him: if the muscles get more than their share, their gain\nimplies loss elsewhere, to the brain, commonly, and, indeed, to all\nthe vital organs. By-and-by, the sports of youth over, your brawny,\nbroad-chested young fellow collapses; is the victim of _ennui_, and\nliver, lungs, or stomach send in their requisition for arrears of\nnourishment fraudulently made away with.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, surely, Mr. Meredith, you do not think lightly of physical\ndevelopment? Why, I thought it one of the first duties of parents to\nsend their offspring into the world as \u2018fine animals.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cSo it is; but here, as elsewhere, there is a \u2018science of the\nproportion of things,\u2019 and the young people who go in violently and\nwithout moderation for muscular feats are a delusion and a snare: in\nthe end they do not prove \u2018fine animals;\u2019 they have little \u2018staying\u2019\npower.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut a child is more than an animal; we want to know how mind and moral\nfeelings are to be developed?\u201d\n\n\u201cEven then, Mrs. Tremlow, we should find much help in the study\nof physiology--mental physiology, if you like to call it so. The\nborder-line where flesh and spirit meet seems to me the new field, an\nEldorado, I do believe, opened to parents and to all of us concerned\nwith the culture of character. I mean, the habits a child grows up with\nappear to leave some sort of register in his material brain, and thus\nto become part of himself in even a physical sense. Thus it rests with\nparents to ease the way of their child by giving him the habits of\nthe good life in thought, feeling, and action, and even in spiritual\nthings. We cannot make a child \u2018good,\u2019 but, in this way; we can lay\npaths for the good life and the moral life in the very substance of\nhis brain. We cannot make him hear the voice of God; but, again, we\ncan make paths where the Lord God may walk in the cool of the evening.\nWe cannot make the child clever; but we can see that his brain is\nnourished with pure blood, his mind with fruitful ideas.\u201d\n\n\u201cI suppose all this would be encouraging if one were up to it. But I\nfeel as if a great map of an unknown country were spread before me,\nwhere the few points one wants to make for are unmarked. How, for\ninstance, to make a child obedient, kind, and true?\u201d\n\n\u201cYour question, Mrs. Tremlow, suggests further ground we must cover: a\nfew set rules will be of little service; we must know how much there is\nin \u2018human nature,\u2019 and how to play upon it as a musician on the keys\nof his instrument. We must add to our physiology, psychology, and, to\npsychology, moral science. Complex, yet most simple, manifold, yet one,\nhuman nature is not to be ticked off in a lecture or two as a subject\nwe have exhausted; but there is no conceivable study which yields such\nsplendid increase for our pains.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd the spiritual life of the child? Does either of these \u2018ologies\u2019\nembrace the higher life, or is it not susceptible of culture?\u201d\n\n\u201cAh, there we have new conditions--the impact of the Divine upon the\nhuman, which generates _life_, \u2018without which there is no living.\u2019 The\nlife is there, imparted and sustained from above; but we have something\nto do here also. Spirit, like body, thrives upon daily bread and daily\nlabour, and it is our part to set before the child those \u2018new thoughts\nof God, new hopes of Heaven,\u2019 which should be his spiritual diet;\nand to practise him in the spiritual labours of prayer, praise, and\nendeavour. How?--is another question for our Society to work out.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n _A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER_\n\n (AT THE CLOUGHS\u2019 DINNER-TABLE, SEPT. 10, 1990.)\n\n\n\u201cIt\u2019s a capital idea! the thing ought to be commemorated. At any rate,\nwe can give a little dinner in honour of it. Whom shall we have?\u201d\n\n\u201cDr. and Mrs. Oldcastle, and Harry\u2019s form-master, young Mr. Hilyard,\nand his wife, will represent school-work; _we_ shall stand for parents\nin general; and with Dr. and Mrs. Brenton for our medical advisers, and\nthe Dean and Mrs. Priestly to witness for things spiritual, we shall be\nquite a \u2018representative gathering.\u2019 Will my list do?\u201d\n\n\u201cFamously! Couldn\u2019t be better. We all know the subject and each other.\nI shouldn\u2019t wonder if we have some good things said.\u201d\n\nMr. Clough was a City merchant, as had been his fathers before him for\nfour or five generations; he was reputed wealthy, and was a rich man,\nbut one who held his wealth as a public trust, reserving for personal\nuses only what should keep his family in refined and comfortable\nliving. Not that there was much virtue in this, for he, and others like\nhim, held in aversion luxurious living, and whatever savoured of the\n\u201cbarbarous opulence\u201d of earlier days. Dr. Oldcastle was the head-master\nof an old-established foundation school; for the remaining guests they\nhave been sufficiently introduced by Mrs. Clough.\n\nDuring the dinner there was the usual gay talk, and some light handling\nof graver subjects until the ladies retired. Then--\n\n\u201cI wonder, gentlemen, has it occurred to you why my wife and I have\nbeen so pertinacious in trying to get you here to-night?\u201d\n\nEvery one\u2019s countenance showed that he was struck by an interesting\nrecollection.\n\n\u201cA little circumstance connected with this room, and a certain date\nthat I fear I may have mentioned more than once or twice?\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, to be sure,\u201d said the Dean; \u201chaven\u2019t I said a dozen times to my\nwife, \u2018There\u2019s but one thing that Clough plumes himself on--that the\nFathers\u2019 and Mothers\u2019 Club was born in his dining-room!\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBut why to-night more than any other night?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, to-night is the hundredth anniversary of that great event!\u201d\nA good-humoured smile passed round. \u201cYes, gentlemen, I know I\u2019m\nhouse-proud, and give you leave to laugh. But would not you cherish an\nold-fashioned house in a by-street, when it\u2019s the one thing that links\nyou to history?\u201d\n\n\u201cBut, my dear fellow, why in the world should this Club with the\nstuttering initials (how I hate initials!) be glorified? It does not\nget in my way, as a head-master, it\u2019s true; but, mind you, a man\ncan\u2019t play up to his Busby in the face of it! There was a man for his\ncalling! How he\u2019d walk over your \u2018F. M. C.\u2019s.\u2019 Fumble! aye, that\u2019s the\nword. Knew \u2018F. M. C.\u2019 reminded me of something.\u201d\n\n\u201cI\u2019m slow to see how our Club links us with history, certainly,\u201d\nmurmured Dr. Brenton reflectively.\n\n\u201cWhy, in this way: if the Club did not initiate, it certainly marked\na stage in the progress of the great educational revolution in which\nwe have been moving for the last hundred years. Wait for two or three\ncenturies, and you will find this revolution of ours written down as\nthe \u2018New Education\u2019 just as some one gave the happy name of the \u2018New\nLearning\u2019 to the revival of letters in the Dark Ages.\u201d\n\n\u201cSorry to disoblige you, but I\u2019m afraid none of us sees his way to more\nthan a century of waiting, though it be to verify the statements of his\nbest friend. But go on, old fellow, I\u2019m with you! Make the \u2018revolution\u2019\nplain sailing for us.\u201d\n\n\u201cThanks, Hilyard; your sanction emboldens me. But which am I to \u2018go on\u2019\nwith, the word or the thing?\u201d\n\n\u201cA distinction _with_ a difference. If I say \u2018the thing,\u2019 off we go to\nthe Dark Ages themselves; and shall come out to find the ladies cloaked\nand hooded in the hall!\u201d\n\n\u201cA thing endurable to us elder Benedicts.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, Doctor! As if you weren\u2019t tied to Mrs. Oldcastle\u2019s apron-string\nevery minute you\u2019re not in school. Fanny and I follow you for\nencouragement when we feel our bond growing slack.\u201d\n\n\u201cTo order, gentlemen, to order! or we shall get neither word nor thing.\nWe shall all want to put in an oar anent \u2018my wife and I.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cBrenton\u2019s right. Seer, take up thy parable, and go ahead!\u201d\n\n\u201cWho would contemn a behest of the Church?\u201d (with a bow which\nthreatened a candle-shade, deftly saved by Hilyard.) \u201cI go ahead;\nI\u2019m not to talk about the thing, but the name. Why I call this,\nwhich has been working itself out in the last hundred years or more,\nan educational _revolution_. In the first place, what was called\n\u2018Education\u2019 a century since and what we call Education are essentially\ndifferent things.\u201d\n\n\u201cCome, come! Isn\u2019t that rather strong? We go in for the classics and\nmathematics; and so did the schools of a hundred, or, for the matter\nof that, five hundred years ago. \u2019Tis true we have to work much more\nwith modern languages, natural science, and other subjects of which we\ncan give but a smattering, to the confusion alike of boys and masters.\nGive me a classical education, or, in default, a mathematical; \u2019tis\ntraining! And, for my part, I vote for the pre-Revolutionists, if\nthat\u2019s what you choose to call them,\u201d--with a subdued snort, which\nepitomised much that was not civil to the reform party.\n\n\u201cHow much clearing of the decks must take place for even a friendly\ndiscussion! Tell us, gentlemen both, what you mean by education?\u201d\n\n\u201cMean by education, Doctor? I should not have thought our united\nwisdoms need be called on to answer that! A boy is educated when he\nknows what every gentleman should know, and when he is trained to take\nhis place in the world.\u201d\n\n\u201cDr. Oldcastle\u2019s definition suits me as well as another. Putting aside\nthe polite acquirements, the question turns on the training--how much\nit includes, and how it is to be given.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere you have it, Clough,\u201d put in Dr. Brenton; \u201cand my contention\nis, that you owe the incalculable advance in _character_ which has\ntaken place in the period we are considering entirely to us doctors.\nWasn\u2019t it we who found out for you that you were all blundering in\nthe dark; that you hadn\u2019t even set your feet on the scientific basis\nof education; that all your doings were tentative? About a hundred\nyears ago, men spent a third of a lifetime on mathematics. Cambridge\nmade men Senior Wranglers in those days, and perhaps the distinction\nwas worth the work. But the world said, in that weighty way in which\nthe world likes to talk: \u2018Mathematics afford a mental discipline, a\nfortifying of character, which no other study gives.\u2019 Now I\u2019m not\ndenying the worth of mathematics as a factor in education; but look\nat your mathematician; do you find him more to the fore, more his own\nmaster, than other men? Often enough he is irritable, obstinate, all\nthe more wrongheaded the more he\u2019s in the right. But now we (observe\nthe we--royalty itself couldn\u2019t make more of it) find you fumbling\nabout blindly, snatching up now this tool, now that, natural science,\nlanguages, or what not, in order to work upon material you knew nothing\nabout, was it mind, or morals, or what? To effect issues you had not\ndetermined on--intellectual power? Force of character? In the slough we\nfound you--parent, schoolmaster, parson--all whose business is, more or\nless, the bringing up of the young; and what have we done for you? Why,\nwe\u2019ve discovered to you the nature of the material you have to work\nupon, the laws according to which it must be wrought. We have even put\nit into your hands as clay in the hands of a potter, and we\u2019ve shown\nyou what is the one possible achievement before you; that is, _the\nelevation of character_. Education which fails to effect this, effects\nnothing. There, that\u2019s what _we_\u2019ve done. Every man to his trade, say\nI; and there\u2019s nothing like leather!\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, but, but,--all this is very fine talk; but what demonstration\ncan you give? And where in the world have I been while all this was\ngoing on? Pshaw! You delude yourselves, my dear friends. This airy talk\nmakes flighty brains; but do you suppose I\u2019ve been a schoolmaster\nthese forty years while all this has been going on, and yet know\nnothing of it?\u201d\n\n\u201cThat comes of fumbling over our F. M. C., instead of holding us up\nwith both hands. But, honour bright, Dr. Oldcastle, do you see in these\ndays any change in the manner of boy that comes to your hands fresh\nfrom his home?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, yes! a thousand times, yes!\u201d\n\n\u201cIf Mr. Hilyard\u2019s courtesy had permitted me to answer for myself,\nI, also, should have said \u2018yes.\u2019 I see a most remarkable change,\nupon which society is to be congratulated. But what would you have?\nCivilisation and education must of necessity produce results,\nappreciable even within a single lifetime.\u201d\n\n\u201cDon\u2019t you think, Doctor, you might have made a trilogy of it, and\npromoted Christianity?\u201d interposed the ever suave and gentle tones of\nthe Dean. \u201cI myself feel with Dr. Brenton, \u2018every man for his master,\u2019\nand would fain lay every advance at the feet of mine.\u201d\n\n\u201cI must beg the Dean to look over a little assumed pugnacity. That we\nall agree with him, he may rest assured. And for this reason. Every\nother avenue towards perfection leads you, after weeks or months or\nyears of delightful going, to a blank wall. You see nothing beyond;\nall that remains is to retrace your steps, and retrogression is always\nbitter. You try through Christ, and find yourself in the way of endless\nprogress cheered by perennial hope. But the talk is growing serious.\nWe of the \u2018New Education\u2019 party take to ourselves the credit of the\nadvances Dr. Oldcastle perceives, and as testimony from an alien is\nvery valuable, perhaps he would not mind telling us in detail what\ndifferences he perceives between the young boys of to-day and their\nkind of forty years ago?\u201d\n\n\u201cLet me consider a moment; your question is not easy to answer in a\nbreath.... Well, in the first place, they are more apt to learn: I\nconceive that there has been an extraordinary advance in intelligence\nduring the last half-century. The work we would grind over for hours in\nmy day, these youngsters have at their finger-ends in half-an-hour, and\nare on the alert for more. I do believe they have a real appetite for\nknowledge--a weakness of which not more than one or two in a hundred\nwas guilty when I was a boy.\u201d\n\n\u201cWill you let me, as a parent, give you our explanation of these facts?\nFor, with deference to Dr. Brenton, who justly claims so much for his\ncraft, I think we parents deserve a pat, too. You may bring a horse\nto the well, but you can\u2019t make him drink. The advance, I think, is\nnot in intelligence, but in power of attention. This, the Fathers\u2019 and\nMothers\u2019 Club and its agencies recognise as the practical power of man;\nthat which makes all the difference between the able and successful\nman and the poor lag-last. And yet it is not a faculty, but is the\npower and habit of concentrating every faculty on the thing in hand.\nNow this habit of attention parents, mothers especially, are taught\nto encourage and cultivate in their children from early infancy. What\nyou regard with full attention, if only for a minute, you know, and\nremember always. Think of the few scenes and conversations we all have\nso vividly fixed that we cannot possibly forget them. Why? Because\nat the moment our attention was powerfully excited. You reap some\nbenefit from this early training directly the boy goes to school. The\npsychologists--not your craft, this time, Doctor--tell us that enormous\ncuriosity, a ravenous appetite for knowledge, is as natural to\nchildren as bread-and-milk hunger. Put the two together; the boy has an\neager desire to know--has the power of fixing his whole mind on the new\nthoughts set before him, and it\u2019s as easy as A B C; of course he learns\nwith magical quickness. The field has been ploughed by the parents, and\nyou have only to sow your seed.\u201d\n\n\u201cH\u2019m! it sounds rational; I must think it over. Anyway, the results are\npleasant enough. Four hours a day instead of six or seven--and much\nmore work done, mind you--is good for both masters and boys. Then, most\nof them have resources and are on nobody\u2019s hands. You\u2019d be astonished\nto hear how much these fellows know, and each has his speciality.\nOne little chap has butterflies, for instance. Ah, that reminds me!\nDon\u2019t tell, or I might be invited to resign; but I don\u2019t to this day\nknow the difference between a moth and a butterfly. It\u2019s the sort of\nthing one ought to know, so I set up a classification of my own, no\ndoubt correct, because it was mine! Well, this befell me. \u2018What have\nyou there?\u2019 I asked a little chap, who had evidently netted a prize.\n\u2018A moth, sir, the ----,\u2019 scientific name, pat. \u2018A moth, boy! That\nbeautiful creature is no moth. Moths live in houses.\u2019 You should have\nseen the fellow suppress his grin! I couldn\u2019t ask, so don\u2019t know now;\nbut make a point of not meeting that little chap\u2019s eye. A friend of\nmine, a Fellow of his College, was worse. \u2018I say, Oldcastle, the poets\nmake a mighty pother about the song of the lark. Now, do tell me--do\nyou know it when you hear it?\u2019 But as for the boys that enter now,\nthere\u2019s not the natural object that they don\u2019t both recognise and know\nall about. Their collections are of scientific worth--at least, so that\nfellow Hilyard thinks, so we are going in for a museum of local natural\nhistory!\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy, Dr. Oldcastle, you\u2019re like the man in the play, who talked prose\nall his life, and at last found it out! You\u2019re our warmest friend,\nthough you decline the connection. This, again, is the work of mothers\nfollowing the lines of the \u2018New Education.\u2019 We make a great point of\ndeveloping intelligent curiosity in the children about all that lives\nand grows within their ken. For instance, I should think most of\n\u2018our\u2019 mothers would feel disgraced if her child of six were not able\nto recognise any ordinary British tree from a twig with _leaf-buds_\nonly. It\u2019s Nature\u2019s lore, and the children take to it like ducks to\nthe water. The first seven or eight years of their lives are spent out\nof doors--in possible weather--learning this sort of thing, instead of\npottering over picture-books and A B C. But do fill the witness-box\na minute longer. All this is delicious. An outsider who speaks with\nauthority is worth a score of partisans.\u201d\n\n\u201cI bow my thanks, Clough, for the handsome things you are good enough\nto say. Of course my impartial witness would be quite as valuable if it\ntold on the other side. Why, Hilyard, you\u2019re nowhere! \u2019Tis I am the man\nof the day. But no; he\u2019s the go-ahead fellow, and I\u2019m the drag; yet a\ndrag has its uses.\u201d\n\n\u201cGranted, if you go down hill. But out of thine own mouth art thou\nconvicted, most learned Master! What hast thou talked all this night\nbut progress? But one thing more: tell us, do you find these Admirable\nCrichtons of yours the least in the world priggish? Or are they\nnamby-pamby youths, who do as they\u2019re bid, and haven\u2019t much taste for\nunlawful adventure?\u201d\n\n\u201cTaste for adventure! Why, little fellows of nine come, able to swim,\nrow, ride, do everything man or boy needs do, and how are fellows of\nthat sort to be kept out of adventures? But they do as they\u2019re bid,\nI grant you, and the way they do it shows fifty times the spirit of\nthe fellows who shirked. Mind, I\u2019m speaking of the boys who have been\nbrought up at home, not of those who have \u2018growed.\u2019 But don\u2019t run away\nwith the notion that the best of them are perfect. We must be _at it_\nall the time, or the ground gained is gone from under our feet.\u201d\n\n\u201cLook, look! do look at Brenton: something will happen if he doesn\u2019t\nget an innings.\u201d\n\n\u201cGentlemen, you must, you really must, hear me on this matter! You must\nlet me show Dr. Oldcastle the \u2018reason why\u2019 of what he observes.\u201d\n\n\u201cHear, hear! Let\u2019s have it, Doctor. Don\u2019t spare a word.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, to begin at the beginning (no! not with Adam, nor even with the\nDark Ages); some five-and-twenty or so, years before Clough\u2019s EVENT,\nmen of science began to grope for a clue to the understanding of this\nqueer riddle of human nature. That action (including speech) depends on\nthought, and that action--repeated action--forms character, had long\nago been got at by inductive processes. Now, these meddling scientific\nfellows were not content with, It is, because it is! they must needs\ncome poking round with their everlasting--\u2018Why?\u2019 This particular \u2018Why\u2019\nproved a most hard nut to crack; indeed, it is only within living\nmemory that their guesses at truth have become entirely demonstrable;\nbut, as early as I said, they had thus much ground under their\nfeet--analogy and probability were altogether on their side, and it\nwas impossible to prove, or even to show a fair case for, the contrary\nview. These scientists perceived that they were undermining the\nmethods, the aims, the very idea of education as popularly held. They\nindicated new lines, suggested new principles. But their discoveries\nwere to be like that corn of wheat--first they must fall into the\nground and die. Years passed before educationalists woke up to what\nhad been done. At last it dawned upon them that it was now possible\nto formulate a _science of education_; to propose laws which should\nwork out definite ends with mathematical certainty. The days of casual\nbringing-up were numbered. A basis, and that a physical basis, was\nfound. The principle which underlies the possibility of all education\nwas discovered to them as it is to us to-day. They were taught that the\nhuman frame, brain as well as muscle, _grows to the uses it is earliest\nput to_. In a hundred years, we have advanced no further in principle,\nbut we have applied the principle in many directions. It is, indeed,\nhardly possible to get beyond the ground covered by this so simple\nsounding axiom: that is, it is hardly within our power to overstate the\npossibilities of education. _Anything_ may be made of a child by those\nwho first get him into their hands. No doubt, propagandism becomes the\nimmediate duty of any who have perceived a saving principle for the\nrace. And efforts were made in many directions to bring before parents\nof all classes the notion that the formation of habits is among the\nchief aims of education. Our host\u2019s EVENT is one of these efforts,\nand the Parents\u2019 Club spread like wildfire; every one was ready for\nit, because people were beginning to feel the wretched uncertainty of\nthe casual method. How is it, they asked, that, bring up two boys in\nthe same way, and one turns out a villain, the other, a credit to his\nfamily? Now, the \u2018New Education\u2019 deals entirely with individuals; not\nwith children, but with the child; the faulty habit is supplanted,\nobserve the word, the desirable habit produced, within a definite\nperiod, say a month or so, and then the parents\u2019 easy work is to keep\nthe child upon the lines of habit thus produced.\u201d\n\n\u201cNow, stop a minute, Doctor, stop a minute! I\u2019m afraid I\u2019m about to\nlose my easily won laurels. You, who are a classical scholar, must know\nhow familiar to the mind both of Roman and Greek was this doctrine of\nhabit. Again, a poet of our own, an eighteenth-century man--wasn\u2019t he\nDryden?--expresses capitally the time-out-of-mind English feeling on\nthis subject--\n\n \u201c\u2018Children, like tender osiers, take the bow,\n And, as they first are fashion\u2019d, always grow;\n For what we learn in youth, to that alone\n In age we are by second nature prone.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cMost happy; but don\u2019t you see, Dr. Oldcastle, I began by admitting\nthat people have always had a notion that they must bring up their\nchildren in good habits, and suppress faulty ones. But now, they\nhave something more than a notion; they have scientific certainty.\nAnd, instead of dawdling through the whole period of childhood with\nspasmodic efforts to get a boy to tie his shoe-strings fast, they take\nit in hand once and for all, keep incessant watch for the week or two\nit will take to form the habit, and then the thing is done with for\na lifetime. The new habit once formed, the parent\u2019s part is no more\nthan to watch against chance returns to the old ways until the habit\nis ingrained in the stuff of the child\u2019s character. Now, don\u2019t you see\nthat this is a very different thing from the desultory way in which a\nchild was allowed to try off and on for a habit all his days, and never\ngot it?\u201d\n\n\u201cI admit there\u2019s a difference; it tallies, too, with what I notice in\nthe young boys who enter with us. You mean that their mothers have\ndefinitely set themselves for a month or two, say, to form a habit--now\nobedience, now truthfulness, now attention, and so on--and that is why\nthe boys come to me with _character_, not mere disposition?\u201d\n\n\u201cYes, that\u2019s what I mean; and it\u2019s on these lines we have been\nadvancing for a whole century. In another direction, too, education has\nbeen going forward; but, here, we have only analogy to guide us, not\nyet certainty. It cannot be predicated as yet, whether we are simple or\ncomplex beings, whether in each of us is bound up one life or several.\nIt is not impossible, for instance, that, just as our physical life is\nsustained because multitudinous organisms come to life, feed, grow,\nmultiply, and die, perpetually in our substance, so, perhaps what we\nmay call our immaterial life is sustained by multitudinous lives such\nas our philosophy has never dreamed of. An idea, for instance, what\nis it? We don\u2019t know yet; but this we know, that every idea we get is\nquick within us as a living being, that it feeds, grows, multiplies,\nand then, behold it is no more! There are bodies natural and there\nare bodies spiritual. Perhaps this sort of thing is too immature to\nbe pressed into service. But of other parts of us, to which names and\nideas of something like personality are attached--conscience, will,\nour spiritual being--this it is quite safe to assert: they thrive upon\ntheir appropriate meat and work, they perish of inanition and idleness.\nThis, too, we take into our scheme of education, and with great\nresults.\u201d\n\nThe Dean got up:--\n\n\u201cI, for one, must heartily thank Dr. Brenton for his most suggestive\nlecture. No, don\u2019t look \u2018castigated\u2019 Doctor; \u2019tis a lecture for weight\nand worth, but of commendable brevity. Speaking for the \u2018cloth\u2019 I\nshould like to say how much we owe to this educational revolution. A\ncentury ago, our Church was supposed to show some signs of decadence;\nto-day she is _quick_ to her remotest extremities. And why? simply\nbecause she has gone with the times in following up the advances of\nthe \u2018New Education.\u2019 She, with the rest of you, perceives that the\nworld has ever one great thing to do--to bring up the young in advance\nof the generation before them; that the sole valuable inheritance the\npresent has to leave behind is--exalted national character. Wherefore,\nshe has laboured assiduously on the two lines Dr. Brenton emphasises\nto-night--\u2018that Habit is _ten_ natures\u2019; and, that the spiritual life\nmust flourish or decay as it is duly fed and exercised, or allowed to\nlie idle and unfed. Therefore, is every clergyman instructed, above\nall, to minister to the young of his parish--of all classes. The\ngrowing soul cannot thrive upon husks--therefore must the truth be\ndivested of the husks of the past, and clothed upon with the living\nthought of the present. The young soul must be taught its work, the\nspiritual exercises of prayer and praise, the bodily exercise of\nservice; and as no man can teach what he does not know, the minister to\nthe young must be qualified and ever active in these. Seeing these and\nkindred truths, our clergy are raising up about them a body of ardent\nyoung spirits to whom self-sacrifice is a law; labour in spiritual\nuplands a necessity. And for much of this progress, I say, we are\nindebted to the labours of the \u2018New Educationists,\u2019 whom we therefore\ngladly hold up with both hands.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis is very gratifying hearing; we have all along been very sensible\nof the cordiality and helpfulness of the clergy, who so commonly throw\nin their lot with us. But that we should be doing them some service all\nthe time--this is news indeed. May I imitate the Dean, and say a word\nprofessionally. We doctors have reaped where we sowed--and abundantly.\nIn the old days, families had each \u2018their doctor,\u2019 who was called in\nnow and then to do battle with disease which had already made headway.\nBut now, people are beginning to see that low vitality, poor physique,\nand even organic disease--hereditary or other--are very commonly the\nresults of faulty education, or bringing up, if that is the better way\nof putting it. What is the consequence? Why, the doctor is retained,\nlike husband or wife, for sickness and health; he is the medical\nadviser by the year, or usually by the lifetime. He thrives not on\nsickness, but upon health. Drops in on his clients unawares, finds one\ngirl doubled up over a book, another standing on one foot, notes the\nhectic flush and bright eye of this child, the tendency to drowsiness\nin that--the flabby arms and quick intelligence of the little town-bred\nfamily, the stolid dulness of the farmer\u2019s boy--for rich and poor come\nin course to him. He does not wait for disease to be set up, but averts\nthe _tendency_; and though he has found no elixir of life, nor means\nof averting death--this, he may almost venture to promise his clients,\nthat so long as they live, they shall live with eye not waxed dim, nor\nnatural force abated. And all this because he knows that the body, too,\nmust have its education, its careful regulation, and that bone and\nmuscle and vital organs alike grow to the _habits_ you set up in them.\u201d\n\nMr. Hilyard had been using his pencil for the last few minutes, and\nwas evidently preparing to show on what lines the schools, too, had\nbeen advancing during this age of many revolutions, when--\u201c\u2019Tis eleven\no\u2019clock, and the ladies!\u201d brought the discussion to an end.\n\n\n\n\n NOTE\n\n (_To Page 111, Translation._)\n\n\nHobbes followed, to the letter, the philosophy which derives ideas\nfrom sense impressions; he did not fear the consequences, and said\nboldly that the soul was as subservient to necessity as is society to\ndespotism. The cultivation of noble and pure aspirations is so firmly\nestablished in England, by political and religious institutions, that\nspeculation moves round these mighty pillars without ever shaking\nthem. Hobbes had few supporters in his country, but Locke\u2019s influence\nwas everywhere felt. He was moral and religious in character, and he\nnever admitted any of the dangerous arguments which naturally follow in\nthe train of his theories; the majority of his fellow-countrymen, in\naccepting his theories, were inconsistent enough to separate cause from\neffect, whilst Hume and the French philosophers, admiring his system,\nhave applied it in a much more logical way.\n\nLocke\u2019s system of metaphysics had but one effect on the minds of\nEnglishmen; it dulled their intuitive originality. Even when it\nparched the sources of philosophical thought, it could not destroy\nthe deeply rooted religious sentiment of the nation. But this system\nof metaphysics, which was received by all Europe, Germany excepted,\nhas been one of the chief causes of the spread of immorality; in\nthe philosophy of the materialist men found the precepts which give\nsanction to every immoral practice.\n\n\n\n\n _Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.\n _Edinburgh and London_\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis book was written in a period when many words had not become\nstandardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling\nvariations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have\nbeen left unchanged unless indicated below. Dialect, obsolete and\nalternative spellings were left unchanged.\n\nWords and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like\nthis_. Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the\nend of the chapter. Obvious printing errors, such as backwards, upside\ndown, or partially printed letters and punctuation, were corrected.\nFinal stops missing at the end of sentences and abbreviations were\nadded. Spaces were added between run together words. Accents were\nadjusted where needed.\n\nThe following were changed:\n\n delighful to delightful, line 2754\n benefical to beneficial, line 3582\n Thackery to Thackeray, Footnote [12]\n carollary to corollary, line 4531\n precedure to procedure, line 6267\n titilated to titillated, line 7550\n De Foe to Defoe, line 7565\n hypocondriac to hypochondriac, line 8140\n incalulable to incalculable, line 12262","title":"Parents and children","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":122841}