"You are a sawcy audacious Rascal, and both Fool and Mad, and I care
not a Farthing whether you comply or no; that does not raze out my
Impressions of your Insolence, going about Railing at me, and the next
Day to sollicit my Favour: These are Inconsistencies, such as discover
thy Reason depraved. To be brief, I never desire to see your Face;
and, Sirrah, if you go to the Work-house, it is no Disgrace to me for
you to be supported there; and if you Starve in the Streets, I'll
never give any thing underhand in your Behalf. If I have any more of
your scribling Nonsense I'll break your Head the first Time I set
Sight on you. You are a stubborn Beast; is this your Gratitude for my
giving you Mony? You Rogue, I'll better your Judgment, and give you a
greater Sense of your Duty to (I regret to say)
your Father, &c."
"P.S. It's Prudence for you to keep out of my Sight; for to reproach
me, that Might overcomes Right, on the Outside of your Letter, I shall
give you a great Knock on the Skull for it."
Was there ever such an Image of Paternal Tenderness! It was usual among
some of the Greeks to make their Slaves drink to Excess, and then expose
them to their Children, who by that means conceived an early Aversion to
a Vice which makes Men appear so monstrous and irrational. I have
exposed this Picture of an unnatural Father with the same Intention,
that its Deformity may deter others from its Resemblance. If the Reader
has a mind to see a Father of the same Stamp represented in the most
exquisite Stroaks of Humour, he may meet with it in one of the finest
Comedies that ever appeared upon the _English_ Stage: I mean the Part of
Sir _Sampson_ [1] in 'Love for Love'.
I must not however engage my self blindly on the Side of the Son, to
whom the fond Letter above-written was directed. His Father calls him a
_sawcy and audacious Rascal_ in the first Line, and I am afraid upon
Examination he will prove but an ungracious Youth. _To go about railing_
at his Father, and to find no other Place but _the Outside of his
Letter_ to tell him _that Might overcomes Right_, if it does not
discover _his Reason to be depraved_, and _that he is either Fool or
Mad_, as the cholerick old Gentleman tells him, we may at least allow
that the Father will do very well in endeavouring to _better his
Judgment, and give him a greater Sense of his Duty_. But whether this
may be brought about by _breaking his Head_, or _giving him a great
Knock on the Skull_, ought, I think, to be well considered. Upon the
whole, I wish the Father has not met with his Match, and that he may not
be as equally paired with a Son, as the Mother in _Virgil_.
... Crudelis tu quoque mater:
Crudelis mater magis an puer Improbus ille?
Improbus ille puer, crudelis tu quoque mater. [2]
Or like the Crow and her Egg, in the _Greek_ Proverb,
[Greek (transliterated): Kakou korakos kakhon oon. [3]]
I must here take Notice of a Letter which I have received from an
unknown Correspondent, upon the Subject of my Paper, upon which the
foregoing Letter is likewise founded. The Writer of it seems very much
concerned lest that Paper should seem to give Encouragement to the
Disobedience of Children towards their Parents; but if the Writer of it
will take the Pains to read it over again attentively, I dare say his
Apprehensions will vanish. Pardon and Reconciliation are all the
Penitent Daughter requests, and all that I contend for in her Behalf;
and in this Case I may use the Saying of an eminent Wit, who, upon some
great Men pressing him to forgive his Daughter who had married against
his Consent, told them he could refuse nothing to their Instances, but
that he would have them remember there was Difference between Giving and
Forgiving.
I must confess, in all Controversies between Parents and their Children,
I am naturally prejudiced in favour of the former. The Obligations on
that Side can never be acquitted, and I think it is one of the greatest
Reflections upon Human Nature that Parental Instinct should be a
stronger Motive to Love than Filial Gratitude; that the receiving of
Favours should be a less Inducement to Good-will, Tenderness and
Commiseration, than the conferring of them; and that the taking care of
any Person should endear the Child or Dependant more to the Parent or
Benefactor, than the Parent or Benefactor to the Child or Dependant; yet
so it happens, that for one cruel Parent we meet with a thousand
undutiful Children. This is indeed wonderfully contrived (as I have
formerly observed) for the Support of every living Species; but at the
same time that it shews the Wisdom of the Creator, it discovers the
Imperfection and Degeneracy of the Creature.
The Obedience of Children to their Parents is the Basis of all
Government, and set forth as the Measure of that Obedience which we owe
to those whom Providence hath placed over us.
It is Father Le Conte, [4] if I am not mistaken, who tells us how Want
of Duty in this Particular is punished among the Chinese, insomuch that
if a Son should be known to kill, or so much as to strike his Father,
not only the Criminal but his whole Family would be rooted out, nay the
Inhabitants of the Place where he lived would be put to the Sword, nay
the Place itself would be razed to the Ground, and its Foundations sown
with Salt; For, say they, there must have been an utter Depravation of
Manners in that Clan or Society of People who could have bred up among
them so horrible an Offender. To this I shall add a Passage out of the
first Book of Herodotus. That Historian in his Account of the Persian
Customs and Religion tells us, It is their Opinion that no Man ever
killed his Father, or that it is possible such a Crime should be in
Nature; but that if any thing like it should ever happen, they conclude
that the reputed Son must have been Illegitimate, Supposititious, or
begotten in Adultery. Their Opinion in this Particular shews
sufficiently what a Notion they must have had of Undutifulness in
general.