SOCIETY.
Duty of mothers in this matter. Children prefer the society of parents.
Importance of other society. Necessity of society illustrated. Early
diffidence. Selecting companions for children. Moral effects of society
on the young. Parents should play with their children.
Every mother is unquestionably as much bound to have an eye to the
society of her child, as to his food, drink or clothing. And if the
quality, amount and general character of the latter are important, those
of the former are by no means less so.
It is indeed true that many a child has been happy, in a degree, in the
society of its mother alone, where the father was seldom seen, and the
brothers and sisters never. And it is equally true; that a few children
have so far preferred the society of their parents alone, as to become
disinclined to other society. But cases of this kind are only as
exceptions to the general rule; and are probably monstrous formations
of character. I cannot believe that any child, rightly educated, would
prefer the society of none but its parents, or even its parents and
brothers and sisters.
A French author has written a considerable volume on the importance of
what he calls _gaiety_, but which he should prefer to call cheerfulness.
Among the rest, he maintains that it is indispensable to the best
health. But if so--and I do not doubt it--then it ought to be encouraged
in children, and the earlier the better. Now there is no way to
encourage cheerfulness in the young so effectually as by indulging them
with considerable society.
That the thing may be carried to excess, I have no doubt. I have seen
mothers who permitted their children to play with their mates till they
became excited, and were thus led to continue their sports, not only
farther than cheerfulness and health demanded, but until they were
excessively fatigued, and almost made sick. And I believe that the
excitement of numbers, in infant and other schools, may be so great as
to be injurious, rather than salutary. Still I think these are rare
cases.
Truth usually lies somewhere between extremes. To keep a child,
especially a boy, always in the nursery, or even in the parlor with his
mother, is one extreme; and to let him go abroad continually, till his
home and its smaller circle become insipid, is the other. A child
properly trained will _usually_ prefer home, and only desire to go
abroad occasionally. He will rather need urging in the matter than
require restraint.
But he must, at any rate, be taught to be sociable, not only for the
salve of cheerfulness and the consequent health, but for the sake of his
manners, his mind, and his morals.
If it is a matter of indifference, in the formation of human character,
whether we mix in society or not, then, for anything I can see, an
improvement might be proposed in the construction of the material
universe. Instead of forming the planets so large--and this earth among
the rest--each might have been divided into hundreds of millions; and
every human being might have had a little planet, and an immortality,
exclusively his own. Such an arrangement would certainly prevent a great
many evils; and, among the rest, a great deal of quarrelling and
bloodshed.
But divine wisdom is higher than human wisdom, and one world to hundreds
of millions of human beings has been made, instead of giving to each
individual of the universe a little world of his own, in which he might
have reigned sole monarch, and only wept, with Alexander, because none
of the other worlds were within his grasp. Where a family is already
large, other society will be unnecessary for some time; but where it
consists of a mother only, although her society is always to be
considered of the _first_ importance, I cannot but think she ought to
take great pains to introduce her child occasionally to the company of
other children.
That diffidence, which almost destroys the influence and the happiness
of many individuals, is often cherished, if not created, by too much
seclusion. Where there is a natural constitution which predisposes the
child to timidity and diffidence, the danger is greatly increased; and
parents should take unwearied pains to guard against it.
It is hardly necessary for me to say, that great care should also be
used in selecting the companions of children. Their character will be
greatly influenced for life by their earlier associates. Friendships
between children are sometimes formed, while playing together, which are
interrupted only by death. Those parents who are so fond of controlling
the choice of their sons and daughters in regard to a companion for
life, at a period when control is generally resisted, would do well to
take a hint from what has here been suggested. There is no doubt but
they might often--very often--give such a direction to the embryo
affections of their infants and children, as would terminate only with
their existence.
It is still less necessary to advert, in a work like this, to the effect
which much observation and experience shows good society to have on
purity, both physical and moral. Every one must have observed its
tendency to form habits of cleanliness, not to say neatness. There may
be excess, even in this. Young persons, of both sexes, often spend too
much time in preparing their dress for the reception or the visiting of
their friends. Still this is only the abuse of a good thing. Nor is it
less true, though it may be less obvious, that moral purity is more
likely to be secured where children and youth of both sexes associate a
great deal, from the earliest infancy. [Footnote: If this principle be
correct, what is the tendency of our numerous schools, which are
exclusively for one sex? Must there not be latent evil to counterbalance
some of the seeming good? For myself, I doubt whether moral character
can ever be formed in due proportion and harmony, where this separation
long exists.] There are tremendous cases of declension on record, which
establish this point beyond the possibility of debate.
To say that the mother--and indeed both parents--ought to form a part of
the playing circle of the youngest children, in order to watch their
opening dispositions, to check what may be improper, and encourage what
ought to be encouraged, would be only to repeat what has often been
recommended by the best writers on education--but which must be
repeated, again and again, till it leaves an impression, especially on
CHRISTIAN parents. It is strange that many regard this matter as they
do, and appear not only ashamed to be seen sporting with their children,
but almost ashamed to have their children thus occupied. They might as
well be ashamed of the gambols of the kitten or the lamb; or of the
grave mother, as she turns aside occasionally to join in its frolics.
When will parents be willing to take lessons in education from that
brute world which they have been so long accustomed to overlook or
despise?