FAMILY DUTIES.
SUMMARY.
=The family.=--Origin and history of the family.--The family
originating in the necessity of the perpetuation of the species, has
gradually gained in morality until it has reached the present state,
namely, _monogamy_, or marriage between one man and one woman: a
progress so far as the dignity of woman and the equality of the sexes
are concerned.
=Duties of marriage.=--The duties of marriage begin before marriage: to
be prudent in the choice of a partner; to prefer the moral interests
to the material interests.
Mutual duties of the married couple: fidelity founded: 1, on a free
promise; 2, on the very idea of marriage.
Duties peculiar to the husband: protection of the family, work, etc.
Celibacy and its duties.
=Duties of parents toward children.=--Of the rights of parents.--Basis
and limits of the paternal authority.--Instituted in the interest of
the children, it is limited by that very interest.
Parents have not, therefore, 1, the right of life and death; 2, the
right to strike and maltreat; 3, the right to sell; 4, the right to
corrupt.
Duties of parents.--General duty of affection without privileges or
preferences.--Duty of maintenance and education.--Decrease of parental
responsibility in proportion to the age of the children.--Three
periods in paternal authority.
=Duties of children respecting their parents and respecting each
other.=--Filial duty.--Fraternal duty.
=Duties of masters towards their servants.=
=123. The family.=--It is a law among all living beings to perpetuate their
species. This law is among animals subject to no moral law. Yet are there
certain species where between the male and female a kind of society is
established; and with nearly all animals the attachment of the mother to
her young, shows itself by most striking and touching proofs. But this
maternal interest does not usually last beyond the time necessary to bring
up the little ones and enable them to provide for themselves. Beyond this
time, the offspring separate and disperse. They live their own life; the
mother knows them no longer. As to the father, he has scarcely ever known
them. Such are the domestic ties among animals: and, rude as they may be,
one cannot help already recognizing and admiring in them the anticipated
image of the family.
The family in the human species has the same origin and the same end as in
the animal species, namely, the perpetuation of the species; but in the
former it is exalted and ennobled by additional sentiments: it is
consecrated and sanctioned by laws of duty and right to which animals are
absolutely incapable of rising.
If we consider the history of the human race, we see the family rise
progressively from a certain primitive state, which is not very far from
the animal promiscuity, to the condition in which we see it to-day in most
civilized countries. Among savage nations, marriages have little stability
and duration: they are as easily broken as formed. Female dignity and
modesty are scarcely known among them: woman is more a slave than a
companion, and the freedom of morals has scarcely any limits. Yet is there
no society where marriages are not subject to some sacred or civil
formalities, which shows that savages, ignorant as we may suppose them to
be, have a presentiment of duties which, under favorable circumstances,
tend to purify and elevate the relations of the sexes. Later, in other
societies, marriages take a more regular form and a more fixed character;
yet, admitting polygamy, more or less, as among the ancients. In short,
many circumstances have presided over the legal relations of the two
sexes, before, through the natural progress of morals and Christian
influence, monogamy became the almost universal law of the family in
civilized countries.
It has been seen, then, that as the moral sentiment became more refined,
the family, as it exists to-day, became more closely related to the State;
and it will always be safer, in order to establish the legitimacy of such
an institution and secure for it due respect, to depend more on sentiment
than on reasoning.
Besides, the family is a natural result of the necessary relations which
exist between mother, father, and child.
It is the birth of the children which is the end and _raison d'etre_ of
the family.
This fact, let it be well noted, already determines between mother and
child a relation of some duration. The child is altogether unable to live
and develop alone. The mother owes it its nourishment; and nature, having
herself prepared for the child in the breast of the mother the sources of
its subsistence truly indicated thereby that they should be bound to each
other by a positive and inevitable tie. It is true the same tie exists
also among the families of the animals and their young (at least with
mammalia); and we have seen that there exist among them some germs of
family. But let us not forget that it takes only a little time for the
young of the animal species to reach that degree of strength which enables
it to leave its mother without danger. With the human species, on the
contrary, it takes a considerable time. Before the first or second year
the child is unable to walk; when it walks, it is still unable to walk
alone, to find its food, to develop in any way. Imagine a child two,
three, five years old, abandoned to himself in a desert island: he would
die of hunger. Besides, instinct is much less strong in man than in
animals, and much less certain; when an adult, man follows his own reason;
in childhood he needs the reason of others. What shall I say of his moral
education and intellectual development? The child needs a teacher as well
as a nurse. We see that the relations between mother and child must
naturally be prolonged far beyond those between animals. The first natural
and necessary relations will finally create between these two beings
habits of such a character that they will never more separate, even when
they can do without each other. At least, this separation will not take
place before man is completely man; and although son and daughter may
separate from the family to become in their turn heads of families, there
will always exist between parents and children certain ties, certain
relations, all the closer, as they each follow the laws of nature. In
short, children can never be seen, as is the case in the animal species,
becoming complete strangers to their father and mother.
I have first considered the tie between the mother and the child, because
it is the most evident and the most necessary. But this relation is not
the only one. The child, we have said, needs protection for a long time:
does the mother's protection suffice? To judge from the way woman is
constituted, one can see that she needs protection herself. Her weakness
and her sex expose her to attacks; she is then but an insufficient
protection to the feeble creature she is united to by so many ties.
Therefore must the family have a protector; and who should be the natural
protector of the child, if not the father? of the wife, if not the
husband? The necessity of protection renders, then, man indispensable to
the family. We may add to this, the necessity of subsistence. Undoubtedly
the mother gives the child its first nourishment; but later on, the common
means of subsistence must come from work. Now, without denying that woman
is called to work the same as man, and whilst admitting that in the simple
and natural state she is very much stronger than in the civilized state,
it must, nevertheless, be admitted that woman, in general, is less fitted
for work than man; that with more trouble, she produces less, and that a
large portion of her life is necessarily taken up with her peculiar cares.
Without the work of the head of the family, the common subsistence would,
therefore, be imperiled.
If we now consider the education of the children, it is beyond doubt that
the maternal education is insufficient. The mother represents in the
family, love, solicitude, serviceableness. In a solid education,
authority should be added to these. It may be noticed that in children
brought up by one of the parents only, there is in general something
incomplete. Those who have had the father only, lack something in
tenderness and delicacy of feeling which the graces of maternity
insensibly communicate to the child; those who have had the mother only,
are lacking in discipline and solidity of character: they are capricious
and of a more passionate willfulness. Nature, then, appeals to the joint
efforts of both father and mother in the education of the child. Let us
add now that this close tie, which on one side attaches the child to the
mother and on the other to the father, should also attach parents to each
other, far beyond the first and transitory tie which first joined them.
United in a common undertaking, namely, to support and educate the being
they have brought into the world--it is impossible that they should not
continue to be more and more closely united.
=124. Family duties.=--This is the natural history of the family. It was
probably in a similar manner, with many vicissitudes, that it gradually
formed and then became transformed. Let us now see how out of this
association, founded by instincts, interests, and circumstances, the
principle of duty makes a sacred and indissoluble institution.
There can be distinguished in the family four kinds of relations, whence
spring four classes of duties:
1. The relations between the husband and wife.
2. The relations of parents to children.
3. The relations of children to parents.
4. The relations of children to each other.
Whence conjugal duty, paternal or maternal duty, filial duty, and
fraternal duty.
To these four relations, there may be added a fifth: that of the head of a
family to his servants.
=125. Duties of marriage.=--The duties of marriage begin before marriage:
they begin with the mutual choice of the man and the woman. For the woman,
it usually happens, at least in our society [in France], that the choice
is determined by the parents. The responsibility, then, falls upon them.
Now, this choice should not be made lightly and foolishly. It should be
determined by a serious and noble conception of the duties and end of
marriage.
"Marriage," our Code admirably says, "is an association between man and
woman, to share the pleasures and bear in common the trials of life."[68]
Marriage is, therefore, a compact entirely moral: it is not only a union
of bodies or fortunes, it is a union of souls. Life in common and
indissoluble, with all its possible accidents, is too heavy a burden to be
left to chance. A man should think not only of his own happiness, but also
of that of the woman whom he associates with his destiny; if he does not
consider himself strong enough to fulfill toward her all the duties which
such a connection imposes on him, he should not unite her to himself by
indissoluble vows; if he does not think that he can love and respect her
all through life, let him spare himself and her a life-long misery. We may
see by this how important in conjugal union are a harmony of character, a
just and mutual esteem, and an enlightened affection. To marry rashly and
too hastily, and thus to risk future happiness, is already failing in a
first duty. One should, therefore, not rely too implicitly upon
indifferent or interested go-betweens.
It is said, indeed, that there is no way of knowing with certainty the
character and sincerity of men. Many a one who in society appears amiable
and estimable, is perhaps, in private life, selfish and tyrannical; women,
it is said, moreover, are particularly skilled, even when young, in
assuming qualities which they do not possess, and in disguising their
faults; that if one were constantly scrutinizing and distrusting, marriage
would be impossible; for the most sagacious are deceived in them, etc.,
etc. All this, to a certain extent, is true; and there could be nothing
done without some sort of confidence; but this confidence, when it is the
result of precaution and prudence, is much less often deceived than
satirists would have it. Besides, if there be room for deception, even
after a reasonably long intimacy, the chances are at least better than
they would be if the parties were to rush headlong into a future
absolutely unknown to them.
Another grave error is that of seeing in marriage nothing but a union of
fortunes and names.
It is bringing what in reality is the noblest and most delicate of
contracts, down to a simple commercial act. Certainly one should not
propose to the inexperience of young people the union of two poverties, as
an ideal: it is well known that poverty is much harder to bear when one
has to share it with a wife and children, than alone. But whilst in
certain classes of society marriage could scarcely be possible otherwise
(workingmen having no capital to back their marriage contracts), the
classes that have some competency should not make property the first
consideration; character, mind, and merit should by far outweigh it.
We distinguish generally two kinds of marriages: the reason-marriages
(_mariages de raison_) and the inclination marriages; and much has been
said for and against both. These are questions which will never be solved,
because experience shows that they are mostly dependent on circumstances.
It may be said that, as a principle, the true marriage is the marriage
based on inclination enlightened by reason. What experience and wisdom
condemn, are the foolish inclinations--those, for example, that take no
account of age, education, social surroundings, necessities of life. These
sorts of passion scarcely ever stand the test of time and circumstances,
and are generally followed by a painful reaction. "There is," says La
Bruyere, "hardly any other reason for loving no longer, than to have loved
too much." But inclination is not always unreasonable; and when it can be
reconciled with the counsels of wisdom, which is no rare thing, it is
better than cold reason, and answers better to the purpose of marriage: it
is a surer guaranty of its dignity and happiness.
A wise moralist, Mr. Adolphe Garnier, makes a very reasonable reply to
those who pretend that inclination disappears very fast in marriage: "We
reply," he says, "that inclination will at least have formed a true
marriage whilst it lasted. It will leave for all the rest of life a
remembrance of the first years, which shall have been purified, ennobled,
sanctified by this heart-affection. This remembrance will sweeten more
than one bitter moment, will prevent more than one anguish. Duty will be
sustained by a remembrance of past happiness."[69]
The marriage once made, we have to consider, one after the other, the
duties of the husband and those of the wife. There are some they have in
common, and others which belong to the particular part each plays in the
household.
The duty which the husband and wife have in common, is fidelity. This duty
is based on the very nature of marriage, as also upon a mutual promise.
Let us begin by this latter consideration. Marriage, such as it is
instituted in civilized or Christian countries, is monogamy, or marriage
of one man with one woman (except in cases of decease). Such is the state
one binds one's self to in entering the marriage relation: one accepts
thereby the obligation of an inviolable fidelity. If then a promise is
sacred in respect to material goods, how much more sacred is the promise
between hearts, and this mutual gift of soul to soul, which constitutes
the dignity of marriage! Conjugal fidelity is, then, a duty of honor, a
veritable debt.
But fidelity is not only the obligatory result of a promise, of a given
word; it is also the result of the very idea of marriage, and marriage in
its turn results from the nature of things.
Marriage was instituted to save the dignity of woman. Experience, in fact,
teaches us that wherever polygamy exists, woman is not far from being
man's slave. Man, dividing his affections between several women, cannot
love each one with that refinement and constancy which render her his
equal. How could there exist between a master and several slaves vying for
his looks and caprices, that intimacy, that mutual sharing of good and
evil wherein the moral beauty of marriage consists? It is quite evident
that equality between man and woman cannot exist where the latter is
obliged to share with others the common good of conjugal affection.
Hence the institution of marriage which was established in the interest of
the woman, and which is the protection of the weaker party. It evidently
follows that, on her side, she is held to the same fidelity which she has
a right to demand. Conjugal infidelity, on whichever side it occurs, is
then a disguised polygamy, and, moreover, an irregular and capricious
polygamy, very inferior to the legal; for this recognizes at least certain
rules, and establishes with precision the condition of the several wives.
But adultery destroys all regular and fixed relations between the married
couple; it introduces into marriage the open or clandestine usurpation of
sworn rights; it tends to re-establish the primitive and savage state,
where the coming together of the sexes depended on chance and caprice.
Fidelity is for the married couple a common and reciprocal duty. Each,
besides, has peculiar duties. We shall lay particular stress on those of
the husband. The first of all, which carries with it all others, is
_protection_.
"Man, being the head of the family, is its natural protector. He holds his
authority from the laws and from usage. Moreover, it results from the very
nature of things: for between two persons, even perfectly united, it is
difficult, it is impossible, to meet with a constant uniformity of views,
sentiments, and wishes. There must be, then, a determining voice; one of
the two persons sharing in common domestic authority, must have the
privilege of superior authority. Now, what are the titles to this superior
authority? These titles are strength and reason. Evidently, power in the
family belongs by right to him who is strong enough to defend it and
reasonable enough to exercise it.
But this authority would only be an insupportable privilege if man
pretended to exercise it without doing any thing, without returning to the
family in the form of security what it pays him in respect and obedience.
_Work_ is the first duty of man as head of the family. This is true of all
classes of society, as well of those who live upon their income, as of
those who live by their work. For the first have to make themselves worthy
of the fortune they have received by noble occupations, or, at least, by
preserving it and making it bear fruit through a wise management: and the
second have, I do not say, a fortune to acquire, which is an aim rarely
attained, but they have a far more pressing object before them, namely,
the livelihood of those who live under their protection."[70]
No one has better depicted, and in a more delicate and sensible manner,
the common duties of husbands and wives than Xenophon, who in this
particular is a worthy pupil of Socrates, the one of all the ancient sages
who best understood the duties of the family. Socrates relates in the
following terms the conversation of Ischomachus and his wife,--a young
married pair,--in which the husband instructs his wife in domestic duties.
"When she had become more familiar with me, and a closer connection had
emboldened her to speak freely, I put to her something like the following
questions: 'Tell me, my wife, dost thou begin to understand why I have
chosen thee, and why thy parents have given thee to me?... If the gods
give us children, we must consult with each other and do our best in
bringing them up: for it will be a happiness for both of us to find in
them the protectors and support of our old age. But from this day on, all
that is in this house is ours in common; what is mine is thine, and thou
hast thyself already put in common all that thou hast brought. We have
but to count which has brought most; but we must well remember one thing,
and that is, that it will be the one of us two who will best manage the
common property that shall have brought the most valuable share of
capital.'
"To this, my wife replied: 'In what can I assist thee? What am I able to
do? All depends on thee. My mother told me that my task was to conduct
myself well.'--'Yes, by Jupiter!' I replied, 'and my father also told me
the same thing; but it is the duty of a well-behaving couple so to behave
that they may be as prosperous as possible, that by honest and just means
they may add new goods to those they have. The gods, forsooth, did well
when they coupled man with woman for the greatest utility of mankind. The
interest of the family and house demands work without and within. Now the
gods, from the first, adapted the nature of woman for the cares and the
works of the interior, and that of man for the cares and the works of the
exterior. Cold, heat, travels, war, man is so constituted as to be able to
bear all; on the other hand, the gods have given to woman the inclination
and mission to nurse her offspring; it is also she who is in charge of the
provisions, whilst man's care is to ward off all that could injure the
household.
"'As neither is by nature perfect in all points, they necessarily need
each other; and their union is all the more useful, as what the one lacks
may be supplied by the other. Therefore, O wife, it behooves us, when
instructed regarding the functions the gods have assigned to each of us,
to endeavor to acquit ourselves the best we can of those that are
incumbent on both.
"'There is, however,' I said, 'one function of thine which will please
thee least, and that is, that if any one of thy slaves should sicken,
thou, by the cares due to all, shouldst watch over his or her recovery.'
'By Jupiter,' said my wife, 'nothing will please me more, since,
recovering by my care, they will be grateful to me and show me still more
affection than in the past.' This answer delighted me," continued
Ischomachus, "and I said to her: 'Thou shalt have other cares more
agreeable, namely, when of an unskilled slave thou shalt make a good
spinner; when of an ignorant steward or stewardess, thou shalt make a
capable, devoted, intelligent servant. But the sweetest charm shall be,
when, more perfect than I, thou shalt have made me thy servant; when,
instead of fearing old age, lest it deprive thee of thy influence in thy
household, thou shalt have gained the assurance that in growing old thou
becomest for me a still better companion, for thy children a still better
housekeeper, for thy household a still more honored mistress. For beauty
and goodness do not depend on youth: they increase through life in the
eyes of men, by means of virtues.'"[71]
We shall say a few words, without laying greater stress than necessary,
about a question often debated, namely, that of the dissolution of
marriage or divorce. We may observe, on this subject, with an excellent
moralist,[72] whom we have already cited, that as marriage becomes purer,
its dissolution will become more and more difficult. In former days, the
first aspect of the conjugal relation showed the husband to be the master
of the woman; he bought her and sent her again away as he would a
slave--he had the right of repudiation. Later on, he could no longer send
her away from him without asking the law to pronounce a divorce; but he
was at first alone in claiming this right. Next, woman obtained the same
right in her turn. At last divorce was suppressed, at least in some
States, and particularly in our country;[73] and we think, with the
moralist quoted above, that this is the true road to progress.
An English moralist[74] has justly said: "If love is a passion which a
trifle may start and a trifle kill, friendship is a calm affection
cemented by reason and habit. It becomes stronger by rule, and it is
never so strong as when two persons unite in the pursuit of a common
interest. How many slight annoyances will they not endeavor to overlook,
out of prudence, if they are obliged to live with each other, and which,
with the prospect of an easy separation, would be allowed to fester even
to aversion!" It is a duty for the individual conscience, even though
divorce should be legally permitted, to consider marriage absolutely
indissoluble, or at least make it a last resort; it is, above all, a
strict duty, in contracting a marriage, not to look to divorce as a hope
and end.
Some moralists have asked whether marriage was a duty. We do not hesitate
to answer in the negative;[75] that it is not a duty in the case of women
is evident, since it is their lot not to choose themselves, but to be
chosen; now it does not always depend on them to find some one to choose
them; and if it is not an obligation for one of the two sexes, it would be
strange if it were one for the other. Besides, the right of celibacy
cannot be denied to one who gives up family life to devote himself to
works of charity, as in the religious orders, and if this be a sufficient
reason, there are many more of the same kind which might sanction the same
conduct: as, for example, devotion to science or the country. If it be
objected that every one owes himself to the preservation of the race, and
that if no one married the race would perish, we can reply that there will
always be men ready enough to marry, so that no such consequences need be
feared.
But the liberty of celibacy can be granted by the moral law on two
conditions only: the first, that it be based on serious reasons and not
on selfishness; namely, that there be good reasons to believe that one
could render more service in that state than in an imprudently contracted
marriage. The second condition, that celibacy does not interfere with
purity of morals--the relations between the sexes being, in fact, only
proper and legitimate in marriage.
The relations between the sexes outside of marriage can only be adultery,
seduction, or licentiousness. In the first case, the woman is induced to
violate her duties, her vows, to give up all that alone can guarantee her
dignity. In the second, the honor and dignity of a whole life is
sacrificed to passion; in the third, you make yourself an accomplice to a
public and deliberate shame--a shame which would not exist except for just
such accomplices. At any rate, the dignity of the woman--that is to say,
of the weaker sex--is sacrificed to the passion of the stronger.
=126. Duties of parents toward their children.=--An English philosopher
said: "Such a one is the father of such a one; hence he is his master,"
and he claims that paternal authority was thus based on the authority of
mastership.
This is a profound error. In the first place, no man can be absolutely the
master of another man, unless that other be a slave: there can only exist
relations of obedience or allegiance, required by social necessity, but
which do not permit any man to be in absolute dependence upon another. The
relation between father and child is, it is true, of a particular kind;
but it is not any more than the other the authority of a master over his
slave, or of a proprietor over his property.
Let us look into its origin, and we shall find, at the same time, the
extent and the limits of paternal authority.
To begin with, we will observe that, although usage has consecrated the
term paternal authority as meaning the authority exercised by parents over
children, this authority includes the rights of both; of the mother as
well as of the father: 1, in default of the father, in case of absence or
death, the mother has over the child exactly the same authority as the
father; 2, it is an absolute duty with parents to see that there be not,
in regard to their children, two separate authorities in the house, two
kinds of contradictory orders; in the eyes of the child there should be
but one and the same authority, exercised by two persons, but essentially
indivisible; 3, in cases of conflict, the will of the father should
prevail, unless the law interfere; but the father should use such a
privilege only as a last resort, and where it can be made evident that it
is in the interest of the child. Even then he should see that the
obedience to one of the parents be no disobedience to the other, for that
would be destroying at its root the very authority he makes use of.
Paternal authority is, then, the common authority of both parents over
their children; and it is only an exception to the rule when the authority
of one parent becomes detrimental to that of the other.
What is now the principle of this authority? A purely physical reason is
given for it; that the child, namely, is in some respect a part of the
parents. But this reason is not sufficient; for it would presuppose
paternal authority to last all through life under the same conditions and
same degree of force; whereas it continues ever diminishing as the child
becomes able to govern himself.
The true reason for paternal or maternal authority lies in the feebleness
of the child, in its physical, intellectual, and moral incapacity. The
child in coming into the world is utterly incapable of doing for itself.
Supposing even that it could satisfy its physical wants, experience shows
that it could not give itself an education, without which it cannot be
truly a man. This state of feebleness requires, then, indispensable
assistance, and an assistance of long duration. It needs a hand to support
and feed it, a heart to love it, an intelligence to enlighten it. To whom
belongs this _role_ of educator, protector, sustainer? "There have been
some who have wished to take the child from the family to give it to the
State; this is a great error; for the child should evidently belong to
those without whom he would have no existence. In the first place, it
were burdening society with a thing it is not responsible for; moreover,
it has no right upon the child, no particular tie existing between them;
finally, it offers no sufficient guaranty, and there can be at best
expected of it but a vague and general solicitude, if, indeed, the same is
not a partial one, and in favor of those from whom it may derive most
advantages; whilst parents should unquestionably have charge of the child,
since it is through them it exists; and having charge of it, gives them a
right to it: and how could they be responsible for this being they have
given life to, if they could not in some measure dispose of it? There are
three ties between the parents and the child: a physical bond, a
heart-bond, a reason-bond: no other authority rests on more natural
principles; none is more necessary, none is protected by greater
guarantees."[76]
Not only would the State, in taking possession of the child, encumber
itself with functions for the performance of which it is unfitted, but it
would also violate the natural rights of the human heart. Parents are,
then, invested by nature herself, with the duty of supporting and
educating their children. But this duty calls for authority. How could a
father and mother direct the child in the path of right and justice; how
could they impart to it their wisdom and experience; how could they
prepare the way for its becoming in its turn a moral agent--one, namely,
that acts and governs himself of his own accord--if they are not at the
same time invested with the authority that commands obedience?
Paternal authority, as we see by this, has no other origin than the actual
interest of the child: the mission of the parents is to represent it; they
have in some respect the government of its life. The whole authority of
the father upon the child is, then, limited by the interests and the
rights of the child itself. Beyond what may be useful to its physical and
moral existence, the father can do nothing. Such are the extent and limits
of his authority.
From these principles we deduce:
1. That parents have now no right of life and death upon their children as
they have had under certain legislations.
2. That they have neither the right to strike them, maltreat them, wound
them--in short, treat them as they would animals or things; and although
usage appears to allow certain corporeal punishments, it will always be a
bad example and a bad habit to use blows as a means of education.
3. Parents have no right to traffic with the liberty of their sons, to
sell them as slaves as in ancient times, or to turn them into instruments
of gain, as in many families even to this day. Certainly one could not
wholly forbid a father to make a child work toward the support of the
family, but it must be done without losing sight of the child's strength,
and without sacrificing its intellectual and moral education.
4. Parents have no right to corrupt their children, by making them
accomplices in their own profligacy.
Grotius justly distinguishes three periods in paternal authority:[77] the
first, when the children have as yet no discernment, and are not capable
of acting with full knowledge; the second, when their judgment, being
already ripe, they are still members of the family and have no business of
their own; the last, when they have left their father's house, either to
become heads of families themselves, or to enter into another. In the
first of these conditions, the will of the parents is entirely substituted
for that of the children, and their authority, within the limits above
stated, is consequently absolute. In the third case, the son, having
reached his majority or maturity, has conquered for himself an independent
will; paternal authority must consequently change into moral influence,
which a grateful son will respect, but which is no longer, properly so
called, an authority. Finally, in the intermediate state, which is the
most difficult of all, the paternal will, whilst remaining preponderant,
yields more and more to the will of the children, thereby preparing it
toward becoming sufficient to itself.
Let us examine the duties of the parents at these different periods of
paternal authority.
There is, to begin with, a general duty, which overrules the whole life of
the parents as well as of the children, and which is independent of the
latter's age: it is the duty of love. Parents must love their children; it
is the foundation of all the rest. It may perhaps be objected that love is
a natural feeling and cannot be a duty; that the heart is not subject to
the will; that one may love or not love, according as one is by nature so
constituted; that duty therefore has nothing to do with it. It is also
said that paternal or maternal love is so natural a sentiment that it is
useless to make a duty of it.
These arguments do not appear to us decisive; and we have already answered
them. We cannot, of course, create within ourselves sentiments which do
not already exist. But we can cultivate or allow to die out sentiments
which do exist within us naturally. The degree of sensibility in each
individual depends, I admit, on his or her peculiar constitution of mind
and heart; but it depends on us to reach the highest degree of sensibility
we are capable of. For example, he who leaves his children or removes them
from him (unless it be for their good[78]) may be certain that the love he
bears them will insensibly die out. He, on the contrary, who takes the
trouble to busy himself with his children, to win their love by
intelligent and constant attentions, will necessarily feel his heart grow
softer by this intercourse, and his natural feelings will gain more and
more strength.
But if it is a duty to love one's children, it is also in consequence of
this duty that one should love them for themselves, and not for one's
self. It is not our happiness we should seek in our children, but theirs;
and for this reason does it sometimes become necessary to govern one's own
sensibility, and deny children pleasures detrimental to their best
interests. The excess of tenderness is often, as has been said, but a want
of tenderness; it is a sort of delicate selfishness, shrinking from the
pain the seeming suffering of the children might inflict, and not knowing
how to refuse them any thing for fear of displeasing them, prepares for
them in this manner cruel deceptions against the time when they will have
to face the sad realities of life.
A corollary of what precedes, is that the father should love all his
children equally, and guard against showing a preference. He should have
no favorites among them, still less victims. He should not, from feelings
of family pride, prefer the boys to the girls, or the oldest to the
youngest. He should not even yield to the natural predilection which
inclines us to give our preference to the most amiable, the most
intelligent, the most attractively endowed. It has often been observed
that mothers have a particular tenderness for the feeblest of their
children, or those that have given most trouble. If preference is at all
justifiable it is in this case.
After having established the general principle of the duties of the head
of a family, namely, love, and an equal love, for all his children, let us
consider the particular duties this general duty comprises. They bear upon
two principal points: the preservation and the education of the children.
We have seen that the fact of giving life to children, carries with it as
an inevitable consequence the duty of preserving it to them. The child not
being able to provide its own food, the parents must furnish it: this
results from the very nature of things.
Whence it follows, that a father must work to provide for his children:
this is so evident and necessary a duty that there is hardly any need of
dwelling on it.
But it is not only for the present that the head of the family ought to
provide; he should provide for the future also. He should, on the one
hand, foresee the case when, by some possible misfortune, he may be taken
from his children before they are grown; and on the other, prepare the way
to their providing for themselves. The first case shows us how economy and
prudence become thus a sacred duty for the head of a family. This also
explains how it may be a duty in contracting a marriage not to lose sight
of the question of property: not that this consideration should not give
way before others more important; but other things being equal, the best
marriage is that which, keeping in view the future interests of the
children, provides against the case when by some misfortune they may be
left orphans at an early age.
In supposing the most favorable cases, the father and mother may hope that
they will live long enough to see their children becoming in their turn
independent persons, able to provide for themselves. It is in view of
this, that parents should plan a profession or a career for their
children; in most cases, it is a necessity, it is expedient in all. But
the preparation for a career presupposes education; and here the material
interests and security of the children blend with their intellectual and
moral interests.
Everybody recognizes in the education of children two distinct things:
instruction and education properly so called: the first has for its object
the mind; and the second the character. These two things must not be
separated: for, without instruction, all education is powerless; and
without a moral education, instruction may be dangerous.
Parents should then--and it is a strict duty--give to their children the
instruction their resources and condition allow; but they are not
permitted to leave them in ignorance if they have the means to educate
them. Some narrow minds still believe that instruction is of no use to the
people, and is even a dangerous thing. This has been sufficiently refuted.
The greatest number of crimes and offenses are committed by the most
ignorant classes: the more they learn, the better will they understand the
duties of their condition and the dignity of human nature. It has been
justly said that little knowledge may be more dangerous than ignorance:
for this reason should men be raised above the dangerous point, and be put
in possession of as much knowledge as their condition warrants.
Instruction has two useful effects: first, it increases the resources of a
man, renders him better qualified for a greater variety of things; it is
then, as political economy styles it, a capital. Parents, in having their
children taught, give them thereby a far more substantial and productive
capital than what they could transmit to them by gift or legacy. In the
second place, instruction elevates man and ennobles his nature. If it is
reason that distinguishes man from the brute, knowledge enlarges and
heightens reason. Instruction thus works together with moral education and
forms one of its essential parts.
The head of a family who then, from personal interest, negligence,
ill-will, or, in fine, from ignorance, deprives his children of the
instruction which is their due, fails thereby in an essential duty.[79]
It must, moreover, be admitted, that instruction alone does not suffice;
science alone does not form character; persuasion, authority, example, the
moral action of every instant is necessary thereto. It is a great problem
to know how much of fear and gentleness, restraint and liberty should
enter in paternal education. All agree that a child should not be brought
up through fear alone, as the animals are. As Fenelon admirably puts it,
"Joy and confidence should be the natural state of mind of children;
otherwise their intelligence becomes obscured, their courage droops; if
they are lively, fear will irritate them; if soft, it will make them
stupid; fear is like the violent remedies employed in extreme illnesses:
they purge; but they injure the constitution and wear out its organs; a
soul led by fear is always the feebler for it."
On the other hand, everybody admits also that an excessive indulgence is
as dangerous as a despotic authority. Rousseau ingenuously remarks: "The
best means of making your child miserable is to accustom it to obtaining
all it wants; for its desires will incessantly grow with the facility with
which it can satisfy them; sooner or later the inability to content it,
will, despite yourself, oblige you to refuse, and this unexpected denial
will give it more pain than the deprivation of the thing itself. First it
will want the cane you have in your hand; then your watch; then the bird
in the air; the bright star in the sky; in short, all that it sees: and
unless you were a god, how could you satisfy it?" This remark of Rousseau
refers to the earliest childhood, but it can be applied to all ages.
It is evident that all the duties we have here mentioned relate
principally to the first of the three periods distinguished by Grotius. As
the children grow up, their own personal responsibility gradually takes
the place of the paternal responsibility, and there comes the time of the
third state above mentioned, when both father and mother no longer owe
their children any thing more than love or advice. Instead of being
answerable for their existence, it is rather the reverse. It is the
children's turn to become responsible for the happiness and safety of
their parents.
But, as we have said, the really difficult moment is that when the young
man, awakening to himself, becomes conscious of a will, and, without
experience and sense of proportion, wishes to exercise this will without
restraint. It is here especially that the paternal will must show itself
firm without despotism, and persuasive without flattery and weakness, and
where it becomes necessary that the paternal authority be firmly rooted in
the first age and upon solid foundations, so that the young man, even in
his fits of self-will, may submit to this authority with confidence and
respect. There is no particular formula which could set forth a rule of
conduct obligatory under all circumstances. Tact in this case is better
than rules.
=127. Duties of children.=--The German philosopher Fichte, in his book on
_Ethics_, has said some very good things touching the duties of children;
we will cite from it some of the pages devoted to this subject.[80]
"The right of parents to set limits to the liberty of their children
cannot be questioned. I should respect the liberty of another man, because
I regard him as a being morally educated, whose liberty is the necessary
means whereby he may reach the end reason points out to him. I cannot be
his judge, for he is my equal. But it is not the same in the case of my
child. I regard my child not as a moral creature already formed, but to be
formed; and it is precisely for this reason that it is my duty to educate
it. The same reason which commands me to respect the liberty of my equals,
commands me to limit that of my child.
"But I am to limit this liberty only in so far as the use the child may
make of it might be injurious to the very end of its education. Any other
repression is contrary to duty, for it is contrary to the end in view. It
is the very liberty of the child which must be instructed; and that this
instruction be possible, the child must be free. Parents should not,
therefore, through mere caprice, forbid children, with a view, as is said,
to break their will: it is only where the will would run counter to the
direct aims of their education that it should be broken. Here, however,
parents must be the sole judges; and are answerable to their conscience
alone." "The only duty of the child," says Fichte again, "is _obedience_:
this should be developed before any other moral sentiment; for it is the
root of all morality. Later on, when in the sphere left free by the
parents, morality has become possible, the duty of obedience is still the
greatest of all duties, the child should not wish to be free beyond the
limits fixed by the parents themselves."
Fichte explains next very ingeniously, how obedience is the only way by
which the child can _imitate_ the morality it cannot yet know: "The same
relation which binds the full-grown man to the moral law, and to its
author, God, binds the child to its parents. We should do all that duty
commands us to do, absolutely and without troubling ourselves about
consequences; but to be able to do this, we must suppose these
consequences to be in the hands of God, and intended for our good: the
same with the child in regard to parental commands. Christianity
represents God in the image of a father, and justly so. But we should not
simply be satisfied always and incessantly to speak of his goodness; we
should also think of our obligations toward him; of our obedience, and
that childlike trust free from all anxiety and uneasiness which we ought
to cultivate in regard to his will. To create a similar obedience is the
only means by which parents may implant the sentiment of morality in the
hearts of their children: it is, therefore, a real duty for parents to
exercise their children in a similar obedience. It is a very false notion,
which, like many others, we owe to the ruling _eudemonism_[81] of the day,
that wrong inclinations of the child can be thwarted by reasoning with it.
There is implied in this notion the absurdity of supposing the child to be
possessed of a greater share of reasoning power than ourselves: for even
adults are most of the time prompted in their acts by inclination, and not
by reason.[82]
"Another question presents itself now: How far, in its relation to its
parents, should the child's absolute obedience go? This question may have
two sides: the one as to the extent of this obedience, and the other as to
its limits; _how far_ it should go; or in regard to length of time, _how
long_ it shall last, and, if it is to cease at all, at what particular
time it is to stop?
In the first case, the question may be raised either from the child's or
from the parents' standpoint. On the part of the child it should never be
raised. The answer is this: The child should obey, and its obedience
consists in its not wishing to have any more liberty than its parents
permit it to have. Of the necessary limits of this obedience, the parents
can alone judge; the child cannot. The doctrine that the child should obey
in all reasonable cases, as we often hear it said, is a contradictory one.
He who only obeys in reasonable cases does not obey, for he becomes
himself then the judge of what is reasonable and what is not. If he does
any thing suitable because he judges it to be so, he acts according to his
own conviction, and not from obedience. Whether this obedience which they
exact be reasonable or not, it is for the parents to answer for it before
their own consciences; but they should not allow their children to sit in
judgment over them. But, it may be asked, suppose the parents command
their children to do an immoral thing? I answer: Either the immorality of
it is only discovered after a laborious investigation, or it is obvious.
In the first case, there can be no difficulty; for the obedient child does
not suspect his parents capable of commanding him to do any wrong. In the
second, the very basis of obedience--namely, the belief in the superior
morality of the parents--is destroyed; and then a prolonged obedience
would be contrary to duty. The same when the immorality or the shame of
the parents is self-evident in the children's eyes. Obedience then ceases
because education through the parents becomes impossible.
The second question is: How long does the duty of obedience last? The
answer to this is: Obedience, in the first place, is only exacted in view
of education; and education is a means to an end; that end being the
utilization of the child's powers for some reasonable purpose, under
whatever circumstances or through whatever mode. When that end has been
attained, the child cannot judge: it is for the parents to decide. Now two
cases are possible here:
One is where the father himself declares the end attained and leaves his
children free to act according to their own will and judgment.
The other is where a certain result is sufficient to declare the end
attained. The State is in this instance a competent outside judge. For
example, if the State entrusts an office to a son, it declares the
latter's education completed; the judgment of the State is the parents'
judicial bond: they must submit to it without appeal: it binds them also
morally, and they must submit to it from a sense of duty.
There is finally a third case: this is where parental education is no
longer possible, as, for example, on the marriage of the children. The
daughter then gives herself to her husband and becomes subject to his
will: she can therefore no longer depend upon her parents' will. The son
assumes the care of his wife, conformably to her wishes; he can therefore
no longer be guided by others' wishes, not even by those of his parents.
These three cases do not yet exhaust the question; for we may suppose a
fourth: the one where the children are not called to a function, by the
State; when they do not marry, and when the parents are nevertheless
unwilling to relax their authority, seemingly wishing to uphold the
obedience of early childhood. In this case, the parents evidently overstep
their rights; for it is obvious that at a given time man must belong to
himself. This time has been fixed by the State; which determines when one
attains to his majority. In granting to a son the free disposal of his
property, the liberty to make contracts, to traffic, the right of
suffrage, the right to marry, etc., the State puts an end to paternal
authority as an authority armed with restraint, yet certainly not as a
moral authority, for in this respect it is indelible. The son having
become a person, and being in his turn invested with moral responsibility,
may lay obedience aside, but he does not with this lay aside the respect,
gratitude, and affection he owes his parents.
Even after the emancipation of the children, there still exists between
them and their parents a moral tie.
Parents, especially if they have been, as we suppose, the educators of
their children, know their inner being, their disposition: they have seen
it develop under their eyes; they have formed it. They therefore know it
better than the children themselves can know it. They consequently
continue to be their best advisers. There is then left to parents a
special duty, namely, that of advising their children, and on the part of
the children a correlative duty, that of listening attentively to the
advice of their parents, and of considering it carefully. Thus do parents
retain their care and solicitude for their children, and the children the
duty of respect.
These duties of respect and gratitude toward parents have been admirably
expressed by the ancient writers.
Plato, after speaking of the honor which should be given to the gods,
says: "Next comes the honor of living parents, to whom, as is meet, we
have to pay the first and greatest and oldest of all debts,
considering that all which a man has belongs to those who gave him
birth and brought him up, and that he must do all that he can to
minister to them: first, in his property; secondly, in his person; and
thirdly, in his soul; paying the debts due to them for the care and
travail which they bestowed upon him of old, in the days of his
infancy, and which he is now to pay back to them when they are old and
in the extremity of their need. And all his life long he ought never
to utter, or to have uttered, an unbecoming word to them; for all
light and winged words he will have to give an account; Nemesis, the
messenger of justice, is appointed to watch over them. And we ought to
yield to our parents when they are angry, and let them satisfy their
feelings in word or deed, considering that, when a father thinks that
he has been wronged by his son, he may be expected to be very
angry."[83]
Xenophon, likewise, relates to us an admirable exhortation of Socrates to
his oldest son Lamprocles, on filial piety. It is well known that the wife
of Socrates, Xantippe, was noted for her crabbed disposition, which often
sorely tried Socrates' patience. No doubt this was the case with the sons
also; but, less patient than their father, they yielded sometimes to their
anger. Socrates recalls Lamprocles to his duty as a son, enumerating to
him all that mothers have to endure for their children:
"The woman receives and bears the burden, oppressing and endangering
her life, and imparting a portion of the nutriment with which she is
herself supported; and at length, after bearing it the full time, and
bringing it forth with great pain, she suckles and cherishes it,
though she has received no previous benefit from it, nor does the
infant know by whom it is tended, nor is it able to signify what it
wants, but she, conjecturing what will nourish and please it, tries to
satisfy its calls, and feeds it for a long time, both night and day,
submitting to the trouble, and not knowing what return she will
receive for it. Nor does it satisfy the parents merely to feed their
offspring, but as soon as the children appear capable of learning any
thing, they teach them whatever they know that may be of use for their
conduct in life; and whenever they consider another more capable of
communicating than themselves, they send their sons to him at their
own expense, and take care to adopt every course that their children
may be as much improved as possible."
Upon this the young man said: "But, even if she has done all this, no
one, assuredly, could endure her ill-humor."
"And do you reflect," returned Socrates, "how much grievous trouble
you have given her by your peevishness, by voice and by action, in the
day and in the night, and how much anxiety you have caused her when
you were ill?... Or do you suppose your mother meditates evil toward
you?" "No, indeed," said Lamprocles, "that I do not suppose." "Do you
then say that this mother," rejoined Socrates, "who is so benevolent
to you, who, when you are ill, takes care of you, to the utmost of her
power, that you may recover your health, and who, besides, entreats
the gods for many blessings on your head, is a harsh mother? Oh, my
son, if you are wise, you will entreat the gods to pardon you if you
have been wanting in respect toward your mother, lest, regarding you
as an ungrateful person, they should be disinclined to do you good;
and you will have regard, also, to the opinion of men, lest, observing
you to be neglectful of your parents, they should all contemn you, and
you should then be found destitute of friends; for if men surmise that
you are ungrateful toward your parents, no one will believe that if he
does you a kindness he will meet with gratitude in return."[84]
Although children, when of age, belong legally to themselves, there are
yet two serious circumstances, where they should exhaust all the forms of
respect and submission before they make a harsh use of the rights which
the law grants them: these are marriage, and the choice of a profession.
In the first case, both the law and morality require the consent of the
parents; and it is only as a last extremity, and after three respectful
appeals to them, that proceedings may go on. Here again, although the law
permits it, it may be said that, except in extreme and exceptional cases,
it is always better not to proceed, but wait till some change of
circumstances brings about a change in the mind of the parents. In fact,
the parents' resistance in these cases is generally in the interest of the
children; they wish to protect them against the impulses of their
passions. They have, besides, a sort of right to interdict the admission
into the family and the taking of its name to any one that might be
unworthy of these favors.
The obligation not to marry without the consent of the parents (except in
extreme cases) does not carry with it the obligation of marrying against
one's will in order to obey them. This would be the violation of a duty
toward others; you have no right to jeopardize the happiness of a third
party, that you might on your side practice the duty of obedience. To
marry with repugnance is contrary to duty, for it is entering into the
bonds of an unhappy union.
As to the choice of a profession, the obligation to conform to the desires
and the will of the parents is less strict than in marriage; and it is
obvious that the first, the stricter duty here, is to choose the
profession one is best fitted for. But as there is here also, on the side
of the children, much inexperience (as among the various professions there
are some very difficult, even dangerous ones, where success is often very
rare, and which for this reason are all the more tempting), it is clear
that in such a case it is the children's duty, except where there is an
irresistible proclivity, to allow themselves to be guided by a more
enlightened and more prudent experience. At any rate, the strict duty is
to confer with the parents, consult their superior wisdom, and delay as
much as possible a final resolve. These principles once set down, it is
certain that, on the other hand, one should not, to obey one's parents,
follow a profession one felt no capacity for whatsoever. There the duties
toward society and toward one's self take precedence of the family duties.
=128. Fraternal duties.=--Socrates, who has spoken so well of the duties of
husbands and wives and the duties of children, shall here again be our
guide as to the duties of brothers and sisters. Two brothers, Chaesephon
and Chaesecrates, did not live well together. Socrates tried to reconcile
them with each other by an exhortation, of which the following gives the
principal points:[85]
1. Brothers are better than riches; for they are things endowed with
reason, whilst wealth is but a senseless thing; brothers are a protection;
riches, on the contrary, need protection.
2. One had rather live with fellow-citizens than live alone; how much more
would one not rather live with brothers.
3. Is not the being born of the same parents, the having been brought up
together, very strong reasons to love one another? Even among brutes a
certain affection springs up between those that are raised together.
4. Even though our brothers be of dispositions difficult to live with, we
should make advances to bring them nearer to us.
5. It is for the youngest to make advances to the oldest.
A modern moralist, Silvio Pellico,[86] expresses most delicately the
duties of brothers and sisters in their intercourse with each other:
"To practice properly, in one's relations with men, the divine science of
charity, one must have learned it at home. What ineffable sweetness is
there in the thought: 'We are the children of the same mother!...' If you
wish to be a good brother, beware of selfishness. Let each of your
brothers, each of your sisters, see that their interests are as dear to
you as your own. If one of them commits a fault, be indulgent to it.
Rejoice over their virtues; imitate them."
"The familiarity of the fireside should never make you forget to be
courteous toward your brothers.
"Be still more courteous toward your sisters. Their sex is endowed with a
powerful attraction; it is a divine gift which they use to make the house
pleasant and cheerful. You will find in your sisters the delicious charm
of womanly virtues; and since nature has made them more feeble and
sensitive than you, be attentive to them in their troubles, console them,
and do not cause them any unnecessary pain.
"Those who contract the habit of being ill-natured and rude toward their
brothers and sisters, are rude and ill-natured toward everybody else. If
the home-intercourse is tender and true, man will experience in his other
social relations the same need of esteem and noble affections."
=129. Duties of masters toward their servants.=--One of the most important
functions of home administration, is the management of domestics. It
comprises two things: _choice_ and _direction_. It is well known how
important in a household the choice of servants is; as it is they who
attend to the marketing and pay the bills, so that the finances of the
house are, to some extent, in their hands.[87] But this is but one of the
lesser features of the influence of servants in a household; the most
serious one is their familiar intercourse with the children; and it is
there especially that it becomes necessary to make sure of their fidelity
and honesty. Yet to make a careful and successful choice is of no use, if
one is ignorant of the art of directing and governing, which consists in a
just medium between too much lenity and too much severity. The master of
the house should, of course, always have his eyes open, but he should also
know that no human being learns to do things well, if he is not allowed to
act with some sort of freedom.
_Surveillance_ and _confidence_ are the two principles of a wise domestic
government. Without the first, one is apt to be cheated; without the
second, one cheats one's self in depriving the servant of the most
energetic elements of human will, responsibility and honor.[88]
The master, again, should avoid being violent and brutal toward his
servants. He should require of them all that is just, yet without pushing
his requirements to the point of persecution. Many persons deprive
themselves of good servants, because they cannot patiently bear with the
inevitable defects inherent in human nature.
On the other hand, the servant owes his master: 1, an absolute honesty. As
it is the servants who do the marketing and pay the bills, they have the
funds of the family in their hands. The more one is obliged to trust them
the more are they bound to restrain themselves from the slightest act of
dishonesty. 2. They owe obedience and exactness in the duties pertaining
to their service. 3. They should, as much as possible, attach themselves
to the persons whose service they have entered; the longer they stay with
them, the more will they be considered as part of the family, and the
greater will be their right to the regard and affection due to age and
fidelity.
=130. Duties of children toward servants.=--It is not only the master and
mistress of the house that have duties to fulfill toward servants, but the
children also. The latter are, in general, too much disposed to treat
servants as instruments of their wishes and the playthings of their
caprices. Although slavery is no longer allowed, some children, if let
alone, would very soon re-establish it for their own benefit. To command,
insult, beat, are the not uncommon modes of procedure with children that
are left entirely free in their relations with inferiors. The latter, on
the other hand, do not hesitate to employ force, in the absence of the
masters, and pass readily from slavery to tyranny. All such conduct is
reprehensible. The servant should never be allowed to strike; but he
should himself not be struck or insulted. In childhood, it is for the
parents to oversee the relations between their servants and children.
Later it is for the children themselves, when they have reached the age of
reason, to know that they must not treat servants like brutes. The same
observations may be applied to workmen, in circumstances where workmen are
in some respect in the service of the family.
Although servants are no longer slaves, nor even serfs, one may still,
modifying its meaning, quote Seneca's admirable protestation against
slavery: "They are slaves! rather say they are men! They are slaves! Not
any more than thou! He whom thou callest a slave, was born of the same
seed as thyself; he enjoys the same sky, breathes the same air, lives and
dies the same as thou." Seneca closes this eloquent apostrophe with a
maxim recalling the Gospel: "Live with thy inferiors, as thou wouldst thy
superior should live with thee."
As to the duties of servants to their masters, they belong to the class of
professional duties which we shall take up further on (Chap. XIII.).