^THICSFORTHtlplii By WALTER L ShelPON T H I R D,. -^^mMm BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Metirg W. Sage 1891 ..Izy^r./l ^PTlox. arV14055*^"""' """"""y library °mSmm««ll!L!!'^Sf^ >'"er 361 Chap. XXVIII. "ihe Mother's Hope."— Laman Blanch- ard 374 Chap. XXIX. "Though We Must Wait."— W. D. Nesbit 388 Chap. XXX. "I Have Got a New-born Sister."— Mary Lamb 399 Chap. XXXI. "Whatever Binds Our Hearts in One."— A. E. Cross 409 SPECIAL SUGGESTIONS OR EXPLANA- TIONS TO PARENTS OR TEACHERS IN USING THESE LESSONS DEALING WITH THE HOME AND THE FAMILY. If possible, please read Urst the other list of spe- cial suggestions at the beginning of the preceding series of lessons in "The Study of Habits." I'H this volume we begin to zuork -somewhat more systematically, zvith one single theme for consider- ation throughout all the chapters. It is always to be Home and Family Life. We should keep very close to this all the while, although at the same time we should' endeavor to have as much variety as pos- sible in our method of treatment. The arrangement of topics can be changed or modified to any extent, at the discretion of the teacher. Too much system zt'ould be a mistake. These are simply conversational talks with young people, by means of zvhich we are trying to impart practical lessons pertaining to every- day life. It is not an abstract scheme of ethics we are developing; and it is not important, therefore, that we should tie ourselves doivn to one special outline. As a matter of course, however, ive take it for granted that any one using this series of lessons will have Urst thoroughly examined all the material in the volume and secured a grasp of the subject as a whole. At the outset it will be apparent that we have two purposes always before us. In the £rst place we shall zvish by means of our teaching to influence the conduct of the children as children in their imme- 9 lO DUTIES IN THE HOME. diate relations to other members of the family. But this, hozvever, is only one small part of the plan before us. The young people will be rapidly grow- ing older and the situations for them will be chang- ing year by year. The results would be meagre and disappointing if we coniined our attention to that one short period. It is the whole personal character ive should strive to mould, and not merely the con- duct at a pariicidar time. In the second place, therefore, we shall be seeking indirectly to e.xert an influence which shall be mani- fest in the sentiments and conduct of the young peo- ple when they have passed on into adult life. We shoidd never let this feature be out of our minds for an instant, while imparting our instruction. We wish to give a certain bias of feeling or conviction. with regard to the duties and obligations between members of the same family as long as any or all of those individuals are alive. We should make it very plain that the family tie is never absolutely dis- solved. Every good teacher will be at once aware that the "material" of these lessons must be adapted or adjusted to the average home environment of the yotmg people under his charge. It zvould be impos- sible to arrange a list of questions and answers that would apply to every type of home or family. We could not possibly deal zvith this theme precisely in the same zifay, whether the children are living in ten- ement houses where a whole family may be occupy- ing only tzvo or three rooms; or li/hether they dwell under more fortunate conditions where each family may have an entire apartment or house to itself. It would be unwise to pursue the same method of refined analysis under any or all circumstances. The DUTIES IN THE HOME, II children from the crowded homes and cramped sur- roundings of many of our large cities would not appreciate many of the distinctions we might draw for young people of another class. The broad, general principles continue the same. But the refinement of application must ine^ntably be varied. The best course open to the author, therefore, has been to outline a scheme for an average home of peo- ple in moderate circumstances, where there is a sepa- rate family abode. The teacher can tJien take this material and revise it or modify it according to his ozvn judgment. The difficulties resulting from such diversity in home environment among the pupils will be greater in dealing with the duties and obligations of family life than in any other department of ethical instruction for the young. This, hozuever, should not discourage us. We shall accomplish a great deal if we can simply impart a few general principles pro- vided we stamp them indelibly on the consciousness. But we can only achieve this by tact and persistence". Furthermore, in any large class of children there will always be one or mord to whom some of the points of the lesson may not apply, or for zvhom they zvould have no significance. When di.'icussing the duties or obligations toward parents, there may be one or more of the pupils who are orphans without father and mother. In dealing with the conduct betzveen brothers and sisters in the home, we may be confronted zvith cases where there is only one child in the family. In certain homes the young peo- ple may be all of one sex, as girls or as boys. Then, too, there may be the case of a family where there has been a separation between husband and zmfe, and where the children are obliged to show loyalty to one in preference to the other. So, too, at times the method of presentation might have to be changed or 12 DUTIES IN THE HOME. modified in case one of the parents is a step-father or step-mother. A teacher will naturally have some personal knozuledge of the pupils of his class and of these circumstances. The outline here presented could only be arranged for an average home under average conditions. This should be explained to the young people if they use these lessons as a text book. A teacher should be able to develop the points in such a way as to make the members of the class appreciate tlie possible variations from the average home or family. At the same time zve must impart the great principles of right and wrong, even if we are obliged now and then to give pain to certain indi- viduals. In planning the imaginary Dialogue, if is not always possible to carry on the conversation as if it applied indiscriminately both to boys and girls. Some of the points may have greater significance for one sex than the other. And yet it may be advisable in this special course of lessons not to separate the sexes. The observations zvhich the boys.m,ay offer in the presence of the girls or the girls may ofrer in tlic presence of the boys, may be mutually zvhole- some. By this means they may learn from one another, and understand one another's standpoint better, especially if tlie argument is carried on under the guidance of a competent teacher. We take it for granted that the one zuho is conducting the dis- cussioii will endeavor to the best of his ability to carry it on so that it shall be of interest all the while to the boys and girls alike. Occasionally, hozvever, if the teacher prefers, he coidd Jiave special sessions, dividing the class into groups, when the theme would have more particular reference to the one or the other sex. In order to zvork effectively tJiere should be a freedom of arrangement in this direction, so that DUTIES IN THE HOME. 13 either method may be followed at any time as may seem most fitting under the circumstances. Teachers zmll not all agree as to the period when instruction of this nature should he imparted to young people. The author has planned these les- sons as if he ivere carrying on a conversation with hoys and girls from about ten to thirteen years of age. The material, however, could even he used in a high school course. But in this case the volume shoidd not he put in the hands of the pupils them- selves as a text book. The teacher zvould simply retain it for his own use and select the points which he would regard as the most suitable for considera^- tion, while adjusting the argument to the riper ex- perience of the young people. For children of the age between ten and thirteen, the text could be placed in the hands of the pupils themselves, if this method is preferred, — leaznng them in this ivay to read over the argument in advance and to he prepared in part for the points which are to be considered. Or, if desired, the whole material could be retained in the hands of the teacher and the instruction be imparted orally. It will be seen at a glance that each lesson can be expanded indefinitely. There is material enough in this volume for a half flour's talk with young people eacft day for an entire school year. TJie temptation will be great for many teachers to make too many points at one time. Usually it would he better to establish one principle and do it tliorougfily. than to cover a larger field in a cursory ivay. Naturally, however, this must depend on the degree to whicit we are able to hold the interest or attention of the young people. There is always a limit beyond which we should not go; otherzvise we shall be only wast- 14 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ing words. We cannot teach ethics as zve might teach arithmetic. A certain amount of personal feel- ing or sympathy on the part of the pupils them- selves must accompany the discussion, if it is to be effective. For the same reason, a teacher cannot impart instruction of this kind if he is himself tired or not personally interested in it. If the young people dis- cover that it is all mechanical or routine with him, they will get little of value and the time will he wasted. The most suitable hour for the lesson should be at the beginning of the morning or afternoon ses- sion of the school, when there may be a certain spon- taneity on the emotional side, for pupil and teacher alike. A lesson in ethics by a jaded teacher to jaded pupils may be harmful in the extreme. The arrangement of the material in the various chapters will inevitably appear mechanical in the way it stands in the volume. But zve repeat what must be said also with regard to the other treatises, that all this is mere outline or skeleton. A single one of the "proverbs," for instance, might furnish opportunity for a half hour's talk. The "Poems" coidd be analyzed in detail, and utilised in a great variety of zvays. Any one of the "Point's of the Les- son" could form the basis for an entire clmpter. TJie young people themselves, if thoroughly aroused, will oifer an endless number of opinions or observations, only a fezv of which are touched upon in these notes. So, too, there shoidd he a constant review of pre- vious points zvhich have been made m connection with other lessons. Naturally the teacher will accomplish more if he can do this indirectly, h\ bringing all the discussion zvhich has gone on before. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 1 5 to bear on the chapter which at any moment is under consideration. The author cannot too much emphasize the importance of repetition, in connection with work in ethical instruction for the young. The same points must be brought out over and over again and often- times in the same language. Life itself teaches us by this method. It will not do to rest content by laying down a general principle. We must turn it over in every possible way until we have woven it into the very texture of the child's consciousness. It should be rooted there as something which will fol- lozv him and pursiie him throughout life. A single lesson, for example, on Obedience is not enough. There should be a score of talks in one way or another dealing with this special topic in all its various aspects. We must influence the tempera- ment or feelings of the young people, otherwise our efforts will count for little. But to do this in the right way naturally requires tact and good sense in the method one pitrsues. A good teacher should know to repeat a point without using the same lan- guage or making it painfully monotonous. It is to be taken for granted that the teacher will supply himself with a large number of stories, anec- dotes and pictures. This class of material has not been introduced into the volume chiefly for the rea- son that it is better that the selections should be at the option of the person in charge of the class. He should choose what best answers his own special method or purpose. Furthermore, it is better that all this class of material be introduced in the course of the discussion, and not he in the minds of the young people at the start. It will work better if a story is told by a teacher at a certain moment in the i6 DUTIES IN THE HOME. conversation, than if it has been read previously by the pupil himself. For each chapter, therefore, the one who is imparting the instruction should gather his own material in the way of stories or anecdotes, and have it all in readiness in reserve. Without such assistance, his zvork lijill he a failure. We can- not impart these abstract principles by themselves; they must be made concrete vi one form or another. This other clement must be introduced by the teacher and often profusely. Without it the instruc- tion woidd be dry and mechanical in the extreme. Stories, for example, coidd be told with regard to certain of the proverbs or in connection zcith the poems zi'hich have been introduced. Short biogro)- phies could also be given. Anecdotes in great number might be collected. These can often be used as a basis for discussion. The children, themselves, can also supply material of this kind and should be encour- aged to do so. What Zije hare said zcith regard to stories znotdd apply even more to picture material. It is better that this should not be introduced into these vol- umes, because it zvill alzvays have more significance if the teacher presents the picture at just the right moment in the course of the discussion. One who is imparting instruction of this nature can readily get together any number of suitable illustrations. He may secure a great deal for this purpose from the back numbers of magazines, cutting out the pictures and mounting them on cardboard in his ozvn zvay. The artistic advertisements appended to our peri- odical literature at the present tinie might often be used in this zcay. Here and tliere in the "Sugges- tions to the Teachers" the author has given hints as to picture or story material. But lie has deemed it DUTIES IN THE HOME. IJ best, for the most part, to leave all this to the discre- tion of the teacher. This class of material, as we have said, should he always at the command of the teacher, and will serz'e to make the points concrete at once. With this volume the teacher should begin by all means the use of the blackboard. Some of the "Points of the Lesson," special phrases, certain of the "Duties," shotdd be written down as they are introduced. Sometimes this could be done by the pupils, and at other times by the teacher. Special attention is called to certain phrases which are of significance and importance. These should be fixed in the memory as crystals, to remain permanently in the minds of those to whom they have been imparted. This would apply, for example, to such language as "mutual dependence," or "mutual service," or again to the zvords we use in connection with obedience, "because it is father and mother." When imparting instruction of an ethical nature, it is to be taken for granted tJtat there are certain dangers to be avoided. A lack of ordinary good sense may cause the discussion to do more harm than good. For example, we must be on the lookout all the while in order not to encourage the young peo- ple to act as judges of their parents. We may find it advisable again and again to say to them in explicit language, "you must not judge your father and mother." So, too, perhaps there will be the disposition on the part of the young people to be over-critical of their brothers and sisters rather than of themselves. They will be constantly tempted to draw their illustrations of had conduct from the members of their otvn home. But because of these dangers it will not do for us to abandon all effort to l8 DUTIES IN THE HOME. give the right kind of instruction in these directions. A like caution is always required on the part of parents themselves, when teaching their children. We must simply be on our guard in the way we put the questions or conduct the Dialogue. So, too, there will always be the danger of encour- aging what is called "priggishness." Special cases will arise where a child will seem perhaps altogether too knowing about zvhat is right and' what is wrong, too ready with advice and suggestions, especially with regard to other people. And the one who is most inclined in this way may not necessarily be by any means the best example of good, ethical conduct. This, hoivever, will be the exception rather than the rule. When it occurs, the teacher must take it into consideration and adjust himself to it. The child who is giving the best or quickest answers will not always be the one who is receiving the most value from the instruction. It is important that we edu- cate the conscience; but not every child will take the instruction in the same way. While we emphasise the importance of having the young people interested in the subject we are treating, at the same time we must remember that these lessons are not for the kindergarten nor accord- ing to many of the kindergarten methods. We are dealing zvith very serious problems, even if we are teaching young children. Life cannot all be play or amusement, even for individuals of tender years. The element of duty zuill akvays have something stern about it. We cannot get away from this fact. Life itself is a stern reality. It tvere vain and foolish to try to make play out of everything. Lessons in ethics cannot be a simple "entertainment" for the mind or heart. There are certain facts or life les- DUTIES IN THI HOME. !§ sotts which can only be imparted by drill; and that of a somewhat stern nature. Even with the young child it may be well for us to begin to establish defi- nitely, certain of the great, solemn duties and obliga- tions of life. While our method is one of argument or discus- sion, which seems to allow a certain freedom of opin- ion to the young people themselves, we must always remember that there shoidd be definite limits in this direction. At the outset it might look as if we zvere encouraging children to be their own judges in every problem pertaining to right and nn-ong. But those who use these lessons carefully zvill not be misled by any such illusion. The teacher is the one to guide the discussion. It is for him at tivies to lay down the lazu. There are certain principles about which there should be no argument zvhatever. Over and over again he may be called upon to answer a ques- tion zvith the simple words, "because it is right," or "because it is wrong." We are not for a moment assuming that the young people are the final judges on the great ethical problems. We talk the subjects over mainly in order to make the pupils appreciate better the points zve care to e.'stablish. We zvish to have them see that there is a certain rationality to the principles and rules of conduct and that often their own good sense is in accord zvith the teachings of conscience. But our method is not one of casuistry, any more than it is that of the strict catechism. We do not desire to give the impression that there is a blind unreasonableness to the laws of duty, while, on the other hand, we may insist that there are cer- tain principles established by the e.vperience of the human race, zvhich a person m-ay have to accept zvhether he always understands the reasons for them or not. 20 DUTIES IN THE HOME. The greatest empMsis in all these volumes should be laid upon the Duties. These are to be committed to memory and to he recited again and again. They are the kernel or core of the instruction we are imparting. The teacher should do everything in his power to Hx these "Duties" indelibly on the minds of the pupils in his class. It should he a maiter of pride or honor on the part of the young people to be able at the end of the school year to recite all these Duties and to know them by hea/rt. It is to he taken for granted tlvit there mil be a difference of opinion as to the advisability of intro- ducing certain topics which are discussed in some of the Dialogues. The teacher or parent must use his own judgment or discretion in this whole mat- ter. If thought best, the young people might be allowed to read over the Dialogue in some of the chapters without any discussion whatever. Some may prefer to keep the text book exclusively for their own use, imparting in their instruction just those points or principles which they regard as most fitting or the most important. Certain persons may deem it unwise to undertake to teach or develop precepts which young people cannot apply to their immediate personal experience. Others may approve of the method of giving young people definite principles of conduct as guiding rules or principles for life as a ivhole, fixing these on the mind at an impressionable age, sometimes long before the fidl significance of such rides can be understood. We do this zvlien imparting the precepts of the Ten Commandments; and zvhy not, one may ask, zmth other rides of life as well. But here, as elsewhere, the effort has been to arrange the material so that the teacher may use his own discretion or adopt his own method. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 21 It is to be hoped that those who use these lessons will pay much attention to the "Further Suggestions to the Teacher" al the end of each chapter. By this means hints are given which may perhaps have more significance than anything to be found in the "Dia- logue" zuhich precedes. Every good teacher mil also be making additions here, forming a note book of observations of his own. We must take care not to let the young people grow tired of certain words or phrases. This is a very important consideration. Hence z^'c shoidd be cautious not to use the word "home" too often, nor such words as "obedience," "disobedience," and oth- ers of the same nature. It is possible to make this zvhole theme interesting in spite of the element of sternness involved in it. But the teacher by the wrong method may fail in his purpose at the very outset. He must vary his theme, his language, his stories, his pictures, his argument, his zvhole method. He should never begin the discussion exactly in the same ivay two days in succession. It rests with him, to make the young people do a part of the talking. If he does it all himself, then it will become monot- onous "moralizing." This is always one of the greatest dangers in the whole domain of ethical instruction. The teacher either may wish to impart too much at one time, or be inclined to monopolize the argument. He may think the pupils are listen- ing, when in reality they are simply wearily waiting until he gets through. There is also great danger lest tivo or three of the pupils monopolise the argument and do all the talk- ing for the rest. This may give more animation to the lesson, and would, perhaps, make a better "show- 22 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ing" to a visitor. But the me'thod would be a mis- take, nevertheless. The teacher, as we have already hinted, will also be troubled at times by coming in contact with pain- ful or unhappy experiences in connection with the homes of some of the pupils. This naturally makes the whole subject a difficult one to handle success- fully. We are establishing ethical principles for an imperfect world, or for imperfect men and women. This fact must be before us all the while. Neverthe- less, young people should be taught the duties and obligations pertaining to the life of the home, even if there is dMcidty here to be overcome. We must impart this instruction, although now and then ive shall be called upon to exercise a high degree of tact in the methods we employ. In this as in the other volumes of this course of instruction the autlior leaves it at the option of the teacher to decide zvhefher or not he shall connect these lessons ivith some special standpoint or scheme of religioii.s instruction. On this matter his attitude has been most carefully neutral. Any denomination of any church could easily adapt tlte zuords to its own uses or purposes if this is desired. As much or as little of tliis other feature could be introduced as the parents or teacher may wish. The teacher is asked to remember that with instruction of this nature he cannot measure results as he coidd when imparting facts of geography or arithmetic. The richest fruit of his efforts may not ripen for tzventy years after the seed is planted. He must work by faith more than by sight. Without such faith he will accomplish little or nothing. The most important results in this direction will only be MJTIES ti^ THE HOME. 23 manifest long after the young people hwve passed out of his charge. Again we remind the teacher that these outlines have been intended for average situations, average pupils or the average home. It rests with him to adjust the material in each case to the special con- ditions or circumstances with which he has to deal when imparting his instruction. CHAPTER I. THE HOME AND M'HAT WE MEAN BY IT. INTRODUCTORY LESSON. Proverbs or Verses. "Dry bread at home is better than roast meat abroad." "East and west. At home's the best." "Every cricket knows its own hearth." "A man's house is his castle." "However far a man goes he must start from his own door." "Every bird likes its own nest best." "Where we love is home." "Home that our feet may leave, but not our hearts." Dialogne. You see this thing that I hold in my hand ? It is a pretty object, is it not? And what do you call it? "A bird's nest?" Yes, and what is it made of, do you think? What do birds use when they build their nests? "Hair?" you suggest. Yes. "Grasses, too ?" Yes, and some- times feathers. Did you ever hear of a bird which plucks the feathers from her own breast in order to make a lining for the nest she is preparing? If not, I wish you would find out about it. When do birds make their nests? "In the spring- time?" In this part of the country, do they ever make their nests in the fall? "Oh, no!" But why not? "Because in that case they would have no use for the nests." , Then what do they make their nests for? "To live in?" But anything more? Don't you think the birds might perhaps get along without having 25 26 DUTIES IV THE HOMfi. such nests just for themselves? Who else will live in them? "The young?" You assume, do you, that the nests are made especially for the young? If the little birds could speak, what do you think they would call this nest? "Their home?" True; I am sure they would call it "home." Would it be this, too, for the father and mother bird just as well ? "Yes, it might be home for all of them." This, then, is to be the subject we are to talk about and study in these lessons. It is to be Home. Please write the word down and be sure to begin it with a capital "H," But we cannot discuss it unless we know what it means. We have spoken of the bird's nests and the home of the little birds. Suppose, now, we talk about home to us. When I ask you, what is your home, how would you answer? "Why," you explain, "it is the house or apartment we live in." You imply, do you, that the house constitutes the 'home? Would you say that if you move into a new house, you would no longer have the same home? "No," you hesitate, "in a sense it would still be the same home." If that is true, then the house is not exactly the home; or else the home means something more besides. What if a family were to change their house or place of abode every few months, do you think it woa.ild break up the home feeling? "Yes, to some extent." You believe that under those circum- stances, they would cease to talk about home? "Oh, no," you say, "there would still be 'home.' " If. then, it is not exactly the house which consti- tutes the home, what is the main point you have in mind when you use the word ? What is the differ- ence, for example, between the home on the one DUTIES IN THE HOUE. SJ hand, and on the other hand, the town or city where one resides? Do people vote in the home, or do they have officers there? "No," you smile. Are you sure about that? What of your father and mother; are they not officers in the home? Do they not control everything there? "Yes, in a cer- tain way." What is the difference, then, between their posi- tion and that of the officers in a city? "Oh," you assure me, "we do not vote in the home, or choose our fathers or mothers." True enough! Now another question, as to the difference between the home and the outside world. If a boy should say to his brother or his sister, about a book in his hands, "this is mine;" would it mean just the same as it would if he said it to a stranger? Would it be really his in precisely the same sense under all conditions ? "No, if he said it to his father or mother, then it would not be quite the same, because what belonged to him, at first really belonged to them." Yes, but what if he asserts it to his brother or sister? What if there were a great desire for that book on the part of the brother or sister, and he had no real need for it himself at that special time, would he not feel rather obliged to give it up for them to use? "Yes, perhaps he would." Suppose, however, there were somebody on the outside whom he did not know, but who wanted the book and insisted on having it, would there be the same reason why he should give it up? "No, not exactly." But why not ? Does it not always mean the same when I say, "this is mine?" "Not quite the same?" In what way? I ask. "Why," you point out, "it is different when we are talking to a brother or sister." 28 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Yes; you are right; there is a great difference. Within the family, we do not own things quite in the same exclusive way. Do you see, then, the contrast between conditions in the home and conditions in Hfe in the city or in the outside world? You notice that we have said that we do not own things in quite the same way among ourselves in the home. Will you write that point down : In the home we belong to one another. But is that the only distinction between the home and the outside world ? What if, when you are out- doors and busy at your own work, somebody should say to you, "Come here and do something for me, help me in my work;" should you feel that you ought to go? "It depends," you say. Depends on what? "Oh, it may depend on who the person is." Yes ; and on what else? "Why, it may also depend Qn how busy we are, ourselves, or how important the work may be, that we are doing." "Then, too," you add, "it may also depend on whether the person could not, by trying hard, do it himself, and get along without any help." But suppose a brother or sister in your home, who is in difficulty, says to you, "please come and help me;" would it be just the same? Would it be as proper for you to take the same points into consid- eration and hesitate in precisely the same way as you would toward a stranger? "No, not exactly," you confess. And why not? "Oh, it would be different then; this would be a brother or sister who asks for help." Yes ; that is true. And it calls attention to another great point about home life: In the home, we all work for one another. Go back now to this bird's nest. You said it was DUTIES IN THE HOME. 29 a home, and I agree with j'ou. But is it just the same sort of a home that we have, or that we Hve in ? "No, human beings live in houses and not in nests." Yes, but is that all? What other differ- ence is there between this bird's nest as a home and the homes we have? "Why," you add, "the bird-family does not stay in it as long as we may live in our homes." What do you mean by that? "Oh, when fall comes around, the birds go away, and perhaps when springtime has come again, the nest has been destroyed." If, however, it has not been destroyed, do the birds ever return to it the following spring? "Some- , times?" All the birds who occupied it, do you think; the little ones who were born there, do they come, too? "No, probably not." Well, what are those little ones doing? "Oh, they will have built nests of their own." Do they never gO' back to their old home, ^or to their fathei- or mother? I am afraid not. We fear they do not even know anything more about their father and mother. Suppose, then, we should say that a bird's nest home was a one-sided home, what would it imply? "It is one-sided," you answer, "because while the parents seem to care a great deal for the children, the children appear to forget all about their parents." Yes ; that is the great point. Again, therefore, we ask, what makes the home? You said that the bird's nest is a one-sided home, not simply because it is abandoned at the end of the sea- son, but because the young do not care for their parents in the way the parents cared for the young. You have said, too, that the house does not alto- gether constitute the home. What, then, does make it? "The people who live 3« DUTIES IN THB HOME. in it?" Yes; you are right, it is the people who live in it that make the home. Yet, is the house or place where we live, nothing at all in so far as one's home is concerned? Does that make no difference whatsoever? If you had to change your place of abode every two or three months, would you care? "Surely," you admit. But why? "As to that, it would be troublesome to be constantly moving one's things, changing from place to place." Is that all? I ask. What if somebody should save you the trouble and do it all for you, do you think then you would care? "Yes," you insist, "somehow one may get to liking the place where one lives, the house or even the room." Do you assume that one can become attached to a mere thing, like a room or a house? For my part, I believe we can. But which is the more important, in so far as the home is concerned, — the people who live there, or the dwelling where we live? "Oh, it is the people every time." By the way, do you know as to the domestic ani- mals, the cats and dogs, whether they make any dis- tinction of this kind ? When a family leave a house, does the cat stay behind, or does it go with the family ? "The cat may prefer to stay behind ?" And how about the dog? "Why, the dog usually prefers to go with the family." Yes ; that is true. And this may be the reason why many people like dogs more than cats ; to a dog the home is made up of the people who live there, rather than the abode. In speaking of house and home, have you ever read any proverbs or sayings pertaining to this sub- ject ? What about this short one, for example : "A man's house is his castle." BUTIES IN THE HOMB. 3 1 What do we mean by the word "castle," by the way? What does it suggest to you? "One of those old buildings with walls and towers that one sees pictures of from the various countries in Europe?" Yes; and what was the castle for? Why was it built in that way? "Oh, it was in the first place the house or the home of some nobleman and his fam- ily." You mean that only the members of the family resided there, with the lord of the castle? "No," you add, "there were the servants, the retainers, and the soldiers." What were the soldiers there for? "To do fighting," you point out; "to protect the castle from enemies who might attack it on the out- side." True, and how were those buildings located, do you know? "Oh, usually they were on high places, rocks or hills, in positions where people from the outside could not easily get at them." What, then, does the word castle most of all sug- gest to you? "Why, it implies a house or place where a family can shut itself in, and where the outside world cannot enter unless the people living there are willing." Yes, that is the point. A castle was the place where the family could live in its own way, and from which they could shut out all the rest of the world, if they chose. It was like a little kingdom all to itself. If so, what is the sense of this proverb in speak- ing of a house as a castle? We don't build houses at the present time in such shape that people could be shut out by means of soldiers, where one could keep the world out by force of arms, if he chose. "No," you explain, "but the point is that people have a right to think of their houses or homes in that way; to feel that their abode is peculiarly for 32 DUTIES IN THE HOME. themselves ; and that no other person has a right to enter there unless the residents of that home are willing." Yes, that is the significant thought m that short sentence or proverb; and it makes us feel all the more the value of home to each and all of us. What is the difference, I ask you, in the same connection, between a house where you live, and a hotel ? "Why, the hotel is a public place where peo^- ple walk in and out as they choose, strangers or residents all the same." You mean that a hotel is not a home. "No," you assert, "not in the sense that the private house is a home." And why not? I ask. "Because there is not the same privacy in a hotel or public place. Ther« is nothing of the 'castle' there ; a person could not feel that he had the right to shut out the world if he chose." If so, then I point out to you, we have an addi- tional reason for valuing our homes, however sim- ple they may be, however plain or humble. We have peculiar rights there; those homes belong to us as our "castles." Now as to the word we use in regard to the peo- ple who constitute the home when all taken together. What do we call them ? What are they all members of? "The family?" Yes ; and that is the subject we are to study care- fully in these lessons. We shall want to learn all we can about the Home and the Family, XSemory Gem. "Keep thy heart with all diligence, For out of it are the issues of life." Points of tlie Iiesson. I. That a bird's nest is a home, but that a human home is something more than a nest. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 33 II. That home is made up rather of the people who belong to it than of the place where they reside. III. That among ourselves in the home we do not own things quite in the same way that we assert ownership in the outer world. IV. That in the home we submit to the wishes of others and surrender our wills more than we are expected to do in the outer world. V. That among human beings — unlike the customs among animals — people who have had happy homes continue fond of their early homes all their lives. VI. That we speak of the members of the home who are related to one another, when taken together, as the Family. Duties. /. We ought to feel that we belong to one another in the Home. II. We ought to work for one another in the Home. Foem. I remember, I remember, The house where I was born; The little window where the sun Came peeping in at morn. He never came a wink too soon. Nor brought too long a day; But now I often wish the night Had borne my breath away ! I remember, I remember. The roses, red and white. The violets, and the lily-cups — Those flowers made of light ! The lilacs where the robin built. And where my brother set The laburnum on his birthday, — The tree is living yet ! I remember, I remember, Where I was used to swing. And thought the air must rush as fresh To swallows on the wing; My spirit flew in feathers then. That is so heavy now. The summer pools could hardly cool The fever on my brow ! I remember, I remember, The fir-trees dark and high; 34 DUTIES IN THE HOME. I used to think their slender tops Were close against the sky. It was a childish ignorance, But now 'tis little joy- To know I'm farther off from heaven Than when I was a boy. — Thomas Hood. Tarther Sngr^eitlons to the Teacliw. At the outset, before entering upon the discussion at the beginning of the chapter, it would be advis- able to have secured an abandoned bird's nest, if possible, or if that cannot be done, at least a picture of a bird's nest. The pupils might be asked a few days in advance to bring one for themselves if they find it feasible to assist in this way. In the course of the talk when alluding to "castle," "house," "hotel," it might be well to display a picture in each case illustrating the type which is under con- sideration. A few anecdotes could also be inserted concerning birds and the way some of them deal with their nests, or with their young. In connec- tion with the allusion to the contrasts among domes- tic animals in their attachment to the house and the family, the pupils may be able to tell observations or experiences of their own. For the purpose of general illustration, aim to introduce a picture of a home scene suggestive of the intimacy of family life, as, for instance, a grandmother and child, or children gathered around their mother, — anything, in fact, which brings out the home feeling. It will be observed that this and the following chapter prac- tically form one lesson, which we divide into two parts for the sake of convenience. Hence it is optional with the teacher to merge the points in any way he thinks best, rearranging them to suit his own preferences. He may also find it advisable to talk over the Poem, explaining certain parts or some of the allusions which may not be intelligible to the members of the class. CHAPTER II. THE HOME AND WHY WE CARE FOR IT. Proverbs or Verses. "Home, the spot of earth supremely blest, A dearer, sweeter spot than all the rest." "I would rather see smoke from my own chimney than fire on another's hearth." "Without hearts there is no home." — Byron. "A man is always nearest to his good when at home." — /. G. Holland. ''Home is where there is one to love. Home is where there is one to love us." — Swain. "The world has nothing to bestow; From ourselves our joys must flow, And that dear hut, — our home." — N. Cotton. Dialogrne. Suppose we begin to-day by naming over the indi- viduals who may belong to a family, or be connected with a home. We will write them down, one by one. Who would be at the head of the family; what two members do we think of first? "Father and mother ?" Yes ; put those words down. Who else may be a part of a home; what other persons besides father and mother? "A brother?" And who else? "Sister, too?" Surely. Write down also : Brother and Sister. Could there be anybody else in the home as mem- bers of the family? Are there not persons there sometimes who are older than your parents? "Oh, yes, grandfather and grandmother." True. And how many of them could there be in one home? 35 36 DUTIES IN THE HOME. "Possibly two of each?" Can you explain how that is possible? "As to that," you tell me, "father and mother each had a father and mother, and that would make four." But may there be still other persons connected with the home? "No others belonging to the fam- ily," you assert. Yes; but we did not say family, we said Home. What other individuals may be in the household? Who are the persons that sometimes help us or work for us there ? "The servants ?" Yes, we might call these "the domestics," and think of them as the ones who help in the domestic work. They often constitute a very important part of many homes, although there are also many happy households without them, where the work is all done by members of the family. Is that all, now : father, mother, grandfather and grandmother, brothers and sisters and the domes- tics? Do any other people ever come into our homes ? 'Why," you add, "there may be the visitors or the guests." Very well, we will add them to our list. While they are in the abode with us they make up a part of our home, do they not? But what other persons may sometimes come there, closer or nearer to us than ordinary guests or visitors? How about relatives? "Indeed!" you exclaim, "relatives should also be included." Are we through with our list now; may there be anything else living in the house where we reside, any other living creatures we may care for, besides the ones we have named? "No others, surely," you assert. But think further. What do people sometimes keep in the house inclosed in cages, to sing for them ? DUTIES IN THE HOMK. 3/ "Birds," you suggest. Yes; there may be the song- birds. And what else may some people have, partly for the purpose of killing the mice? "Cats?" What animal that men care for the most of all, do they sometimes connect with their homes? "Dogs?" Suppose we call the birds, the cats and the dogs, that people sometimes have in their homes, "the household pets." Then we shall have our list com- plete, shall we not? There is no other living thing that vve may like to have as a part of the home, is there? "Oh," you continue, "there may be the house plants ; they are alive :" True ; if you wish, you could also put down the house plants. And now have we done? Is there no other animal connected with many people's homes and which does a great deal of ser- vice for the members of the family, although it does not enter the house? "The horse?" you suggest. Yes ; somehow people who own horses often feel as if these creatures belonged to the home, and they become fond of them almost as if these noble ani- mals were a part of the family. You have named over all the members of a fam- ily, and all the living creatures connected with a home. Now may I ask you another question : Why do we care for our homes ? You hesitate? You cannot quite answer, perhaps. Suppose I put the look on your faces, into language. What if one of you should write it down in these words : Because it is home. I suspect you are right in not trying to explain it. One does not quite know why, but one loves one's home "because it is home." ■ Do you think, for instance, that a family might be very poor and needy, and yet if the opportunity 38 DUTIES IN THE HOME. came to go and live with other people, where they could have comforts or even luxuries, but where they would have to be separated from one another, — do you think they might prefer to stay by them- selves, to do without those luxuries and even con- tinue poor ? "Some families would?" Why so? I ask. "Oh, if they stay by themselves, they can be together and have their own home." You are right; for some reason or other, most people seem to become very fond of the something they call "home." Do you know the song which is often sung in con- nection with this subject? What is the title of it? "Home, Sweet Home?" Can any one of you recite it? If not, I suggest that one of you. commit it to memory, and repeat it here in the class next time. But let me read it aloud to you. Then we can talk about it a little. These are the words which you may have sung so often. Listen now, not to the sentiment as a whole, but to each word by itself: " 'Mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam, Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home : A charm from the skies seems to hallow us there, Which, seek through the world, is ne'er met with elsewhere. Home, home, sweet, sweet home ; There's no place like home. "An exile from home splendor dazzles in vain : Oh, give me my lowly thatched cottage again; The birds singing gaily that came at my call — Give me them, and the peace of mind dearer than all. Home, home, sweet, sweet home ; There's no place like home." Do you see much/point to that line, "Be it ever so humble, there's no place like Home?" Will you tell me what it suggests? "Why, it means that even if a home is very plain in appearance, with only a few rooms and no lux- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 39 uries; 'all very humble,' as we say, with nothing there that one can be proud of, in so far as other people are concerned, yet it is home." Explain a little further why it is that we should be so fond of singing these lines. Why should we say, "A charm from the skies seems to hallow us there ?" The sky is the same everywhere, is it not ? Is there any difference in the sky, whether we have our home in one place or another ? "At any rate," you assert, "there seems to be a difference." Yes ; perhaps it is because, when look- ing ,up toward the sky a person may see somethinj^f of the home around him at the same time, and in that way the home and the sky make one picture in his thoughts. But why should that special patch of sky with all that is around it, be so deai' to us? Why could not one have just as much peace of mind elsewhere? You notice that the writer of the hymn craves for "the peace of mind dearer than all." Can you explain why he likes to think about the peace of mind he used to have at home? You can give no answer? But wait. What were the points we considered in the last lesson about home : — the two duties we dwelt upon as describing some of the contrasts between conditions in the home and in the outside world ? What did we say first? "We belong to one another in the home?" Yes; and what was the sec- ond part ? "We work for one another in the home?" You see, then, why one may have such beautiful memories about one's home-life. Out in the world we have to work mainly for ourselves; but in the home, each one should have the help of all the others. Note to the Teacher: We might continue analyzing each line of this poem,— discussing, for instance, what is meant by "lowly thatched cottage," or what the word "palaces" implies. 40 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Although this is not really great poetry, yet it has become a classic and the pupils should understand each part of it, as well as appreciate the sentiment of the whole poem. Speaking of house and home, why is it that fam- ilies Ulje to own the houses where they have their homes? What difference does it make? "As to that," you explain, "it would make them feel more secure ; they would not be so uncertain as to whether they would have a house and home for themselves in their old age." Yes; but would that be the only reason ? If, for example, the members of a family felt per- fectly sure that they would have a home somewhere^ always be provided for in some way, then would it be all the same to them whether or not they owned the house they lived in ? "No'." Why not? I ask. "Because it would give them a different kind of' feeling if the dwelling belonged to them." In what way, do you mean? "Why, it would seem doubly like home; they would feel some- how as if they would always be able to keep up the long-continued associations of the home." Then it would show, would it, that the house or the abode where the family lives, does really have something to do with making the home; although a home could exist, as we have said in the previous les- son, even if the family had to change its dwelling- place from time to time ? Do you know that sometimes people have almost made slaves of themselves, scarcely allowing them- selves enough to eat or enough clothes to wear, going without pleasures of almost every kind, just in order to save enough money tO' buy the house they live in, so as to feel that they could always keep that place as their home? Do you assume that such sacrifices are made only in order to provide for old age? "No, it may also DUTIES IN THE HOME. 4^ be a matter of sentiment, because the family loved that dwelling-place and wished to be able to keep their home associations there unchanged." Are you aware, by the way, what is the term "at home" in the German language? If not, I can tell you; it is a phrase which, translated into English, would mean "at house;" in the German, it is "zu Hause." Does that not show how intimately people have been inclined tO' connect both hqjise and home in their thoughts? Yet we must not overlook the fact that, after all, home is where father and mother, brothers and sisters are, much more than the house where we live. Do you fancy, by the way, that the home-sense is ever associated with anything more than the actual abode and the people who live there or come there? "These make up the chief part oif it all, at any rate," you assure me. True. But if the house and all the people in it were transplanted to some other place, would it seem exactly the same, even if the home feeling continued ? "No, indeed !" But why not? I ask. "Oh, there would be the playmates we should miss, the people living near us whom we knew, the ground where we used to run and play, the street where we lived, the trees or houses around us, or the landscape." And you believe, do you, that all this has some- thing to do with the home- feeling? Yes; you are quite right. What was the poem we read in the previous lesson ? What did it tell about ? "Why, it described the memories that a grown man may have Avith regard to his childhood home." And did it refer to anything more than house or members of the family? "Yes, it included all those other things we have just mentioned." 42 DUTIES IN THE HOME. It looks, then, does it not, as if the home-sense or home-feeling covered a pretty wide range and hardly seemed to have any exact limits. Sometimes people feel as if the home were a whole world just by itself. Come back now for a moment to the main point. Let me read you a proverb about home, which runs this way: "I would rather see smoke from my own chimney than fire from another's hearth." What do you think about that sentiment? What does it imply? Does it strike you as a selfish feel- ing, — as if a man would not be glad that there should be warmth and comfort in the homes of oth- ers? "Oh, no, quite the contrary." What, then, does it suggest? I ask. "Why, it means, perhaps, that one could find more pleasure in just a few comforts if they were in one's own home, than if one were living in luxury in the house or home of another." But is that all that is conveyed by the proverb? What if a m.an were outdoors seeing at a distance the smoke from his own chimney? "Perhaps," you add, "it could also refer to the feeling or sentiment a man would have in coming in sight of his own house, because as he sees the smoke coming from the chimney, he thinks of the home-life thei'e to which he is coming when he enters the door ; while he could not have that feeling if he were approaching the house of another." May we now give you two lines of verse to be committed to memory, suggesting the feeling of love for one's home. Listen and say the words over to yourself : "Home, the spot of earth supremely blest, A dearer, sweeter spot than all the rest." What song do those lines suggest to you ? "Home, DUTIES IN THE HOME. 43 Sweet Home?" Yes, indeed; it is the same senti- ment in other language. Kamoiy Oaia. "Make level the path of thy feet. And let all thy ways be established." Points of the Reason. I. That a family may have quite a large membership. II. That we care for home first and supremely, just because it is Home. III. That we love our home, because of what others do for us there. IV. That we care for our home on account of the loving feelings we have for one another there. V. That we love our home because we have been happy there. VI. That we find that even the abode, the house or the apartment where we live, the street scenes and the neighbors, ail have something to do in making up what we think of as home. VII. That we love our home because of the associations we have had there. Foem. An old farm-house, with meadows wide And sweet with clover on each side; A bright-eyed boy, who looks from out The door, with woodbine wreathed about, And wishes his one thought all day: "Oh, if I could but fly away From this dull spot, the world to see, How happy, happy, happy, How happy I should be !" Amid the city's constant din, A man who round the world has been, Who, 'mid the tumult and the throng. Is thinking, thinking, all day long: "Oh, could I only tread once more The field-path to the farm-house door. The old green meadows could I see, How happy, happy, happy. How happy I should be !" — Marian Douglas. Datlee. /. We ought to be glad for everyone who has had a happy home. 44 DUTIES IN THE HOME. //. We ought to wish that every one everywhere might have a happy home. III. We ought to he glad to have a home, how- ever plain or humble it may he. IV. When we are grown up, we ought to do everything in our power to cherish the memories of home and what the home has done for us. V. In our home life, we ought to take into con- sideration every person zvho is a member of the home. VI. In our home life, we ought to respect the feelings which each one there may have for the asso- ciations connected with the house and the home. Fnither Sng-g'estions to the Teaclier. The method to be followed in working out this lesson must be determined a good deal by our knowl- edge as to the location of the homes of the young people, whether in the country, a village, a small city or a large city. Some of the points to be developed will depend a good deal on whether the children reside in a whole house by themselves, or in a single apartment, as might be the case in our cities. According to the special circumstances, we could elaborate in certain directions and not go far in others. What we should aim to do in these opening chapters, would be to call out a nucleus of sentiment in connection with the general subject which is to be the theme for the entire series. At the outset, it is essential to arouse a certain degree of interest in the whole plan or theme we have before us. The list of reasons why one may care for the home should be extended a good deal, and each point should be written down as it is suggested by the children. We could mention, for example, the intense desire which grown people often feel to get back to their old homestead and to renew in this way the associations DUTIES IN THE HOME. 45 of their childhood, showing how even the painful or unhappy experiences of the past sometimes make a part of the pleasant memories in connection with one's Early Home. When the list is being made of the possible members of a home or family, it would be well to write down on the blackboard the answers as they are offered one by one by the pupils. In reviewing the familiar hymn, it would be advis- able to analyze it in some detail, also to have it recited or sung in connection both with this and the preceding lesson. For illustration, introduce pictures of a house as a home, an old homestead, a country farm scene, "The well-worn path," — anything which may suggest the beauty and charm of childhood associations with the home. CHAPTER III. FATHER AND MOTHER IN THEIR RELATION TO THE flOME. Froverljs or Verges. "A father's blessing cannot be drowned in water nor con- sumed by fire." "It is not the anger of the father, but his silence, that the well-born son dreads." "Better the children cry Than the mother sigh." "A father lives after death in his son." "The fingers of a housewife do more than a yoke of oxen.'' "He who takes the children by the hand takes the mother by the heart." "A father loves his children in hating their faults.'' Dlaloerue. You see the words which I write down for you : "Father" and "Mother." Are those the words we always use when addressing our parents? "No," you add, "sometimes we say Papa or Mama." Yes, we use those, too. But do they have the same meaning? "Surely!" Why, then, do we sometimes employ one, and at other times the other? "As to that, perhaps we address our parents as papa and mama when we are quite young; and when we are older or grown up we more often say father and mother." You are right; that is a common distinction, although not always observed. What members of the family often retain the childhood way of addres- sing father and mother? "The daughters." When you think of your parents, what attitude toward them, on your part, is at once suggested? 46 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 47 "You have to mind what they say?" True; that is what first occurs to us when thinking of the rela- tion of the child to the parent. Tell me, then, the one word which describes one's conduct in this respect. "Obedience?" Yes, that is a pretty big word, and I assure you at the outset it is going to mean more than you may suppose. Is it because you are "owned" by your father and mother, that you have to obey them, would you say ? Are you their property, as the house may be, or the clothing they wear ? Could they do with you exactly as they pleased ? "No?" What, then, is the distinction? Why should they not deal towards you as they would toward a house? Is there any real differenoe in the relationship? "Yes, indeed there is !" you insist. In what way, for example, are you not like a house? "Oh, we can think and feel; but a house cannot." Yes, I agree with you; no father or mother may treat a child as they would a mere piece of property. If, therefore, you do not have to obey because you are their property, why ought you to obey them ? "Because they do so much for us?" Do you really believe that is a good reason? Suppose you tell me some things your father and mother do for you. "They work for us, take care of us when we are sick, and sit up nights for us." Wait a moment, you are going too fast. Let us put these points down one by one. "Take care of us when we are sick," you said. And what else? "Provide us with food and cloth- ing," you add. Yes. "Give us education?" Yes. "Try and make us happy ?" Yes. Is that all? ' Can you suggest anything more? When you see your father or mother hard at work, and you are at play, what are they working forf Is 48 DUTIES IN THE HOME. it all for themselves? "Oh, no, it is for their chil- dren, too." But what are they doing, when, for instance, they may be saving up money and planning about the future? Are they saving just for themselves? "You think not?" What is it for, then? "Oh, they are thinking of their children, and about providing for the future of their children." Suppose your father or mother wanted to take some pleasures for themselves ; and then it occurred to them how much it would cost, and they decided that they would relinquish the desire in order to save the money for the sake of the children. What would that be? "Self-sacrifice?" Yes, surely that would be true self-sacrifice. Note to the Teacher : It would be well to devote quite a \vhole session to this phase of the subject. As the points are raised or suggested, they might be written down on the black- board. Make as long a catalogue as possible. Have the pupils think and think hard on the question. All this and more is what your father and mother may do for you. And this was one reason why we should do — what? How is it that we should act toward father and mother? "Obey them?" Yes, that is the point; this is a reason and a great one, why we should obey our paraits. I wonder if you have any idea what word or words your father or mother probably most dislike to hear from you, or with what word or words you may give them the most pain. You hesitate, I see. Well, I may tell you. Let me write them down, and you watch as I write them. There they are: "I won't." Did you ever hear them before? I can see by the look on your faces that some of -you have used those words. Now we will erase them, and not see or look at them any more. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 49 When you are talking about what father or mother does for you, what kind of feeHng is it that you would naturally have in return fori all that goodness on their part? "To begin with," you say, "that is one reason why one ought to obey them." But what about the feeling we naturally have when something has been done for us by another? "One is grateful ?" Yes, that is the term, gratituae. Suppose we put that word down also as another point in our lesson to-day. We began by talking about owing obedience to father and mother, and now we have come to see that they also deserve gratitude from us. Does it evei" happen, for instance, that a father or mother is stern with the younger members of the family in the home? "Oh, yes 1" Do the children like it, usually? Are they pleased when the parent shows himself stern? "No, quite the contrary." Then do you assume that we may owe anything to father and mother because they may be stern with us? Is it possible that we could feel gratitude for them because of such sternness ? "It would seem pretty hard?" Did you ever hear the saying or proverb, "The father loves his children in hating their faults ?" Do you see any sense in that ? What does it mean? I ask. How is it that a father can show love to his children by showing hate? "Why," you explain, "it does not imply that he shows hate for the children, but rather that he wants them to improve, he checks their faults by being stern, just because he loves his children." You admit, do you, that after all, you may owe gratitude to father and mother because they ha\e been stern with you sometimes ? 50 DUTIES IN THE HOME. I should advise you to commit that proverb to memory. You may not value it so much now, but you will think more of it by and by. Speaking, by the way, of the gratitude we may owe father and mother because of what they do for us, do you fancy it would make any difference to them whether the children have this sentiment of gratitude at all ? "Yes, of course !" Is such a feeling anything real, which you actually give to father and mother? "No, it is not exactly a gift," you answer. But why should they care for it, one way or another? "Because it would show that the children appreciated what had been done for them." Do you believe that children can really ever make a full return for what their fathers and mothers have done for them? "No," you confess, "not directly." What do you mean by that ? "Oh," you continue, "while we can never do as much for them as they have done for us, perhaps we can make up a little by what we do for others." Yes, that is true. It is an odd way of paying back, is it not, returning what we owe to one person by giving something to another ? Speaking of trying toi make up to father and mother for what we owe to them, what do you think of this saying: "Gratitude is the poor man's pay- ment?" Do you see how those words could in any way apply to the debt owed by children to their parents ? In what way, for instance, would the children be like the poor man in that proverb ? "Why, they own nothing of their own ; they have very slight means of paying back anything that is done for them." But what, according to the proverb, may, after all, be a kind of payment that one can always make for favors where one is not in a position to do much of DUTIES IN THE HOME. 51 anything? "It suggests," you point out, "that one can at least show a sense of gratitude, and that that much of a payment is open to us, always." In regard to the service rendered by a father to the home and the family, what is it that he does most of all, — what is his first duty there, would you say ? "Provide for the family; earn a living for it, do the work out in the world by which the members in the home get their food and clothing and their dwelling- place?" Yes, that is it. Suppose we put this down in words which may seem large to you, but which I should like to have you remember. It is the father who is expected to earn the means of subsistence for the home and the family. But why ought he to do this ? Why may he not think only of himself ? "As to that," you assure me, "he could not act in such a way, if he really cared for his wife and children; he earns a living for the home because he loves his family." Yes. But would there be any other reason or motive? We take it for granted that he would desire to render such a service out of afiection for his wife and children. There was another woixl we used casually a few moments ago. This is a very important point, and I am anxious that you should remember it. There may be another motive for work or service even besides that of love or affection. Will one of you step to the blackboard and write down the word as I give it to you ? Put first a cap- ital D. Can you suggest now what other three let- ters we should add? What is the word I have in mind ? "Duty?" Yes, that is it. Besides the love and affection, there is the other motive. It is the duty 52 DUTIES IN THE HOME. of the father to earn the means of subsistence for the home and the family. "Yes," you add, "but there might be times when this would be impossible. He might be an invalid or unable to do any kind of work." Quite true. I admit this; and when it happens, it is very sad and very hard both for the father and the whole family. What about the mother; what does she do supremely and most of all, for the family? "Why, she manages the home and has charge of the house and what goes on there." And why does she do this ? What motive would she have? "As to that," you assert, "it requires no motive. She does it because she loves us all, because of her affection for every one in the home." Yet there is that other motive which should be behind the love, and which we ought not to over- look. What did we call it? What name did we give to it? "Duty?" Yes, that is the word. It is the mother's duty to take care of the home. "But sometimes," you insist, "the father may not be living; or if he is an invalid, then perhaps she has to go out and work for the living of the family." True. This also happens. And it is sad enough when it must occur. But according to the rule of life, as we say, the mother's work should be in the home. In speaking of this duty which fathers and moth- ers owe to the family and especially to the children, tO' the young there, suppose I should ask you why they owe this duty to their children? "As to that," you say, "there is no reason why. It just ought to be so." But if there were other children of other homes in need of help, should they not do as much for those other children? "No, not to the same extent or in the same way," you assure me. DUTIES IN THE HOUE. 53 And why not? I ask. Why do parents owe the first duty to their children ? "Oh, it is because these are their children." Yes, that is the whole point. No other reason is called for. The parents' first duty in human relations, as we say, is to their children. ISemory Oem. "He that refuseth correction despiseth his own soul; "But he that hearkeneth to reproof getteth understanding." Foluts of the liesson. I. That in the relations of home life, father and mother are first of all to be obeyed by the children. II. That parents deserve to be obeyed for one reason, because of what they do for their children, the sacrifices they make in that direction. III. That father and mother deserve gratitude from their children, even for the very sternness and discipline which they display. IV. That father and mother are, most of all, pained by rebellion, the "I won't," from their children. V. That true gratitude is one possible way by which chil- dren may make some return to their parents for what is being done for them. VI. That it is mainly the father who earns the means of subsistence for the family, and the mother who has charge of the home. VII. That the parents' first care and obligation has to be for the children in the home, because these are their children. Duties. /. It is the father's duty to provide a living for his home and family. II. It is a mother's duty to take charge of the home and manage the work of the home. III. It is the duty of children to obey their fathers and mothers. IV. It is the duty of children to show gratitude to their fathers and mothers, as children and always. Foem. The clock is on the stroke of six, The father's work is done; 54 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Sweep up the hearth and mend the fire. And put the kettle on ! The wild night-wind is blowing cold, 'Tis dreary crossing o'er the wold. He's crossing o'er the wold apace; He's stronger than the storm; He does not feel the cold, not he, His heart it is too warm: For father's heart is stout and true As ever human bosom knew. He makes all toil, all hardship light; Would all men were the same. So ready to be pleased, so kind, So very slow to blame ! Folks need not be unkind, austere, For love hath readier will than fear ! And we'll do all that father likes. His wishes are so few ! Would they were more! that every hour Some wish of his I knew ! I'm sure it makes a happy day, When I can please him any way. I know he's coming, by this sign : The baby's almost wild ; See how he laughs, and crows, and stares ; — Heaven bless the merry child ! He's father's self in face and limb, And father's heart is strong in him. Hark ! hark ! I hear his footsteps now — He's through the garden gate; Run, little Bess, and ope the door, And do not let him wait! Shout, baby, shout, and clap thy hands ! For father on the threshold stands. — Mary Howell. Portlier Sng'g'eatlons to the Teachers. If thought best, the teacher could devote an entire lesson to the one phase of the subject, in considering wliat parents do for their children.. Too much can- not be made of this point. The pupils' attention should be cultivated in this direction, so that they shall be more quick to observe and note the many DUTIES IN THE HOME. SS things done foT them by their parents. The points of the lesson are thrown together somewhat mis- cellaneously. Some of them could be omitted if one prefers to do so. The teacher is warned not to go far into the subject of obedience; inasmuch as one or two entire lessons will be reserved for this later on. But we may as well introduce it at the start, inas- much as it is about the first thought which comes to the young mind in talking of the connection between children, on the one hand, and their parents, on the other. The emphasis of the dialogue is mainly on the relation of the parent to the child. It may be considered by some as a point of questionable pro- priety, whether the duties of a father or mother to the home and the family should be introduced or dwelt upon in speaking of the ethics of the home ex- clusively to children; inasmuch as it might encour- age them too much to pass judgment on the conduct of their parents. On the other hand, we desire to lodge in the minds of the young the great elemental or fundamental duties of life in all the relations within the family. The purpose of these lessons is not merely to influence the conduct of the children at the special time while these talks are being carried on. 'We wish also to fix certain sentiments in their minds or leave certain permanent suggestions there. Most of these young people are to grow up, to have families of their own and to assume the responsibili- ties which all this implies. Perhaps it would be well, therefore, early in life to suggest to them the few leading duties which may devolve upon them in this direction in the future. They are not to be encour- aged to point out the duties for their own fathers and mothers, but — if this phase is treated at all — to be led rather in thought to the time when they themselves may become fathers and mothers. An- other method, when touching on these great ele- S6 DUTIES IN THE HOM£. mental duties, might be just to name them, put therrt down solemnly without much discussion; reserving the analysis or detail study for the duties pertaining more especially to the conduct of the young at this particular time. There may, however, be exceptions even here, as we shall see in considering further the duties between members of the family when the chil- dren have passed into maturity. It will be noticed that we have laid more emphasis in this chapter on the father than on the mother. The reason for this is that we devote a special lesson in the series exclu- sively to the subject of the mother and what we owe to our mothers. For illustration, try in connection with this lesson to get some pictures treating of father or mother in what he or she does for the home — for instance, one of a father working in the field or at an office desk, showing the parent earning in this manner the means of subsistence for the home. Besides this, secure another of a mother at work in the home, perhaps repairing the clothing of her chil- dren, or doing some kind of work necessary for the care of the home. Also introduce pictures showing the stern look of judgment on a father's face when he is pained by the bad conduct of his children. CHAPTER IV. CHILDREN IN THEIR RELATION TO FATHER AND MOTHER. Proverbs or Verses. "Better the child cry than the old man." "Children are certain cares but uncertain comforts.'' "Children, like tender osiers, take the bow, And as they first are fashioned always grow." — Juvenal. "Give to a pig when it grunts and a child when it cries, and you will have a fine pig and a bad child." Dialogue. Do you recall the word we used in the last lesson in explaining the feeling we should have toward father and mother, in return for what they do for us ? Will one of you write it down for all of us to see. Yes, that is it — Gratitude. Now suppose there was someone else in the house, not a son or daughter of your father or mother, per- haps some grown person. What if your father or mother did almost as much for that other individual as they did for you? What if they waited on him, took care of him when he was sick, tried in every way to make him happy as a member of the home? Would there be exactly the same reason, I ask, why such a person should obey your father and mother as there would be why you should obey them? "No," you answer, "there would be a differ- ence." In what way, do you mean? He ought to feel just as much gratitude. Then why should he not also obey your father and mother? "Oh, it would be otherwise with such a person, because he is grown up." Yes, but even so, why 57 58 DUTIES IN THE HOME. should that make any difference; why should he not be in the same position as yourselves? "To begin with," you add, "he knows more than we do, if he is a grown person." Yes, you are right, grown people know more than children do ; we must admit that they have had more experience. Can you see from what you have just told me, another reason why you should obey your father and mother? Suppose they did not do for you all the things which you have previously described, yet would there not be a reason why you should obey them? "Yes, we should obey them perhaps because they know more than we do." In what directions, by the way, do they know more than you do? Are they better judges about everything, than you are? "Yes," you admit, "about everything." Are you sure of that? What about playing games? Are they always better judges about base- ball, for example, than you are ? Do they know how to run better than you do? "No, there are some things the child can do better than the father or mother." "Yes, that is true; when it comes to play, you may know more about it than your parents. Tell me, however, some things that they know more about than you do. What is it, for instance, that they possess in much greater degree than you ? Have you ever met with the word "experience?" What does the word mean? When a man or woman says, "I have had a great deal of experience," what does it imply? "Going through things," you suggest? Yes, I see what you have in mind. Suppose a person has to travel over a long and winding road which he has not been over before; when he is at the end has he not learned something DUTIES IN THE HOME. 59 which he did not previously know ? If he had to go back over that road, he would know better how to do it the next time, would he not? "Yes, indeed," you exclaim. You see, that comes from having had "experience." Did you ever hear of "life" being spoken of as a "journey?" "Sometimes?" And what sense does it convey to you? "Why, it implies that one has to go through new experiences, finding out how to act and what to do, just as one would do in traveling through a new coimtry." By the way, let me read you a reply made some thousands of years ago by an old man, showing the same feeling. It comes down to us from the Bible. This was the answer of Jacob to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who had asked Jacob how old he was: "The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years ; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of th?ir pilgrimage." You see in this the suggestion of life being a jour- ney, and it is beautifully experessed. I advise you now to put down this point we have just made. Write the words "more experience" in your notes or on the blackboard. Name over to me, will you, some special things in which fathers and mothers have had more experi- ence, or know more about than you do. Count them over, one by one, all that you can think of. "They know what will injure us or make us sick?" Yes, that is true. But cannot you tell for yourself what will hurt you? Do you recall any proverb touching on that point ; something about burnt child and the fire? "A burnt child dreads the fire ?" Yes. What else do they know, more than you do? Haw about the things that would make you happy? 6o DUTI^ IN THE ,HOME. Are they better judges than you on that point ? "Oh no," you exclaim, "we know better what makes us happy, what we hke or disHke." Yes, perhaps you are right. Wait a moment, however; do not be too sure. Suppose you did something which gave you a lot of pleasure to-day, but spoiled your pleasure for a week afterward ; do you see how that could happen ? Did you ever hear of a person eating so much of a cer- tain kind of food which he liked, that he never cared for it any more? Do you think a person could eat so much honey or other sweets, that he would never like to taste them again for the rest of his life? "You don't know?" I can assure you that this is possible. If a person does that, does he not spoil his pleasure for some fu- ture time? Can you see, then, after all, how a father and mother may sometimes be better judges as to what will really give you pleasure or make you happy in the long run, than you are, yourselves? Please observe those words I use, "in the long run." You may know what will give you pleasure just now. But an older person may judge better what will give this to you by and by, or what will add to the happiness of your whole life. If you knew more about arithmetic and geography than your father or mother does, would that make you any better judges as to what would be better for your welfare in other ways? "Why not?" you ask. For my part I doubt it. Keep your thoughts on that great word before you, Experience. Try to put trust in the experience of older persons. In the long run, it pays. Note to the Teacher : At this point continue pointing out the directions in which a father or mother know more than children do. If the young people are interested, it would be DUTIES IN THE HOME. 6i well to devote another lesson to this one subject. Go over the ground carefully, not merely in order to suggest other reasons for obedience to parents, but as a means for encouraging the young to have more faith in older people's experience. One of the greatest difficulties in life is to induce anybody to use the experience of others as a partial guidance for themselves. The young as they grow up wish to try everything for them- selves, and may waste many years of their life owing to this mistake. The children may be too young to appreciate this special point; but it should be very carefully in the mind of the teacher all the while in developing the lesson. Ill this way, then, we have found two great rea- sons why one should submit to the authority of father and mother. What are they? Name them over again. "Why, the first one is that father and mother have done so much for us." Yes ; and what is the second ? "Because they know so much more than we do?" True ; but we have not come to the end of the sub- ject. Suppose at this moment you could not think of anything which your father and mother had done for you. What if you discovered that you knew a great many things they do not know, and that they know less than you at first assumed ; would you feel it right in that case to disobey your parents, or to act in a way that would displease them? "No?" But why not? If you could not think of any reason why you should be grateful to them, or point out any directions in which they knew more than you did, why should you care to please them ? "Because we are fond of them or love them," you add. You mean, do you, that you like to do what peo- ple that you like, like to have you do; is that it? Is that always so ? "No, not quite always," you admit. If there were somebody else, not your father or mother, whom you loved very much, would you feel that you ought always to obey him, even if he knew more than you did, or were to do a great deal for 62 DUTIES IN THE HOME. you? "No, perhaps not always, even if one were very fond of him." You assume, do you, that there are times when you must choose for yourself in so far as other peo- ple's wishes are concerned, provided they are not your parents? If that is so, it implies that even love for your father or mother is not the sole reason why you should obey them. Suppose there were adopted children in the family, would they have exactly the same motive or incen- tive for obeying that you have? "You think so?" Stop now ; I wish to dwell on that point a little. Is there not a difference, after all? They ought to obey, that is certain. But have they all your motives for obedience? "Yes," you urge, "all and more." Why more? "Oh, if they are not really members of the family, and yet are treated as such, they ought to feel even more gratitude." But you have not an- swered my question. Is there not a reason for your obeying your parents, which they could not feel? What would be the difference between your position and their's? "Why, they are adopted." Yes, I ask, but what do you mean by "adopted?" "Oh," you explain, "father and and mother are not their real parents." Now we have come to the point I want you espe- cially to think about. Will one of you write down for us now the greatest reason of all why children should obey their parents. Please all of you watch carefully. This is the great point of all : "Because they are our fathers and mothers." Stop right there; that is the all-im^rtant lesson for us to-day. We obey our parents when we are young, not mainly for the sake, of reasons, but just "because they are father and mother." Did you ever hear anything about the word DUTIES IN THE HOME. O3 "piety?" I wonder if you know how it originated. It means devotion, does it not? Do you know, at one time in early history it impHed devotion to father and mother? That was one of the oldest meanings of the word. See how much is suggested by that fact. Npte to the Teacher : Explain further about the history of the word "piety." Those who have read Virgil will recall the celebrated example he gives. The later religious significance of the word could be mentioned. But now before we come to the end of our sub- ject of obedience, let me ask you another question. Would it ever be right, under any circumstances, to disobey? "'No, never," some of you say? Suppose, however, as may happen in very rare cases, a father or mother should command a child to do something absolutely wrong, to strike or maim a younger brother or sister, for example; would it be right for the child to do it ? "Oh, no !" That would be disobedience, would it not? "Yes?" And yet I see a look of hesitation on your faces. Perhaps you mean that when something is absolutely wrong, to disobey under those circum- stances would not amount to quite the same thing. But what if you had been told to stay in the house with your younger brother or sister, and not, under any circumstances, to leave until your father or mother came back. Now suppose the house took fire and was beginning to bum down, do you think you ought to stay there? You know the famous little poem, "Casabianca," about "the boy on the burning deck." What do you think about him? Did he do right ? "Perhaps he carried obedience too far," you sug- gest. If so, why is it that somehow in spite of our- selves we seem to admire him for what he did, even if it was a mistake? 64 DUTIES IN THE HOME. "It may be," yon point out, "that we have this feehng because at any rate he showed such loyalty to the will of his parent, even to the extent of giving up his life rather than to disobey." Yes, I sympathize with your point. Even if it was an error on his part, it calls forth a feeling of awe from us, because of our respect for the principle of obedience itself. We see, more and more, how it is that the peace and happiness of the home life depiend on the readi- ness of the children to submit their wishes to the authority and better judgment of their parents. If, however, there are occasions when one may feel called vipon to disobey, do you think this occurs very oftai? "No," you confess, "probably not." But is it passible that some children may be in- clined to make these exceptions often? I ask. "It depends on the individual ?" But if they do this, how do you account for it? "As to that," you point out, "they may like to use this plea as an excuse." Yes, that is true; it will happen over and over again. Young people must take care under this temptation, for it will come to them again and again. The exceptions to the rule of obedience should be few and rare. Slemoiy Geiu. "My son, hear the instruction of thy father, "And forsake not the teachings of thy mother." Points of the l^essou. I. That children should submit to their fathers and moth- ers, because they have less knowledge of the world, than their parents. II. That children should submit to the authority of the home, because they have had less experience than their fathers and mothers. III. That parents deserve obedience from their children first and supremely, just because it is right, reason or no reason. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 65 IV. That submission to the authority of the parent is a rule established by all the history of the world and coming to us from the earliest times, as we see in the history of the word "Piety." V. That the exceptions to the rule of submission on the part of the young should be few and rare. The rule of obedience is to be broken only under most extraordinary cir- cumstances, if at all. Duties. /. We ought as children to obey our parents just because they are our fathers and mothers. II. '■ We ought to respect the superior nnsdom and experience of our fathers and mothers. III. We ought to submit to the authority of the home even when we cannot always understand the reasons for our obedience. Poem. You are going to do great things, you say- But what have you done? You are going to win in a splendid way, As others have won; You have plans that when they are put in force Will make you sublime : You have mapped out a glorious upward course — But why don't you climb? You're not quite ready to start, you say; If you hope to win The time to be starting is now— to-day— Don't dally, begin! No man has ever been ready as yet, Nor ever will be : You may fail ere you reach where your hopes are set- But try it and see. You are going to do great things, you say. You have splendid plans; Your dreams are of heights that are far away ; They're a hopeful man's — But the world, when it judges the case for you At the end, my son, Will think not of what you were gomg to do, But of what you've done. — ^- E. Kiser. 66 DUTIES IN THE HOME. rurther Sn^rg-estlonB to the Teaclier. The point in the above lesson as to the occasions when disobedience may be justified is an exceed- ingly delicate one, and should be handled with the greatest care. Perhaps it might be left out of the discussion altogether. Under any circumstances, we must make the young people feel that the excep- tions to the rule should be exceedingly rare. And yet we may be driven to touch on the question in one form or another, inasmuch as it will be sure to arise in the minds of the young. The significance of this whole lesson is to be found in the words, "because they are father and mother." We ought not, how- ever, to introduce the words "obey," and "obedi- ence" too often, lest they become tiresome. We are dealing rather with the broad theme of the surrender of one's self to the Authority of the Home. Wc may, therefore, find other terms quite as serviceable for our purpose of discussion ; as, for instance, sub- mitting one's will, surrendering one's wishes, giv- ing in to authority, or being willing not to have one's \\'ay all the time. For illustration, any pictures would be senviceable which bring out the superior wisdom or experience of the father or mother. On the other hand, we might introduce scenes showing the father or mother watching over a sick child, as ex- amples of strong parental love. A story or picture of a father explaining something to his child would have great significance. In this general connec- tion, there is the exquisite story of "Raggylug," the cattontail rabbit, by Ernest Thompson-Seton. CHAPTER V. REGARD AND REVERENCE FOR FATHER AND MOTHER. Proverbs or Verses. "One is always somebody's child ; that is a comfort." "All that I am, my mother made me." — /. Q. Adams. "The fire burns brightest on one's own hearth." "If the child cries, let the mother hush it; if it will not be hushed, let it cry." Dialog-ue. What else do we owe to father and mother besides gratitude, submission and obedience? Suppose we always did exactly what they told us to do; but if we knew they were doing something in which we could help them, and we did not go and offer assist- ance, do you think we should be acting in the right way toward them ? If father or mother has a headache, or is very tired from work, and you make a great deal of noise, and cause them to feel more tired and so the headache becomes still worse — are you then be- having quite right toward them, even if you do not di.sobey them? Is there anything else that you owe them, would you say? "To care for their feelings and their hap- piness?" Yes; that means a great deal. Describe some of the ways by which you could show a care for the feelings or the happiness of your parents. "When they want something, to go and get it at once?" True, that is one way. "When they are tired to try to keep still so as not to disturb them ?" Yes, that is another way. 67 68 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ETut continue. You have only made a beginning in your suggestions on this point. What else could you do? 'Oh," you add, "one could make little presents for them." Certainly. That is something we should always think of. Do you mean, by the way, presents just at Christmas time? "No," you hesitate. What, then? "Why, one could make little gifts at any time or at all times." Yes, that is something we should con- sider. But go on with your list. "Oh, we might help take care of the other chil- dren, relieve father or mother from special services which they have usually rendered to their little ones." True. In that direction there is an opportunity for rendering a great deal of help to one's parents. And besides this? "Well," you say, "one could run errands." Does that imply doing services just when you are asked to perform them by father or mother ? ' No, one could think for one's self of ways of running errands or saving work for one's par- ents." Is there anything which girls especially could do, in the home? "Surely, they could help in the housework b}'' taking little burdens off the mother's shoulders, besides trying, themselves, tO' make as little work or trouble for their mothers as possible." And how about the boys ? Should they undertake to do housework ? "Not exactly of the same kind ?" But is there no direction in which they can be of service about the house or abode? "Oh yes, they might help in repairs or in fixing things when they get broken, and by this means save the necessity of calling in assistance from the outside." And how in a general way might we describe what young people in the home could do for their fathers and mothers in the mat'tei- of service? What if we should say that children can "wait on their bUTlES IN THE HOME. 69 parents?" That covers a pretty wide field, does it not? Note to the Teacher : Lead the children to point out many other ways by which they could give pleasure to their fathers and mothers. Make as long a catalogue as possible. Dwell on this point a great deal and carry it on much further. You say that you owe it to your parents to try to make them happy, and to do things in many ways for them. But is that all that you owe to them? Suppose you read of a case in another country, — for we certainly hope and trust this never happens where we live — of the father of some boy becoming intoxicated or doing something else equally bad. Would you say that such a boy should feel about this just the same as if it were done by a stranger? Should he blame his father or feel angry with him exactly as if he were judging the conduct of an outside person? "Yes," you assert. But now stop and think. If you saw a man intoxicated, who was making trouble in the street, you would perhaps tell a police- man about it. But suppose in another part of the world a child lived in an unhappy home where the father was given to drunkainess, and he saw his parent intoxicated on the street, — if you were there, would you advise him to call the police? "No," you admit, "we should advise the boy to try and get his father home or to keep the people from seeing him; he should try to shield his father." What, then, makes the difference? "Oh, he should act in that way because it would be his father." ' Note to the Teacher : This point should be introduced only when we know personally about the homes of the pupils. We must not suggest to children that their fathers could do such things. It is ai delicate illustration— to be used, if at all. 70 DUTIES IN THE HOME. only after much consideration and with the exercise of the greatest discretion. What, then, do children owe to parents besides obedience and care for their happiness, — what sort of a solemn feeling, I mean? 'Reverence?" Yes, we owe them a kind of reverence. No matter what a father or mother may do, even though it were something bad or wicked, as might happen among another class of people from our- selves, do you assume that children ought to feel quite the same about it as if it were done by a stran- ger? "No," you confess, "not if it has been done by a parent." But now tell me further. In saying that you owe reverence to your father and mother, what does this really imply? Suppose you treat your parents kindly and care for their happiness ; but what if you talk lightly about them to others ? Is there anything bad in speaking of one's father to other children as the "governor?" Did you ever hear that term used? What names do careless, boys and girls when talking among themselves sometimes give to their parents? Why do they do this? Do you see any harm in it? "Why, no," you exclaim, "it does not mean anything." But ask your- selves : what if your father or mother should hear you use such words; would you care? "Yes," you hesitate. Why? "Because one might be punished for it?" Perhaps. If you know, however, that they would not punish you; would you still mind? "Yes," you admit, "one would a little rather they had not heard it." In what way? "One would feel a little bit ashamed?" If so, let me ask you another thing. Perhaps there is an individual whom you like very much, some other boy or girl, for example. Now DUTIES IN THE HOME. 71 what if you hear somebody speaking rather con- temptously or using nicknames about that person whom you are fond of; how would you feel? "One would resent it, of course," you answer. Why so? It does not hurt the person himself. "No ; yet one would resent it." What if you were told that some other boy had been using contemptuous nicknames about you; would you care? "Oh," you say, "it depends on who the boy is." What difference would that make? "We mean," you explain, "we should care, if it were a boy that we liked; we should not want to have such a boy use nicknames about us." Why not? "Because it would show that he did not like us as much as we thought he did." Do you think he could gO' on using nicknames about you and still continue as fond of you as ever ? Would he not begin to feel contemptuously toward you if he used contemptuous names when speaking of you? Is it possible, then, that in speaking of one's father as the "governor," or using some other con- temp.tuous name, one would begin to feel less rever- ence for him? Who is hurt or injured most, if such words are used by you — yourself or your father? Would it injure your parent at all? "It might not do him any harm, if it is only done among children," you add. Why, then, should it matter ? I ask. "Perhaps it might affect one's feelings for him," you suggest; "or make one look upon him with less regard; one might not feel as much reverence for him as before." You assume, therefore, that you owe reverence to father and mother. Let me ask you a little further about that. Don't you owe reverence to e\'ery human being, at least in one sense? 72 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Why is it worse to do a wrong to a parent than to other people? What if, for example, you had done something by mistake, unintentionally, and given pain to your parents ? Would it be any worse than if you had done the same thing towards some- body else whom you loved very much ? 4 Suppose a child becomes separated when quite young from his home by some unfortunate accident, and then grows up to manhood and is guilty of a crime, does something very wicked. It is some- thing awful to think of, — yet it might happen. Now if he should discover that, unbeknown to himself at the time, the person against whom this crime had been committed was his own father, do you think it would make any difference in his feel- ings? If, for instance, he should repent of the wrong he had done, would he be inclined to repent more or feel more guilty, in case he became aware that the wrong had been done against his own parents? "Perhaps he would," you admit. But why? Wrong is wrong, a crime is a crime. "Yes," you insist, "but it would be a crime against one's own father." You are right. As a matter of fact, from the earliest times there has been a feeling of this kind, as if there were something peculiarly sacred or sol- emn in the relation between child and parent. Do you know, for instance, what has been looked upon as the most awful crime a human being could com- mit? "Murder?" Yes; but murder of whom? It is something dreadful to talk about; yet we really ought to consider this point. "Probably," you sug- gest, "it has been father- or mother-murder." True. I suspect that almost everywhere this opinion has prevailed. And it shows what solemn DUTIES IN THE HOME. 73 feelings people have had with regard to the relation- ship between child and parent. It is said, by the way, that in one far-away coun- try, some persons had even carried this feeling of awe for parent relationship so far, that they actually pay a kind of worship to their ancestors. Do you know anything about China? It is a big country, is it not? Perhaps there are more people in that empire than in any other coun- try in the world. It is especially among that people, where you would find this worship of ancestors. They have altars and make sacrifices on those altars in honor of their ancestors, as if this worship were a kind of religion. 'But that is not right," you assert. True. We do not approve of this, at all. But does it not show how strong the feeling must be among that people as to the sacredness of the rela- tionship between the child and parent, that they should mistakenly carry it so far as even to make a religion O'f it? Note to the Teacher : In the above discussion as to father or mother murder, of course we have in mind the story of King CEdipus. It could be introduced and told effectually here, if desired. To come back now for a moment to the every-day life in the home. Do you ever tease your father or mother for anything? What do we mean by this habit? "To keep on asking for something over and over again when it was refused at first." Is that all ? Well, do you see any harm in that form of per- sistence ? Why do you suppose your father and mother refuse a request from you ? Is it because they assume it would not be best for you that they should grant it? Do you believe you would respect and reverence your parents as much, if they should give in to you 74 DUTIES IN tHE HOME. whenever you tease them, although they feel that it is a mistake on their part ? How do you fancy people look when they tease for favors ? Do you respect other children or young people as much when you hear them doing this ? What class of persons, for example, are more given to this habit, — children or grown people ? "Oh, children, of course!" But why are you so sure? "Because grown people are not obliged to ask favors of their fathers and mothers. They are more free to do as they please." Yes, but they may need favors of another kind, I insist. It may not be necessary for them to appeal to their parents in this way, but they could tease their friends or acquaintances, just as you might tease in the home. Why is it that they do not do it to the same extent? "Perhaps for the reason that it would not look dig- nified ; if they did it often they would lose their self- respect and begin to feel ashamed of themselves." Yes, but why should this cause them to lose their self-respect? "Oh, it would imply that they we^e acting like little children, or being childish." Do you mean to say that one ought to be ashamed of this? "Yes, if one were grown up, — ^perhaps so under any circumstances or at any age." But we sometimes speak admiringly of the "child- like" nature, or "childlike" conduct. People have written about this enthusiastically in stories or poems. "Yes, indeed," you point out, "but that is not the same thing as childishness." And what is the difference? I ask. "Why, being childish means not displaying self-control." Yqu are right. We always like "childlike" children, but we never like "childish" ones. And why not, do you suppose? "Oh, because the DUTIES IN THE HOME. 75 "childish" ones make themselves disagreeable; we feel somehow as if they would always act in that way even when grown up." You assume, then, do you, that one may be child- like toward one's parents, but should never be child- ish, because it would indicate weakness and lack of self-control on the part of any person at any age; and especially if one behaves in that way towards one's parents, it implies a want of true respect for them. Memory Qem. "Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.'' Points of the KesEon. I. That parents deserve regard and reverence from their children. II. That children can show regard for their parents by serving them in all sorts of ways, or looking out for the happiness of their parents. III. That reverence is due to one's parents, just because they are father and mother. IV. That it is wrong to use nicknames or contemptuous language about one's parents, even in fun. V. That crime against one's parents has usually been con- sidered the worst of all possible crimes. VI. That the regard for parents has gone so far as to develop a worship of ancestors, as among the Chinese. VII. That teasing one's parents shows a lack of regard or reverence for them. VIII. That one may be child-like, but should never be childish, if one is to show a true regard for father and mother. Duties. /. We ought to be most considerate of the feel- ings of our fathers and mothers. II. We ought to try to give our fathers and mothers as little pain or unhappiness as possible. III. We ought to show respect and reverence for our fathers and mothers in the language we use in speaking of them. IV. We owe a solemn regard and reverence to 76 DUTIES I^f THE HOMfi. our parents just because they are our fathers and mothers. Posta. Mine be a cot beside the hill; A bee-hive"s hum shall soothe my ear ; A willowy brook that turns a mill With many a fall shall linger near. The swallow, oft beneath my thatch Shall twitter from her clay-built nest; Oft shall the pilgrim lift the latch, And share my meal, a welcome guest. Around my ivied porch shall spring Each fragrant flower that drinks the dew; And Lucy, at her wheel, shall sing. In russet gown and apron blue. The village church among the trees, Where first our marriage-vows were given. With merry peals shall swell the breeze And point with taper spire to heaven. — Samuel Rogers. Surther Sng'g'estioiis to the Teacher. Make a good deal of the distinction between being childish and childlike. Point otit how it is that the latter habit implies wanting to do something which might injure one in the future, just for the sake of a momentary gratification. We are to make the children realize that teasing shows a want of true regard for the parent. The effectiveness of this whole lesson must naturally depend to a great extent on the home environment of the pupils. Inevitably there may be the sad exceptions which have to be taken into consideration. Now and then cases occur where it is almost essential that the child should abandon respect for one of the parents in order to be able to be loyal to the other. Yet all the while we should be anxious to instill a peculiar feeling of awe for parenthood as parenthood. We are not to carry this point so far, however, as to work pos- DUTIES IN THE HOME. ^^ sible injury to the young. The happiness or success of their Uves is not to be sacrificed beyond a certain point, even for the sake of their parents. The aim before vis is to awaken a certain sense of reverence for the principle of fatherhood or motherhood, for the relationship itself — if this can be done — distinct from the feeling for particular fathers or mothers, who under certain exceptional circumstances may be unworthy of it. In this, as in some of the other les- sons, therefore, we must proceed with care and enter upon the discussion only after we have acquired some knowledge of the pupils in our class, and of their home environment. For the most part, in discus- sions of this kind, we can only deal with average homes and average situations. The story of King CEdipus, to which we have alluded, might form the subject of a lesson by itself. It gives a vivid pres- entation of the one chief principle formulated in this chapter. For illustration, any typical picture of a father or mother could be introduced. But perhaps the best course to pursue would be to get a scene from biography or history showing some eminent persons in the past, who had been worthy of special regard or reverence for what they had done for their children, and to whom their children had always shown this feeling. Perhaps a picture could be found of a child in some way giving evidence of the high regard he felt for his parents. CHAPTER VI. AMONG THE CHILPREN IN THE HOME. Proverbs or Verses. "Childhood shows the man as morning shows the day." "A brothel's sufferings claim a brother's pity." — Addison. "An hour of play discovers more than a year of conversa- tion." "It is well to leave off playing when the game is at the best." "Play not with a man until you hurt him, nor jest until you shame him." "Who would be young in age, Must in youth be sage." "It is hard to put old heads on young shoulders." Dialogue. Who else may belong to the home, besides father and mother, have we said? "Why, the children, of course." And what do they have to do with one another there? In what ways do they meet, for example? "At the table?" Yes ; and under what other circumstances are they thrown together? "Oh, in play, besides." You mean, do you, that the children in the home sometimes play together ? Is this always customary ? I ask. "No," you add, "not unless they are nearly of the same age." But under what conditions do they all meet with one another in the home? "Well," you continue, "they are together oftentimes in their studies." Is it the same, also, at school? "No, perhaps not at school, because while there, they may be in different rooms or under different teachers." How is it so, then, at home? I ask. 78 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 79 "Why, they may be with one another in prepar- ing their work for school, in studying their lessons around the table." Yes; and besides are there any other circum- stances under which they may come together in the home? Do you suppose it happens in all families that children never have anything to do other than to study their lessons or amuse themselves in play ? "On the contrary, many of them have to do some work in the house, assist in taking care of the home, perhaps help to look after the younger children." Then you assume that the children may come to- gether in play, or in their studies, or at the dining table, or in the work they have to do for the home or for one another. But what part of the household life do children enjoy the most, — ^their studies, for example? "No?" Their work, would you say, where they have to do something for the home or wait on one another? "No, indeed!" you exclaim. How about the pleas- ures of the dinner or supper table? "Oh, they always enjoy that!" But that, most of all? "No, probably they get the most pleasure out of play." Why do children like to play? "You do not know? They just like it?" Yes, that is about it, I fancy. There is no special reason, they just like it. But when as brothers and sisters they play together and work together and study together, do they all seem just alike ? "No," you assert, "not by any manner of means." In what ways do they differ? "Oh, they may not look alike, they may have different dispositions, they are not the same persons at all; then, too, they ar^ not of the same age." But I should like to ask you : in their relations together at play or over their studies, or in helping to do the work of the home or at the supper table. 8o DUTIES IN THE HOME. do you think that one child ought to obey another child in the home, a brother or sister, just as one would be expected to obey father and mother, — what do you say ? Note to the Teacher: Begin at this point to ask the chil- dren a variety of questions which shall draw out the contrasts between their relationships to one another in the family, on tl':e one hand, and their relationships to father and mother, on the other. In the second place, introduce a series of questions involving their general relations to one another, irrespective of differences in age or sex, what they owe to one another, and what they receive from one another. "You think not ?" And why not ? They are your brothers and sisters? "Yes, but there is a differ- ence," you insist. "Father and mother know a great deal more than we do ; they are much older than w. are; they have taken care of us for many years ; they have done a great deal more for us than our brothers and sisters have done." All very true. You have said that you owe obedience and rev- erence to your parents. Yet you feel that this is not due from you to your brothers and sisters. "No," you assert, "not in the same way." Do you owe anything to them, which you do not owe to people of your own age who are not members of the family? "Yes, indeed!" What if some friend has done a great deal for you, perhaps more than any of your sisters and brothers have done, would you pay more regard or be under more obligation to him than to your brothers and sisters? "It would seem that way?" But why? "Oh, because he has done more for us." That is true. But then, is there not another point to be consid- ered? Is it just the same kind of a feeling which you have for a friend, that you would have for brothers and sisters ? What if a friend of yours were in trouble, and a brother or sister were also in difficulty, which one DUTIES IN THE HOME. 8l would you be expected to help first? "Brother or sister ?" Are you sure of that? "Well, one ought to feel in that way at any rate," you confess. I think per- haps you would take that attitude in most cases, although people do not always act in that manner. But why ought you to care first to help a brother or sister ? Because they have done more for you, do you mean? "No," you add, "for they have done less, sometimes." Then why is it? "Because they are our brothers and sisters." Yes, that is the supreme consideration. What was the great reason we gave why you owed obedience and reverence to your father and mother ? "Just because they are father and mother?" Yes, surely. You likewise assume, then, do you, that more is due from you to your brothers and sisters, because they are your brothers and sisters. What was the word we applied to those relationships? "Sacred?" Yes, we owe more to these members of our early home, and must think about them first even before our friends, because these are "sacred relationships." What is the real point of difference, after all, between your relationships to your brothers and sis- ters and to your personal friends? Think for a moment. Do you make your friends all at once? "No?" Then have you had these friends always? "No?" How is it that you have friends at all ? "One forms those ties gradually for one's self," you assure me. Is it the same with the ties between brothers and sisters ? "No, we are bonn into these relationships." Yes, that is the point. We do not start them, ourselves^ do we? We were born into them. And that makes them more significant, does it not ? 82 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Suppose, for example, that a brother or sist^ of yours, did something that was bad. Would you feel about it just the same as if it were done by some person on the outside, or by one of your personal friends ? Would you be just as angry and be ,as desirous that he should be punished? "Yes," you say, "we think we should." But would that be quite right? It would make you thore sorry, surely; you would be more unhappy because your brother or sister had done something wrong? "Yes, perhaps we should be more sorry," you admit. How, then, could you be quite as angry or have just the same feeling in either case? "It might not be quite the same kind of feeling," you confess. Why not? I ask again. "Because, in the one case one is dealing with a member of one's own family ; one would not want tO' have him pun- ished quite as one would want to have people on the outside punished." Is that a right feeling? "Yes, because, after all, it is one's sister or brother." Suppose when you gi'ow up and come to be sep- arated and perhaps as brothers and sisters may be living in different cities, you should hear of some- thing very unfortunate which had happened to one of your sisters or brothers. Possibly it would be the loss of an arm in a railway accident, or some other personal injury. On the other hand, what if the same thing should happen to some acquaintance or friend ? Which accident would be liable to affect or shock you more? "Perhaps the one which happened to a brother or sister?" But why so? You might love your friend very much. Possibly you would actu- ally take more pains to make your friend happy, than you would for your grown brother or sister. "Yes," you explain, "but that is not quite the DUTIES IN THE HOME. 83 same; if something should happen to a member of one's family, one would be more shocked or startled, more troulDled, than if it happened to a personal friend." Why? I keep asking. "As to that," you say, "we do not know just why ; we only feel that there would be a difference." But consider further. What is the situation in early life among brothers and sisters? Does each one have liis own way and take care of himself and not have anything to do for others? "Oh, no, it is just the contrary; we always have to be giving up something for the sake of the others." Yes, and how about the others for you? "It is just the same; they have to be doing other things for us ; they cannot always have their own way; sometimes they have to stay at home when they want to go out for pleasure, just on our account, because we may be sick or need their care; perhaps when they want some money to spend for themselves, they cannot have it because the money is needed for us." Yes, those are some of the experiences showing how one has to make sacrifices or give up what one wants, because one is a member of a home." Any- thing else, besides? How about what we eat and drink or what we like for food? Must our tastes be interfered with sometimes, on account of the other children in the home? "Yes, this will happen also." And what about the clothes one would like to have ? Does one sometimes have to surrender one's wishes on this point also, for the sake of the others ? "Certainly." You imply, do you, that one could not have as pretty clothes as one desires, because the money may be needed for other members of the fam- ily? 54 DUTIES IN THE HOME. And do you assume that all the children in the home must be taken together into consideration on this point ? "Yes, indeed !" In what we like to eat and drink, then, or in the clothes we should like to wear, or the amusements we should like to have, or the money we should like to spend, or the books we should like to read and the games we should like to play, or even in the work we most like to do — in all this we may every now and then be obliged to give up our own likings on account of the other children in the home, do you say? "Yes, all this and more besides." Note to the Teacher : Let the children make a long list of the ways in which they have to give up for one another or suffer on one another's account because they are members of the same family. The point is carried out considerably further in the next lesson. Now, is it the same with regard to your experi- ences with your personal friends? Are you often obliged to give up pleasures because those persons cannot have the same pleasures ; or are they obliged to give up their pleasures because you cannot have them ? "No, that is not the case, at least not to the same extent; we like our friends, we are always glad to do something for them; but for the most part each one looks out for one's self in so far as one's friends are concerned." Speaking of this fact that brothers and sisters must have their pleasures interfered with at times, whai there are a number of them in the family, how is it when there is only one child in the home, what interference or "giving up" could there be in such a case? "Not much ?" And do you believe that is a good thing for a child, to be able to have his own way so much? "It would be rather nice," you confess, DUTIES IN THE HOME. 85 Yes, but I asked you, would it be a good thing for the child? "It might make one selfish?" True. Sometimes where there is an only child, he is not liked by his mates because they think him selfish. He do«s not know how to ''give up." "At any rate," you assert, "it is not his blame that he is the only child or has no other brothers and sisters." True, but would it not be worth his while to think about this and beware of the tempta- tions in this direction? Should he not be a little on his guard from the very fact that he is an only child and therefore may be more liable to become selfish or inconsiderate towards others? What could he do, for instance, to check himself in this matter and control himself? "Why," you sug- gest, "he might try toi do a little more for his play- mates, put himself out a little for their sakes, show the same spirit of giving-up toward them, which other children have to show to their brothers and sisters in their homes." But is that all ? Is there any one else in the home, to which an only child might show the spirit of giv- ing-up or unselfishness, even if there are no other brothers and sisters? "Why, of course, there is father or mother." Then you assume, do you, that such boys or girls might take even more pains to be of service to their parents. There is plenty of opportunity for self- sacrifice, I can assure you, if people want to find it. BIemor7 Qem. "Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure and whether it be right." Points of the Iiesson. I. That there is both a play-life and a work-life Tor the children in the home. II. That the needs of our brothers and sisters may have 86 DUTIES IN THE HOME. to come first in our thoughts, or in what we should do for one another, even when we may have friends we are very fond of, who also would be glad of our help or assistance. III. That friendships are made by ourselves ; whereas we are born into the relationship of brothers and sisters. IV. That this latter fact gives a peculiar ' significance to the relationship of the children in the home. V. That even when we are grown up and separated, if an accident or misfortune were to happen to one of our brothers or sisters, it might affect us more than if it were to happen to one of our most immediate friends. VI. That even when a brother or sister should do wrong, we must show a pity and consideration that we would, not perhaps show for an acquaintance. VII. That children in the home must all the while be giving up or making sacrifices of their own desires, for one another's sake. VIII. That if one happens to be an only child and there is less call for giving up on account of other brothers and sisters, there is danger of a growing selfishness, which would have to be checked by other means. IX. That an only child could find other ways of giving up and being unselfish, as, for instance, toward his parents or toward his playmates or companions. Duties. /. We ought to consider the needs or welfare of brothers or sisters, just because they are our brothers or sisters. II. We ought to be ready to give up for one another's sake in the home, just because we are mem- bers of the home. III. We ought to he glad to receive the lessons in self-sacrifice in the home, because of the greater strength of character this may develop in us when we are grown up. Poem. Four little mouths agape forever; Four little throats which are never full ; Four little nestlings, who dissever One big worm, by a mighty pull. Up on a limb — the lazy fellow !— Perches the father, bold and gay. Proud of his coat of black and yellow. Always singing throughout the day. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 87 Close at their side, the watchful mother, Quietly sober in dress and song. Chooses her place, and asks no other, Flying and gleaning all day long. Four little mouths in time grow smaller. Four little throats in time are filled ; Four little nestlings quite appall her. Spreading their wings for the sun to gild. Lazy no longer sits the father, — His is the care of the singing-school ; He must teach them to fly and gather Splendid worms by the nearest pool. Singing away on the shaken branches, Under the light of the happy sun ; Dropping through blossoms like avalanches, — Father Oriole's work is done. Four little beaks their mouths embolden, Four little throats are round and strong; Four little nestlings, fledged and golden. Graduate in the world of song. — Anonymous. Further Sng-ifeEtlons to the Teacher. The last point in the Dialogtie may seem rather abstract and of less importance than the others. It could be passed over without discussion at the dis- cretion of the teacher. At the same time the prob- lem of an only child in. the home is a very serious one, owing to the encouragement in selfishness because of such isolation. The most complete eth- ical development from home associations will come only in those families where there are a number of children including brothers and sisters, and where a certain amount of self-abnegation is necessary on this account. Even if there are no pupils in the class who represent the condition of the only child, yet it may be worth our while to have a consideration of such cases, because of the wider lessons involved. The young people can be led to see how it is that 88 DUTIES IN THE HOME. selfishness is fostered in any situation of life where the individual is not called upon from time to time to sacrifice himself in the interest of others. They should understand that something of this is requisite for the sake of the development of character, and that those persons are actually to be pitied who in early life are privileged for the most part to have their own way. We can show how it is that individuals of this type may have much more painful experiences when they enter the life of the world. On the one hand they may be themselves less lovable and have fewer friends, because of the selfish habits they have formed ; and on the other hand, they will liave much . more trouble in adjusting themselves to conditions whene the sacrifice of one's personal interests becomes absolutely necessary. The teacher in this way may always illustrate his lesson with observa- tions from adult life, because of his larger experi- ence. It is not an easy thing to rejoice in the neces- sity for making sacrifices, and young people may be reluctant to see the point. But the child who does understand this early in life has won an advantage at the start, and is to be congratulated. We do not wish to encourage the pupils to be critical of any special playmate who may be an only child in the home. The unfortunate possibilities in such a case should simply be used as an illustration, in order that the young people may apply this lesson directly to themselves and their own lives. As to the disr- cussion in the Dialogue concerning the attitude of mind on the part of members of the family toward one another in misfortune, when they are grown up, it is to be remembered that there are exceptions to every rule of this kind, and that the principle might be pushed too far. On the other hand, we cannot possibly over-emphasize the peculiar elements involved in the family tie. We must touch upon this DUtlES IN THE HOME. 89 again and again, and make the pupils understand that there is no other relationship in the world quite like that between the members of a home. The fact that we are born into these relationships must be repeat- edly mentioned, and it should always carry with it a special significance. Its supreme importance can be felt even when it is not clearly understood. We do not go far in this chapter into a consideration of the attitude to be taken by the younger to the older chil- dren in the home, or the relations which should exist between brothers and sisters when they are grown up, inasmuch as we shall devote special lessons to these phases of our subject. But we may introduce the points here incidentally in order to emphasize the peculiar ties which should bind together the individ- uals of the same home just because they belong to the same family. For picture illustration, we might show groups of children from the same home while they are at- play or at work together. It is the "together" feature which should be made emphatic by this means. CHAPTER VII. MUTUAL DEPENDENCE AND MUTUAL SERVICE IN THE HOME. Froverljs or Teises. "Be loving and you'll never want for love." — Muloch. "If you love yourself very much, nobody else will love you at all." "Love and light cannot be hid." "Love can make any place agreeable." — Arabian. "Love is the true price at which love is bought." "Love makes labor light." "Love rules his kingdom without a sword." — Italian. "Love sought is good, but given unsought is better." — Shakespeare. "Where can one be happier than in the bosom of his family ?" Dialogue. By the way, before we do anything else to-day, I should like to talk over a little poem with you. Let me give you the title. It is ca'lled "The Old Oaken Bucket." We might read it over aloud, and then you can tell me what you think of it and what it suggests to you. Note to the Teacher: The poem we take up here for discussion will be found in the usual place following the dia- logue, at the end of the chapter. Now what is that all about; what do you make out of it? Do you like it? "Yes, indeed, it is a pretty poem." But what would you say was the subject of it? "Why, it is about the memories of one's boy- hood." And where was that boyhood? Was it in the city, for example? "No, it must have been m the country." Why so? I ask. "Because it talks about the 'wide- go DUTIES IN THE HOME. 91 Spreading pond,' and 'the mill,' and 'the orchard,' and 'the meadow,' and "the field.' " Yes, you are right; it is a poem telling us of a man's recollections about his boyhood in the coun- try. But what should make a man feel in this way ; why should he have such sentiments? Does it not seem like nonsense? What could there be about an oaken bucket, more than about an ordinary glass or pitcher one might drink out of ? It is a mere thing ; there could have been nothing human about it. "Oh, yes," you add, "but there was the pleasure connected with it ; for that was a time when the boy was very happy ; it meant home and all that is con- nected with home." You imply, dO' you, that if a grown man should look back upon his childhood and be thinking of an oaken bucket at some otherplace not his home, where he had stopped to drink, that he would not have the same feelings v/hen recalling the circumstance. "Surely not," you assert. Note to the Teacher : If convenient, show a picture of a well-curb and an oaken bucket, such as we find mentioned in the poem. Do you mean to say that one's recollections of one's childhood in that way are always happy, or that grown people have no painful memories along with the happy ones connected with their childhood? "No, it might not be all happy, by any manner of means." At what times, for instance, or under what circumstances would a child be unhappy in the home? "When one cannot have one's own way, or when there is trouble in the home, when others are unhappy there?" You assume, do you, that besides all the pleasures children may have together in the home, they may 92 DUTIES IN THE HOME. also b« obliged to go through troubles together, have unpleasant experiences, one on account of another? "Yes, surely!" For instance, if one of the children of the home is sick, can the others have as much pleasure as before, and go on in their usual way? "No, they may have to wait on the one who is sick or be of ser- vice to him in one way or another." And so you are convinced, as we .suggested in the last lesson, that among the children of the home, besides all the play, there is a great deal of waiting on one another, giving up for the sake of one another, and going through all sorts of trouble together. Do you perceive how this could have anything to do with the fact we spoke of in the previous lesson, about the feeling a man would have when grown up, for instance, if he learned that something unfortu- nate had happened to a brother or sister? "Yes," you assure me, "all they had to go through together as brothers and sisters, all the painful expe- riences, waiting on one another, giving up for the sake of one another, — all this would affect them and influence their feelings and their memories when they come to be grown up." I wonder, by the way, if I can give you a phrase describing these conditions among the children in the home, in words for you always to remember. Do you know the word "service?" "Oh, yes, it means doing something for somebody, waiting on another, being of service in some way." True. Now will you write it down on the black- board, leaving a blank space before it. We shall add another word and see whether you know what it implies. There it stands : Mutual. What would be the difference between service DUTIES IN THE HOME. 93 and mutual service? What is suggested to you by the new word? "Why, it means somehow 'between' persons." Yes, and what do you make out of that phrase "mutual service?" "Oh. it suggests the case where, among two or more persons, each waits on the other, or where they all wait on one another." Yes, that is about it. Now do you think that describes the situation a good deal of the time among the children in the home? "Indeed it does!" you exclaim. But we do not want to stop at this point. It may be that there is another phrase which ought to go with this one. Let me ask you further. If one of your brothers or sisters should be dread- fully unhappy ; if he were so placed that he could not play or enjoy himself; if he had to suffer great pain, for instance; — could you be just as happy yourself and enjoy yourself just the same; could you go out and play and get as much pleasure out of the play as before? "Not quite," you admit. Why not? 'Oh, somehow one would be thinking about what one's brother or sister would be endur- ing; it would be on one's mind and one could not enjoy one's self quite as before." True ; but there would be nothing to prevent you from going out and playing just the same; you would be suffering no pain; why should you be unhappy? "Oh," you add, "one cannot help that; one just feels in that way." You would say, then, would you, that your being happy or having a good time, must depend to some extent on whether the other children in the home are happy also and can have a good time? "Yes, surely." You assume that your pleasure or the happiness 94 DUTIES IN THE HOME. you may get out of your play or your work, some- how depends on the other children in the home, your brothers and sisters as well, and whether they can be happy, too? "Indeed it does !" you say. Suppose, then, you write on the blackboard two words, so that we shall have another phrase. Put down first the word "dependence," because you said that your pleasures had to depend on what was going 'on in the lives of your brothers and sisters. But how about their pleasures and what might be going on with youf "Oh, it would be the same," you continue. Then what word shall we write before depend- ence, to describe that fact? "Mutual?" Yes, that is the word. Add it on. And what does "mutual dependence" mean? "Why," you tell me, "we have already explained that; it suggests how our pleasures or what hap- pens to us, depend more or less on the pleasures of the other children -in the family or what has hap- pened to them." True. Now put the two phrases together. What was the first one? "Mutual service?" Yes; and under it we have put what? "Mutual dependence." Will you try to remember those two phrases as describing the experience of home life and the rela- tions between the members of the home, especially toween the children there: — Mutual Dependence and Mutual Service. You assume that this describes the conditions you live under as brothers and sisters in the home. But how is it or how will it be, do you fancy, when you are grown up? Will there be the same degree of mutual service then; will you have to wait on one another just the same, take care of one another, always be looking out for one another? "No, quite the contrary ; when we are grown up, DUTIES IN THE HOME. 95 we may perhaps be living in different cities, not in the same home at all, each one for the most part being obliged to look out for himself." But how would it be with the dependence we have talked about, in the relationship between brothers and sisters ; if there should not be the same amount of mutual service among them, would there be any mutual dependence, do you think? "Yes, surely." But in what way? Each one may now be taking care of himself, not depending on the assistance of the others. "True," ycu reply, "but the happiness of one may depend on the happiness of the others, just the same." In what way? I ask again. "Why," you assure me, "even if we are separated as brothers and sis- ters, no longer in the same home, not seeing one another often, yet if any great misfortune occurred to one of us, it would affect the feelings of the oth- ers and make them, unhappy." Then it looks, does it, as if among brothers and sisters mutual dependence may continue all through life, even when the mutual service becomes much less necessary than it used to be. After all, do you assume that there will be no mutual service called for at all, between brothers and sisters when grown up? Suppose a brother or sister in the course O'f life should lose all his or her property, become very poor, have scarcely enough to eat. On the other hand, what if this should also occur to a man's personal friend, one whom he had not known when a child, but with whom he had become intimate in later years. Now which one of the twO', the brother or the friend, do you think he would feel that he ought to 96 DUTIES IN THE HOME. help first? "That depends," you say. Depends on what ? "Why, it might be that the brother or sister had been careless and not looked out for themselves in the way this man had done ; it may be, too, that the friend loves him more than he is loved by the brother or sister who has fallen into misfortune." Yes, that may be true ; sometimes a man's friends may love him actually more than he is loved by brother or sister. You assume, then, do you, that he should follow his choice and help the friend rather than the brother or sister? "You don't quite know?" But what was the word we said applied to home life and the relationship between the members in the home? What adjective did we use to describe those relationships? "Sacred?" Yes. Now do you think that this word would apply exactly in the same sense to friendships? "No, not quite in the samje way." Why not? "Because there is something peculiar about the relationships between the members of the home, something deep and grand about them." But does this "sacred" element change when peo- ple grow up ? Are they no longer brothers and sis- ters ? They may still have the same name ; certainly they have had the same father and mother; they have the same memories about the way they were unhappy and happy together in their home. What do you say now, as to my question ? If the man sat down to think about it and asked himself which one he should gO' to help first, the friend or the one who had been brother or sister, what would be his answer? , ''Why, if he stopped to think about it, instead of acting on the first impulse, he would perhaps go first to the help of the one who had been a member of the home with him in his childhood." DUTIES IN THE HOME. 97 Might there be another reason tor this ? Is it pos- sible that another thought would come to him at such a time? What if, for instance, his father and mother at that moment should come back to life again, and he were to ask them : Which shall I go to help, my gnown-up brother or sister who is in trouble, but who loves me less, or my personal friend who is also in trouble and loves me more ? What would the father and mother say? "Beyond any doubt they would tell him: Go to brother or sister." Then can you see another reason why we may owe help in trouble to brother or sister when we are grown up, besides the memories of mutual depend- ence and mutual service when we wei^e children together ? "Yes," you answer, "it would be because we have been children of the same father and mother." But now still another question occurs in this con- nection. Sometimes sisters and brothers do wrong to one another. They may show bad traits of char- acter. Sometimes they are not good to father and mother. Perhaps they do wrong to you, or may do so when you are grown up. In that case should you act towards them exactly as you would toward an outside person? "Yes," you assert, "right is right and wrong is wrong. If I am injured, I am injured." That is true, yet what did we just say? Did we not acknowledge that there was something due to the fact that we were the children of the same father and mother? Does not that make a differ- ence? "True," you admit, "that makes some difference ; one would not deal quite in the same way toward brother or sister if they have injured us." 98 DUTIES IN THE HOME. What should we want to do, then? "Get away from them?" Yes, perhaps we should want to be separated from them. But should we want to go so far as not to have anything more to do with them ? "No, not quite that ?" If your father and mother were alive, they would be very unhappy about any- thing of this kind, would they not? "Yes, indeed!" Because of our love for father and mother should we not want to do something about it ? "Yes," you hesitate. And what should we want to do? "Why, we should like to make our brother or sis- ter who injured us, change and have a different spirit, if we could." But would it be only because of love for father and mother? "Perhaps,'' you add, "it would be also because of the something sacred we talked about; it would be a brother or sister who had injured us, and that would make a difference." But do you think, on the other hand, that one ought to submit to any kind of injury or wrong they might do, just because they are brother or sis- ter? "jSTo, if they should abuse us or injure- us a great deal, that would be bad not only for us but for others." Yes, that is true ; it would be very bad and might interfere with your education, or make you fess capable of doing 3'our work for your own family when you grow up. You might have to resist and not allow your brother to injure you as he might try to do. Per.- haps you might be obliged to refuse to see him, if he had done you a great wrong. But there would be a difference, still. Would one forget such a brother and try never to think about him? "No, one would be always thinking about him, wishing that he had not acted in that way." I certainly believe one would have some such DUTIES IN THE HOME. 99 feeling. And what could a man do? "Oh, he could be on the lookout to try in some manner to bring love or fellow-feeling back between him and his brother." What, then, were the two phrases we used, to de- scribe the relationship between children in the home? "Mutual Service and Mutual Dependence." Yes, and we should ne'/er forget them: "Mutual Service and Mutual Dependaice." Meinoi? Qem. "The path of the righteous is as the shining light which shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Points of the Wesson. I. That people usually treasure the memories of their home and childhood in a most peculiar way. II. That children in the home must expect to go through a good many experiences, both of a happy and unhappy kind, for the sake of one another or on account of one another. III. That home-life is made up of a great deal of mutual service or of mutual waiting on one another. IV. That even in resisting wrong from a brother or sister we must do it in a different spirit from that which we might show in resisting wrong from the outside. V. That one's happiness in the home depends very much on whether the other members are in trouble or whether they also are happy. VI. That there is a mutual dependence on one another's welfare in the life of the home. VII. That this mutual service and mutual dependence goes on even when children are grown up and separate from one another. Duties. /. We ought, as menibei's of a family, to try to he of mutual service to one another all the while. II. We ought, as members of a family, always to keep in mind that the happiness or unhappiness of one must be the happiness or unhappiness of all. III. We ought to take pleasure in the fact of our mutual dependence on one another in the life of the home. lOO DUTIES IN THE HOMtt. IV. We ought to carry the memory of this mutual dependence all through our lives. Foem. How dear to my heart are the scenes of my childhood, When fond recollection presents them to view ! The orchard, the meadow, the deep-tangled wildwood, And every loved spot which my infancy knew ;— The wide-spreading pond, and the mill which stood by it, The bridge, and the rock where the cataract fell; The cot of my father, the dairy-house nigh it, ■ And e'en the rude bucket which hung in the well. The old oaken bucket, the iron-bound bucket, The moss-covered bucket which hung in the well. That moss-covered vessel I hail as a treasure; For often, at noon, when returned from the field, I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure, The purest and sweetest that nature can yield ; How ardent I seized it, with hands that were glowing ! And quick to the white-pebbled bottom it fell ; Then soon, with the emblem of truth overflowing. And dripping with coolness, it rose from the well; The old oaken bucket, the iron-bound bucket. The moss-covered bucket, arose from the well. How sweet from the green mossy brim to receive it, As, poised on the curb, it inclined to my lips ! Not a full blushing goblet could tempt me to leave it, Though filled with the nectar that Jupiter sips. And now, far removed from the loved situation. The tear of regret will intrusively swell. As fancy reverts to my father's plantation. And sighs for the bucket which hangs in the well ; The old oaken bucket, the iron-bound bucket, The moss-covered bucket which hangs in the well. — Samuel Woodworth. Fuither Sng'g'estioiis to the Teaclier. In this lesson it will be seen that we take up a thread started in the previous chapter, developing- it further so as to emphasize it and give it much greater significance. The blackboard will be a verv essential feature in fixing in mind the phrases which iwe have introduced in the Dialogue. The manner DUTIES IN THE HOME. lOI in which the "Poem" has been treated in the course of the discussion, will give an example of the method by which this class of material may be used from time to time. An entire session might be devoted to an analysis of such a poem in order that its many details be thoroughly appreciated. There is opportunity for story telling in connection with the theme of the lines. This chapter also gives a sug- gestion as to the manner in which we may employ special terms or phrases in order to influence the sen- timents of the young mind. Repetition in this direc- tion is very important in order to fix the language indelibly on the consciousness. It is the word or words here which may be quite as significant as the thought. We wish to have both the fact, the senti- ment and the language of "mutual dependence" and "mutual service" in the home, recur to the person from time to time all through his life. The widest field is ofifered here for stories, anecdotes or biogra- phies. The main theme of the lesson could not be pressed too- far or made too emphatic. Many other points will occur to the teacher besides those which have been introduced in the Dialogue, and some of those which are found there miglit be ignored or give place to others. In the final paragraphs, we touch on a problem which may be found delicate and difficult in the extreme when we come to discuss it. We do not for an instant wish to suggest to the young people that any of their own brothers or sis- ters might ever be guilty of serious crimes, nor do we wish to encourage them to analyze the charac- ters of one another in the home. At the same time in any group of children in a family, there is always more or less of selfishness. The conditions there could not be absolutely perfect under all conditions. But we must do everything in our power and use 102 DUTIES IN THE HOME. every opportunity to emphasize this peculiar sacred- ness of the family tie, to which we have alluded in previous chapters. A brother is something else than a mere fellow-citizen. W© are responsible for him and to him in a way we are not quite responsible to or for people on the outside. If he commits a wrong act, we may not treat it or him as if it per- tained to some other family. We are to help him, if possible, to do better and to^ acquire a better char- acter. Even when we may be obliged to resist the aggressions of a brother or sister, it should be done in a different spirit from that we might display in dealing with some one on the outside. The discus- sion here concerning the problem of right and duty must be a very delicate one. But if we do not treat of it, we may be sure that the young people them- selves will consider it from time toi time and have their own opinions upon it. It must depend also on the temperaments of the members of the class, how far one should go in this direction in drawing fine distinctions. Under certain circumstances, the best method to pursue would be simply to lay down broad, general principles of rights and duties, and allow the young people to make the applications, themselves. In so far as examples of actual crimes are mentioned, the illustrations should never be drawn from the home experiences of the pupils. It should be rather assumed that this could only happen far away in the outside world, and that the point is brought in only for the sake of emphasizing the principle under con- sideration. At the same time stories could be told of cases where men have stood by a brother who had become a criminal, and sought to be of help to him and save him from his evil ways just because he was a brother. For picture illustration, show exam- ples of children waiting on one another or doing DUTIES IN THE HOME. IO3 some service for one another in the home. It would be impressive if a scene could be introduced of a grown brothel- or sister tending the sick-bed of another grown brother or sister. In this way we should be constantly carrying the thought of the les- son further on into adult experience. CHAPTER VIII. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE OLDER AND YOUNGER CHILDREN IN TIjE HOME. Froverlis or Vexses. "Consideration gets as many victories as rashness loses." "He is most powerful who governs himself." "Power can achieve more by gentle means than by violence." "Consideration is the parent of wisdom." "It is hard to put old heads on young shoulders." "No one is wise enough to advise himself." "There is no one so wise he does not sleep sometimes." "Advice is not compulsion." "He who will not take advice gets knowledge when trouble overtakes him." "He who won't be advised cannot be helped." Dialog'ne. Suppose there are several brothers and sisters in the same family; in what ways might they differ from one another? Would they be all alike, would you say? "No, indeed !" you answer, "we have spoken about that in a previous lesson." Yes, but they are all brothers and sisters, are they not ; all have the same family name? "True, but they are not all alike; one is taller than another; one knows more than another; one talks differently from another; one is older than another." Note to the Teacher: At this point devote quite a little time to a consideration of all the contrasts which the children can suggest, so as to emphasize the general subject of the lesson. In what ways are the older brothers or sisters unlike the younger? "Oh, one is taller and larger 104 DUTIES IN THE HOME. IO5 and stronger, and can do more, also; they are not in the same classes in school, for example." Yes, that is true. But is that all? "No," you add, "the older one may know a little more than the younger ; he has had more experience." Does that imply that one is necessarily inferior to the other? "No, because the one will know as much as the other does, by and by." Does it make the older one in any way the super- ior ? "Yes, sometimes he would know better how to act or what to do than the younger." Always? "No, not always." Who would be a better judge in this regard, than even he could be ? "Father or mother?" Yes. He, too', has to obey his parents. Yet you assume that sometimes he would know better what to do than you would, if you were the younger. What if, however, you are the older one? You assert that you would then know more than your younger brother, or if you are the older sister that you would know more than the younger sister. Which would you like better under those circum- stances, — to have that brother or sister care for you very much, or on the other hand always have them do' just what you tell them to do ? "Oh, we should prefer to have them fond of us, of course." But do you think they ought to obey you? "Yes," you add, "they ought to mind us." Why? "Oh, because we know more than they do." Is that the reason ? Well, then, do you admit you ought to obey any person who might come into the house, because he knows more than you do ? "No, not quite that." Then does the possession of superior knowledge of itself give you the right to issue commands? "No," you confess, "there must be something more; it is not chiefly because we know more than they do; lo6 DUTIES IN THE HOME. but just because they are younger brother or sister, they ought to obey us." But now think further. What if you told them to do something, and the^^ did it; and afterwards you found out that your father and mother had not approved of it ? Would you have the younger sister or brother be glad that they had obeyed you, or sorry that they had not done what father and mother pre- ferred ? "As to that," you concede, "we suppose we really ought to be sorry about the feelings of father and mother." In that case, then, you are not sure that the younger brother or sister should always obey you? "No, not quite always; but sometimes they should do so," you insist. Does that mean that you are positive that you know better what your younger brother or sister should do? "No, not altogether. But there are occasions when we are put in charge of a younger brother or sister and must look after them; in that case, if they did not obey us, they might suffer injury." Yes, that is true. In that case, however, if they obey you, do they do it simply because you are the elder? "No, for we admitted that the younger ones were not always expected to obey us." What, then, is the distinction? "Oh, they obey us as the older brother or sister because father or mother has wished it in that way at the time." Does this mean that the younger brother is actu- ally obeying you, as if you had a right to command him? "No," you answer, "we do not have a right to command; what the younger brother is really doing in that case is rendering obedience to father and mother." Then what is your position under those condi- ticms ? "Oh, in that case we are simply acting for DUTIES IN THE HOME. i07 father or mother, in obedience to them." Yes, that is the great point; you have no right to command your younger brothers and sisters by your own authority. What, then, would be your position when you ask them to obey? Suppose we say that you are dele- gated to do this; you are merely acting under the instructions of your father and mother. ' But if you have ever tried to command your yocinger brother and sister, do. you find that they like it and are always more fond of you than ever, on this account? "No, usually they do not like it; they seem sometimes almost to be angry and to dis- like us because we try to make them obey." Does it please you that they should have that feel- ing? "No, we should prefer to have them fond of us." Is there not some way by which you could express yourself to them so that they would not feel that you were commanding them? Is it always necessary to say "you shall," or "you shall not," in giving them instructions? "No, one could say 'father or mother does not wish you to do that' ; or, 'you must not do that because father or mother forbids it.' " Will they be quite as offended or displeased if you put it in that way? Have you ever thought why it is that the older and younger brother or the older and younger sister do not play together more, or like more to be in each other's company? "Oh," you explain, "that is because of the differ- ence in age ; we like to play or work with those who are as old as we are and know as much as we do." Yes, but is that the only reason? Oftentimes you like to be with your younger brother, do you not? "Yes ?" But how does it happen that the younger brothwr may not like to be with the older brother? io8 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Is it only because of the difference of age? "No,, there may be another reason ; he may not like to have us command him or to order him about." DO' you know, there is a great mistake which an older brother or sister often commits toward the younger. It is described by the word "domineer- ing." An older brother or sister may often lose the love of the younger sister or brother by such a habit. What does this word mean ? Can you explain it ? Does it imply just trying to make the younger brother or sister obey? If you said to them that father or mother does not wish it, would that be domineering ? "No," you assert, "that would be all right; we are quite sure about that." Think, then, for a moment. Wny do boys sometimes like to annoy cats and dogs, or something weaker than themselves? "Oh, it is a pleasure to have power and to exert the po\Yer, to show one's self stronger than some- thing else." And is that right? "Yes, in itself it may be right ; power is not wrong in itself." But what if you treat your younger brother or sis- ter just as 3'OU would the cat or dog, in order to display your power ? Would that be proper? "No, that would be wrong; and besides it would make them dislike us or hate us." Now don't you think we may sometimes be incHned to order younger members of the family about, just for the sake of the pleasure of making them do as we want them to do, or to show that we are superior to them and know more than they do? "Yes. perhaps we are," you hesitate. And how do we describe this habit when we see it exhibited? "As domineering?" True. Whenever you try to make any person do your way just because you want to show your authority, you are domineering-. DUTIES IN THE HOME. I09 Perhaps most persons have a little something of this disposition. Nearly all of us occasionally like to domineer. But in what cases would we be most liable to show this bad tendency? "Why," you point out, "it would be especially in those positions where we are constantly meeting individuals inferior to us in years or experience, and therefore may be obliged at times to exercise a cer- tain oversight in our dealings with them." And towards whom are you called on sometimes to display such authority? "Toward a younger brother and sister ?" Then are we not often in great danger of manifesting this bad trait right where it can do the most harm, toward younger members of the home? Speaking of the way older brothers and sisters should act toward the younger ones, you have said that usually they have nO' right to command them, in the way that a command, would come from the father or mother. If, then, they want to ask their younger brothers or sisters to do something, or to urge them not to do something, what word could they use, so as to show the ri^ht feeling and not seem to act as if they were exercising authority ? For instance, at the dining table when you wish to have something passed to you, what do you say? "Please?" Yes, and what. is the word, then, which the older brother or sister might employ either at the beginning or end of every expression of desire or will on their part to the younger children? "Please?" True. Suppose, for example, in seeing the younger ones doing something which is not wise, the older ones call out "don't do that;" how might they soften the language or make it seem less harsh ? "Why," you explain, "they could add the word 'please.' " Yes, no DUTIES IN THE HOME. that is always better and it makes a great difference in the life of the home if this rule is followed. Is there any other phrase they could also adopt for the same purpose? If there should be a reason for making a charge very emphatic, then the word "please might soften it too much or weaken the effect. What else could they use in place of it? What about alluding to father and mother? "True," you answer, "they might say : 'don't do that ; father does not wish it, or mother has forbid- den it.' " ' But what are the words employed oftentimes by a domineering older brother or sister,- — two very em- phatic words, very small and beginning with "S." "Shall and shan't?" Yes. And when a person speaks those words, what tone is suggested? "Oh, they convey a tone of com- mand." You assume, do you, that it is unwise for an older brother or sister to say to the younger ones, "you shall," or "you shall not." But would it be right for the father or mother to do this? "Yes," you tell me, "that is different." Do you feel, by the way, that children liave rights in their relations between one another? What do we mean when asserting that children have rights, as well as grown people ? "Why, it im- plies that people may not injure them, strike them, abuse them." In the home, then, after all, among the children, can you suggest the true spirit between the older and the younger children? "Why," you point out, "the older ones should respect the rights of the 3rounger children, because the younger ones have rights of their own." But does it stop there? \¥hat if the younger chil- dren interfere with the duties of the older ones, ask too much attention from them or too much care, per- DUTIES IN THE HOME. Ill haps, SO that the older ones are obHged to neglect their own work? "Yes, that might happen," you admit. , If that should occur, what are the younger chil- dren doing toward the older ones? "Oh," you ex- plain, "in that case they, too, are interfering with rights." With whose rights? I ask. "With those of the older children." You imply, do you, that between older and younger children, the older ones are to respect the rights of the younger, and the younger are to respect the rights of the older? Suppose, then, we write that down, because it is very important : "BBSFSCT roB oms ATsro'ssEa.'s bights." There it stands, and it is something for us to un- derstand and remember. You see, there would be a good deal less quarreling and much less bad feeling among children in the home if they were always to respect one another's rights. Do you suppose, by the way, when brothers and sisters grow up and become men and women, that they are always to the end of their lives intensely fond of one another? "Sometimes," you answer. Yes, but why not always? Do you think it ever happens that they come to care less for one another and almost forget that they once belonged to the same home? "Yes," you admit, "that might be the case." But what can you suggest as an explanation for this? "Oh, they may be selfish; they may care so much for their own interests as to lose all the feel- ing of affection for their brothers or sisters, which they used to show." But now in this connection let me give you an example. Picture the possible case of two homes, where the brothers and sisters in one of the families grew up and continued fond of one another, while in 112 DUTIES IN THE HOME. the other they seemed to lose interest in one an- othei". Suppose, now, that in their younger days in one of these homes the children had not been given to respecting one another's rights, or that the older chil- dren had constantly domineered over the younger ones. On the other hand assume that in the second family it had been the other way ; the children there had not been accustomed to quarreling or being cross with one another, because they had respected one another's rights. I ask you, in which of those two cases would the family afifection be more liable to survive, and the children continue throughout their lives more fond of one another? "Oh, there is no question about that," you assert; "it would be in the home where the children had been accustomed tO' respect one another's rights ; where they had not been given to quarreling ; where there had been no rivalry, or where there had been no domineering." If, for example, you were to hear of a family wliere the feeling of affection had died out in after years and they had ceased — as brothers and sisters — to care for one another at all, what would you assume had been the situation in their early home Hfe? "Why, in all probability they had been quarrel- some; they had sought to domineer over one an- other; they had constantly interfered with one an- other's rights." Yes, that is true; probably nothing tends more to destroy the kindly feeling- among children in the home than this way of interfering with one another's rights there, or the habit which older brothers or sisters rrtay have of domineering over the younger ones* DUTIES IN THE HOME. 113 How do you explain the fact, which we know to be true, that sometimes not until brothers and sis- ters have become men and women do they really be- come fond of one another? What is the significance of that? . "Well," you point out, "probably in their child- hood days tlie older brothers or sisters tried to domineer over the younger ones, and they did not appreciate one another." But can you suggest any other reason or explanation? By the way, did you ever hear of a spoiled child ? "Yes, indeed," you answer ; "it means the one who always has his own way." And how does he behave toward the other broth- ers and sisters? "Why, he is selfish; he always claims attention from the others, and does not do anything for them in return." Then do you fancy that the others will be very fond of that spoiled child? "Not by any manner of means," you ex- claim. It is sadly true that until the children have grown up, there may be no real kindly feeling between that boy or girl and the other brothers and sisters. Why may the better feelings develop later in life, do you assume? "Oh, the selfish one has found out his mistake, perhaps, and may try to show a better disposition." And is the spoiled child always the older one in the home? "Quite the contrary," you assert. You believe, then, do you, that the older brother or sister may not always be to blame for the lack of kindly feelings existing among the children in the home ? It is true; sometimes there may be no disposition to domineer on the part of the older ones, and yet the younger ones may be partially spoiled and so 114 DUTILS IN THE HOMB. be disagreeable and selfish, making k impossible for the kindly feelings to develop in the feamily. Selfishness on the part of the yc/unger ones may do as much harm as a domineerihg spirit on the part of the older brothers and sisters. Speaking of the bad disposition of older children to be wilful or arbitrary in trying to control the joianger members of the family, do we imply that one ouglit not to consult an older brother or sister or take any kind of suggestions from them, even when they are not "delegated" by t.heir parents to exercise control? If, for instance, they may not domineer just merely in order to show authority, vv'hat might one take from them or what kind of help could one get from them because of their superior knowledge? "They might offer us advice," you .^uggest. And v.'hat do you mean by that? /"Oh, instead of demanding that we should act in ai certain way be- cause of their superior age, they could point out what they had learned from experience, in this way offering counsel, without compelling one to ac- cept it." True ; but do you think that younger children are inclined to heed such advice? "Not always," you confess. And why not? "Pevhaps just because they do not like to give in or submit to others under any circumstances." I am afraid you are right. And you will discover that this sometimes happens among grown people as well. If, however, we were determined to act wisely, what would we ask from our older brothers and sisters now and then, besides seeking favors from them, or help when we are in difficulty? "As to that, one might ask advice from them." Yes, I agree with you most emphatically. It really pays DUTIES IN THE HOME. H5 to take counsel with others, even if one has to give in a little in one's pride. After all, is not an older brother or sister su- perior in some ways to the younger ones in the home? "Yes, surely!" Is there not, then, a certain kind of submission one might render to them, even if it is not to be exactly what we call obedience ? Can you think of a word that would cover this point ? Suppose I give you one which you could remem- ber. Let us write it down. Begin with a capital D, and then spell it out : D-e-f-e-r-e-n-c-e. That is rather a long word, isn't it ? As you grow older, however, you will come to understand it better and appreciate that it describes an attitude that we ought to take to people who are really superior to us in one way or another by their knowledge or gifts or experience. It need not humiliate us to show deference, when it is shown in the right sort of a way. X/Leraovj Qem. "He that spareth his words hath knowledge, And he that is of a cool spirit is a man of understanding.'' Points of fho I^esson. I. That older brothers or older sisters have more knowl- edge or have had more experience than the younger ones, and deserve a certain deference on this account. II. That when the older brothers or sisters issue commands or exact obedience, they may act only as delegates to do this for their father or mother, and not as having this right of themselves. III. That older brothers and sisters should soften their requests or commands by the words "please," or "father or mother wishes it," or some other phrase. IV. That exercising command or authority on one's own account on the part of the older brother or sister implies "domineering" and tends to destroy the affection of the younger ones in the family for the older brothers or sisters. V. That we are all tempted to display this habit of domi- neering in other ways, especially if at times it is required of m6 butees in the. homos;. usi Ijhat. we should act as delegates for those who are in real authority. VI. That domineering often keeps brothers and sisters from being fond of one another as children, or becoming so when, they are grown up. VII. That the younger children in relation to the older ones, on the other hand, are often selfish and obstinate. VIII. That the younger child sometimes, just because of his age; is petted and becomes a spoiled child, and is led to claim even more freedom and privileges than he is entitled to. IX. That older brothers and sisters, even if they are not entitled to issue commands, may offer advice to the young ones, and that the younger ones should seek advice of the older brothers and sisters. Duties. /. We ought to be considerate of the feelings of younger brothers and sisters, just because they are younger than we are. II. We ought as children to respect one an- other's rights in the home. III. We ought to pay a certain deference to older brothers and sisters, just because they are older than zve are. IV. We ought to be willing to take advice from those who are our superiors in age — especially if it comes from members of the home. Get up, little sister; the morning is bright. And the birds are all singing to welcome the light; The buds are all opening; the dew's on the flower; If you shake but a branch, see, there falls quite a shower. By the side of their mothers, look, under the trees. How the young lambs are skipping about as they please ; And by all those rings on the water I know The fishes are merrily swimming below. The bee, I dare say, has been long on the wing. To get honey from every flower of spring; For the bee never idles, but labors all day; And thinks, wise little insect, work better than play. The lark's singing gayly ; it loves the bright sun. And rejoices that now the gay spring- is begun; DUTIES IN THE HOUE. IT7 For the spring is so cheerful, I think 'twould be wrong If we do not feel happy to hear the lark's song. Get up; for when all things are merry and glad Good children should never be lazy and sad; For daylight is given us, dear sister, that we May rejoice like the lark and may work like the bee. — Lady Flora Hastings. Further Su^erestionB to the Teacher. In this lesson, we look out of the window of the home, as it were, into the wider relations of human life. It is not simply of the conduct between chil- dren among themselves that we should be consider- ing. This of course is our starting point, and should form the first basis for discussion. We wish at the very outset to put a check upon the domineering in- stinct which causes so much chafing and unhappi- ness, and interferes so much with the afifection which should prevail between members of the same family. We cannot make too much of this point, because of the evils arising on account of this un- fortunaite habit which is so prevalent in human na- ture. It is manifested first usually in the home, because it is under those conditions where the oppor- tunity for it is most readily presented, and where the temptations to display it may be the greatest. The charm and happiness of thousands of homes have been wrecked because young people have not under- stood or appreciated this danger. At the same time if we are not cautious, we may run great risk of fostering the habit on the part of the younger ones of always being on the lookout for manifestations of this spirit on the part of the older children. This is a feature we especially wish to avoid. Our lesson should be very emphatic to the older boy or girl in his or her dealings with the younger. On the other hand, we must do everything in our power to make the younger child appreciate that he or she owes a Il8 DUTIES IN THE HOME. certain kind of respect to those who are older. Right here, however, we shall run another risk in men- tioning this latter point in the presence of the older children, and perhaps seem to give them a certain justification for their conduct in undertaking to ex- ercise authority. But we must not overlook the fact that children are all the while drawing distinctions for themselves and forming ethical judgments of their own. If we do not help them in doing this they may adopt some very unfortunate precepts and cling to them for life. Oh the whole, it will be safer for us to talk these problems over with them and help the young people in making their distinctions. They will already have their own theories in regard to inferiority and superiority, and be very positive a? to their rights. After the introduction has been made from the experiences of children in the home, it would then be well to carry on the discussion much further intO' the possible experiences of adult life, and to have an analysis of domineering in all possi- ble conditions between all types of persons. Use the home joys and sorrows as a means for teaching a large ethical lesson. We must probe the instinct in human nature out of which the habit of domineering develops. It is vital that we show the young people the brutal side of such conduct, and the injury it works upon the whole character when free rein is given to it. We are to recognize that something of this disposition exists in almost every human be- ing, and that each and every person may have to fight it in himself. We are not to assume for an instant that the domineering temperament is excep- tional. It' is fitting that young children early in life should understand that there may be evil as well as good tendencies in all of us, and that this domineer- ing instinct represents one of the evil characteristics to be grappled with. On the other hand it is not, DUTIES IN THE HOME. IIQ however, to be assumed that there should never be any assertion of superiority on the part of one per- son toward another. The whole issue turns on the manner in which it is done. Young and old alike can be made to see that they will have many friends or many enemies according to the way they control this tendency in themselves. A person may assert superiority in such a manner as to win esteem and affection on the part of others, or, on the other hand, display it in such a fashion as to arouse dislike or animosity. A great deal of consideration should be given to the problem, therefore, as to the right and wrong manner of dealing with those v/ho may be inferior to us in certain directions in the way of gifts, age, experience, strength of character or other- wise. The last point under discussion in the Dia- logue with regard to taking advice from others, is also very important. A whole chapter or lesson might be devoted to this special topic. We should, however, be dealing with the attitude of the inferior toward the superior, and asking ourselves what this attitude ought to be. We must make it clear that every human being occupies a position of inferiority in certain directions and superiority in others, and that it may show weakness or even cowardice for one to refuse to listen to advice. So, too, there is opportunity for pointing out a right and wrong way of giving advice, as well as taking it. The young people may be asked to describe what would be the proper way of offering counsel in order to make it the most acceptable. We touch upon this in connec- tion with the home life of the children, but it could be applied to adult experience in all the relations of life. For picture illustration, show a scene of an older brother or sister doing something for the younger ones, helping them in some way at their work, or by some personal service. On the other 126 DUTIES IN THE HOitE. hand, it would be interesting to exhibit the unpleas- ant expression on the face of a person when the dis- position to domineer is suddenly manifesting itself. The ugly, tyrannical look is repulsive in the extreme and one should feel ashamed ever to display it. We can make a valuable experiment now and then by showing pictures of this kind in order that young people may "see themselves as others see them," even if the pictures are at times unpleasant or revolting. CHAPTER IX. WHAT WE OWE TO OUR MOTHERS. Proverbs or Verses. "A mother is a mother still, the holiest thing alive." "Better the child cry than the mother sigh." "Where yet was ever found a mother Who'd give her baby for another ?" "He who takes the child by the hand, takes the mother by the heart." •'A mother's heart is always with her children." "Every mother's child is handsome." •"Whoni will he help that does not help his mother?" "He sings to the wide world, she sings to her nest. In the nice ear of nature, which song is the best?"— Lowell. Slalog'ue. You have asserted that we owe a great deal to our fathers and mothers, that we ought to obey them when we are young and care for them a great deal when we are grown up. Now suppose we talk for a while more especially about our mothers. Which one do you think, by the way, is always the superior, which should you look up to the more; to which one should you be the more reverent — father or mother? "Neither one," you say, "they both equally deserve one's reverence." Yes, but why? "Because they are father and mother ?" You are surely right. If, however, one is not superior to the other and does not deserve more reverence, yet are there not differences to be considered ? In what outward way is a father superior to the mother ? "Perhaps he can earn more money?" But is that true merely because one is father and the other the mother? "No, it is because he does the work outside 121 122 DUTIES IN tHE HOME. in the world, and the mother may give her effort and labor in another way." What peculiar gift, then, is it, that a father may have, endowing him with a certain kind of superior- ity ? What, for example, would your father have to render to your mother, if she were in danger? "Pro- tection?" Why should he be expected to do this for her? "Because she is his wife?" Certainly. But then, if that were the only reason, why should she not give him protection because he is her husband? "It is also because mother may not be as strong as father," you suggest. Yes, indeed ! A father usually has greater physical strength than the mother; he can lift heavier things. If she were in danger he could do more to help her, because he would be the .stronger. What, then, does this imply in the relations or dealings between the weak and the strong, would you assume; what principle or rule of conduct? "That the strong ought to render special protection to the weak?" True, that is just what it indicates. In this connection may I ask : do you think it might be even worse to disobey your mother than to disobey your father? "'Vyhy should it be?" you exclaim. Let me ask you, again : would it be even worse to neglect a mother in her old age than to neglect a father? "Perhaps so," you admit. And why? "Oh, because mother may not be as strong as father, she may be less liable to provide for herself; and we ought to render protection or show special consideration to the weak." Is that true? But answer, again. What is some- times done to children when they disobey? "They are punished?" As you grow older, however, you become stronger, do you not? Will the time ever DUTIES IN THE HOME. I23 come when, if you disobey, you would be so strong that you could prevent your mother from punishing you? "Yes, one would become strong enough to resist, at any rate." Would one be able to resist one's father under the same circumstances? "Not to the same extent?" Which, then, do you think would be the worse, to disobey the parent who could pun- ish you for it, or the one who could not punish you because of your superior strength ? You answer, "It makes no difference, disobedience is disobedience." But did you not tell me that some- thing was due to a mother just because she was not as strong as a father ? Did you ever hear the phrase, "If you ever strike, hit a man of your own size ?" Does it not seem as if the boy or girl would be a coward who should hurt some one not big enough or strong enough to resist, or to make a defense ? What other weakness would a child perhaps dis- play, then, besides disobedience, if he did not do what his mother told him to do? "Cowardice?" Yes, I think he would be showing cowaidice. It would be somewhat like striking a person who is not big enough or strong enough to strike back. Don't you feel as if you would owe your mother even stricter obedience if she could not as easily make you obey by punishing you ? I was told once of a boy who in standing up for his mother when she was being blamed for some- thing, exclaimed; "Mother was in the right, she is always right; she is right even when she is wrong, because she never does wrong." Was it ridiculous to talk in that way ? He did not mean it, did he ? There isn't anybody quite perfect. "No, but the feeling was right at any rate," you insist, "even if the language was a little extra va- 124 DUTIES IN THE HOME. gant." And why? "Because, one ought to stand up for one's mother." What, then, is especially due from us to our moth- ers ? "Devotion to them, all the more because they may not be as strong as we are?" Yes, surely! But you have a regard for strength, do you not? Don't you look up to what is strong? "True, in a way." Then why should you not reverence your father more than your mothei-, if he is the stronger ? Is it only because your mother is not so strong, that you should reverence her? "No, there is'some- thing else; mother may be weak in her arms, she may not have the same strength in the body, but she may show another kind of strength." Is that why you ought to feel such devotion to her? "Yes, it is out of regard for the other kind of strength she may possess." And what is this other kind of strength in your mother, which should make you look up to her so much? It is not in her arms, not in her hands or feet, you say? Where is it, then ? "In the mind or will?" But how does she show this strength, if it is not in her body? How does she display it? "Oh, it may be in what she does for us or endures for us." Yes, that is certainly true. Mention some of the things your mother may have done for you. "Sat up all night with you when you were sick ?" Yes, that is one thing your mother has done, I am sure. "Made things for you that you liked to eat ? Read to you and sung to you when she was tired?" Yes, but what kind of strength was that? "Mended your clothes and waited on you when her head may have been aching, and she was half sick herself?" Yes, that is what your mother may have done. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 125 But Still I ask, what kind of strength was all that? Did it show that she had more strength in her body, after all? "No, that was not the case." Then what was it? Where was her strength? "In the mind or will?" True, that is where the mother's strength lies. And what name shall we give to it? Suppose we call it "'Strength of heart." Is that why you should revere her, even though she is not as strong as your father? "Yes," you say, "because she may be just as strong, only in another way." Can you tell me, however, what a mother espe- cially does for her children in their everyday life? For example, where do you meet her constantly, day and night? "In the home?" What feature of her children's lives is due, then, usually to her provision ? What is it that the mother especially creates for us? "The Home-spirit?" True, we owe the happiness of our household life mostly to our mothers, do we not? "Yes, surely!" What then, may we call the mother in this regard ? Suppose we look up to her as the queen of the home? Would that be a good name by which to describe her position? What do we mean, for instance, by a queen, by a true queen? Would she rule us all the time, com- manding us whether we wanted to do a thing or not ? "Not necessarily," you explain; "sometimes she would make us like to do things that she wants us to do." Yes, that would be the quality of a true queen. What, then, is the method she rules by? "Love?" That is it. A true queen rules by love, — although at times she must be very positive in her commands. But the spirit for it all is love. And what is it that people say they must render to queens? "Loyalty?" You assume, do you, that 126 DUTIES IN THE HOME. we ought to show loyalty to a mother because she is the queen of the home? How, therefore, might you display this loyalty to her ? How is it that you like to act toward people whom you reverence? "We should want to be what they want to have us be ?" "Yes, I believe that is the feeling. In what way, then, could you display loyalty to the queen of the home? "By trying to be what she wants to have us be?" Yes, surely, that would seem to be the best way to show loyalty to one's mother. Our mothers usually make the home-spirit; they show spiritual strength ; they are the "Queens of the home." Do you know, by the Avay, what kind of sol- emn feeling is often expressed by grown people when speaking of a mother? "Oh, yes," you assure me, "that has been the subject of our lesson." Well, have 3'ou ever heard any proverbs or say- ings on this point? Suppose I mention one or two of them to you. How about the following, for instance : "A mother is a mother still, The holiest thing alive." Had you ever seen that before? I ask. "Not in just those words, perhaps," you tell me. But you are familiar with the sentiment? "Yes, indeed!" 3'ou exclaim. And how do you account for it, that such a senti- ment arises? Do you assume, for example, that it is only right here in the place where we live, that people may feel in this way or that such sayings may be repeated or talked about? "No, surely not; it must be the same elsewhere." You are right. All over the world, where people have become civilized and live in homes or separate families, there is this peculiar kind of feeling for the mother. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 127 Do you fancy that every human being has this feeHng and is true to it? "Perhaps not?" How is that possible, when the sentiment is so general every- where ? "Oh, well," you add, "there are a few peo- ple in every land, who are selfish and mean and do not have good feelings." Yes, that is true. And because now and then we meet with exceptions of that kind, it should not for an instant make us think that the feeling is not a general one. Far away, over in China, you might meet with it, and in India, that other great country in Asia. You would come upon it in Europe, over in Russia, and in England, and all over the United States of America. And how do you explain it, that there should be this peculiar feeling of reverence and awe for one's mother? "Why, it is natural," you point out, "one does not have to think about it or prove it or explain it." Yes, and that is one reason why it is found in so many parts of the world. A man or woman who did not have something of that feeling for his mother would be looked upon as an unnatural person. We should somehow be afraid that there must be some- thing wrong at the very heart of such a man or woman. Here, again, is another proverb. You may per- haps not understand it. But it runs as follows : Every mother's child is handsome. Is there any sense in a saying of that kind? All children are not beautiful, are they? "Not by any means," you assert. Yes, but every child is the child of some mother. Therefore according to this prov- erb there must be beauty there. "No," you explain, "it does not mean quite that." What, then, does it suggest? I ask. "Oh, it implies that a mothei- will love her child just the same, 128 DUTIES IN THE HOME. whether the child is beautiful or not; that she will not distinguish in her affections according to the mere outside appearance of her children." Yes, that is the point, and a very important one. A mother loves her children, because they are her children, and for what they are, not merely for what they by chance may look to be on the outside. And so it is that to a mother her child is always "hand- some." She looks to the inside. Memory Qem. "Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband alsOi and he praiseth her." Points of tlie liesson. I. That a father may be superior by the strength in his body or by gifts which should make it his duty to earn the livelihood for the family. II. That a mother deserves additional devotion, all the more because she has not the same physical strength as a man. III. That it may be even worse to neglect a mother in old age, than a father, because she may have been less, able to provide for herself. IV. That it may be worse to disobey a mother, if she could not punish because of her lack of strength. V. That a mother is strong in another way, by what she does for us or suffers for us — in what we call strength of heart or spiritual strength. VI. That a mother usually creates the spirit of the home and is the queen of the home. VII. That a mother's rule is by love, although it may have to be stern and exacting. VIII. That we owe loyalty to a mother, in trying to be what she wishes us to be. Saties. /. We ought to he considerate of the feelings of a mother, all the more because she may not be as strong as a man. II. We ought to reverence a mother because of her spiritual strength and because of what she suf- fers on our account. III. We ought to reverence a m.other because of our faith in the sublime fact of motherhood. DUTIES IN THE HOME. I29 Poem. Who sat and watched my infant head. When sleeping on my cradle bed, And tears of sweet affection shed? My mother. When sleep forsook my open eye. Who was It sang sweet hushaby, And rocked me that I should not cry? My mother. When tears and sickness made me cry. Who gazed upon my heavy eye And wept for fear that I should die? My mother. Who dress'd my doll in clothes so gay, And taught me pretty how to play. And minded all I had to say? My mother. Who ran to help me when I fell. And would some pretty story tell. Or kiss the place to make it well? My mother. And can I ever cease to be. Affectionate and kind to thee. Who wast so very kind to me, My mother. And when I see thee hang thy head, 'Twill be my turn to watch thy bed. And tears of sweet affection shed. My mother. When thou art feeble, old, and gray, My healthy arms shall be thy stay. And I will soothe thy pains away, ^ My mother. — Ann Taylor. Further Sng'g'estlonB to the Teacher. It may at first be regarded as of questionable pro- priety tc devote a special lesson to the obligations we are under to a mother, — as if implying that the debt here were greater than to a father. And yet, on the other hand, at this point we are simply endors- t30 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ing a feeling prevalent all over the world, and accepting one of the precepts or truths established by human history. The world now recognizes that there is something peculiarly sacred in motherhood. It is not that we are to make the children feel that the tie is necessarily closer here than it would be to the father. But we should bring out the actual facts as they stand. Usually the mother suffers and endures for the child, perhaps even more than the other parent, and it is she who usually creates the spirit of the home. But most of all we wish to avail otirselves of the opportunity to point out the sig- nificance of spiritual strength. In the animal world, we see no recognition of the sanctity of motherhood. Brute strength establishes superiority there. We wish to have young people catch on at once to the tnuth that among human beings there is a higher distinction, from the very fact that we are higher beings than animals. By our very superiority over brute creation, we recognize the significance of spir- itual strength, even ^^'here strength of the body may be inferior. We shall be able by this means to teach a wider lesson, and not be obliged to confine our- selves here to the home relationships. We can apply this to men as well. Examples might be given of individuals with great intellectual powers who had weak bodies, or of men of tremendous force of will who were likewise inferior on the physical side. Just as we point out what the mother does for the child, the services she renders through her spiritual strength, so we may show what services are ren- dered to us out in the world by men of the same kind of superiority on the mental or spiritual side. Our theme always starts with home life and its rela- tions, but it may also be carried out further and so enable us toi teach some of the big lessons oi hfe. We do not wish to have this chapter seem toO' "sen- DUTIES IN THE HOME. I3I timental." We must give the subject dignity and character by the way we handle it. We must not carry our analysis too far. The paragraphs which deal with the figure of the "queen of the home," might be read without further talk or debate. This is introduced for the purpose of adding one further touch of sentiment, by this means clinching the pre- vious point under discussion. The teacher can make little or much of it, as he thinks best. For picture illustration, by all means show a mother as the cen- ter of a group of children. One of those by Bou- gereau would be serviceable for this purpose. Then, too, best of all, there are the Madonnas by Raphael. The little poem at the end, is a gem which should be appreciated by old and young alike. It gathers into itself the feelings and experiences which have been accumulating for thousands of years in the records of the human race. CHAPTER X. WHAT WE MAY OWE TO OUR FATHERS AND MOTHERS WHEN WE ARE GROWN UP. ProverlJi or Teriea. "Children are poor men's riches." "Little children and headaches, great children and heart aches." "Happy is he that is happy in his children." "Children's children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children is their fathers." "Remove not the landmark which thy father hath set up." "Our fathers find their graves in our short memories and sadly tell us how we may be buried in our survivors." Dlalosrue. Do we owe exactly the same kind of submission and obedience to father and mother when we are grown up that we owe to them when we are chil- dren? What do you think? "No, not quite the same," you answer. And why not? "Because the conditions will have changed?" In what way? "We may have more experience." Yes, that is true. "It is also better for us to learn to judge for our- selves." Yes, that is also true. "Then, too, there would never be any progress in the world if people did not act for themselves," you pontinue. Equally true. You assume, therefore, do you, that you will not owe quite the same complete submission to your father and mother when you are grown up? Then do you feel that under those circumstances you would be wholly free to do as you please : that you would owe nothing further to their wishes than to the wishes of other people? 132 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 133 What did. you imply when you stated that the first reason for obedience to your parents was "because they were your father and mother?" "No," you explain, "there is a difference; we should owe some- thing to the wishes of father and mother, which we should not owe to a stranger, even when we are grown up." And what is it? I ask. "You do not quite know how to describe it?" Suppose I answer for you. What if we say that you would owe deference to your father and mother even when you are grown up ? We have already used that term before in another lesson, you remember. What is meant by the word deference in this con- nection, would you say? Is it the same thing as obedience? "No, there is a difference," you insist; it may imply paying unusual regard to the wishes of father and mother, deferring to them first before deferring to others." Yes, that is what it suggests. Suppose a friend or acquaintance gives you some advke when you are grown up, and your father and mother likewise offer you their counsel — whose advice should you think about more carefully or considerately, and be more cautious about ignoring even if you finallj' refuse to follow it? "The advice of one's father and mother?" Yes, but why? What is the point, then? Why the distinction? Is it not possible that your acquaintance may know a great deal better than your father and mother, as to what would be wise for you to do under certain conditions or circumstances? When you are grown up, you may be inclined, if you are a voter, to- belong to another political party from that of your father. Would it be right for you to do so? I ask. "Yes, it would be right," you assert. But would that be showing a true deference to father and mother? Do they not know better than you do? 134 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Have they not had more years of experience? "Yes, but one must judge for one's self, after one is grown up." But ought you not to be more slow in making the decision, than if you were to adopt the same political party as that of your father? "Yes," you admit, "one should be a little more cautious and slow about it." And why? On such matters is it not possible that other people might know a great deal more than your father? "That is possible," you confess. Then should you not go at once to those who know more about it? "No, there is a difference," you insist. I think so, too; there is a difference. We should be more slow in adopting the political opinions of a stranger than those of our father and mother. But why? I keep asking. "Because we owe a deference to our parents." Yes, that is the whole point. At the same time, is it not possible when you are grown up that you too may know a great deal more about such things, than your father or mother? "Perhaps so," you hesitate. Then would it not be right for you to follow your own judgment against the judgment of your father and mother? "Yes, although one should be a little more slow in acting upon it." Did you ever hear grown men speak contemptu- ously of the religion of their fathers and mothers? How would that strike you? Would it not seem shameful in such persons to talk like that? On some special subjects we must disagree ^t times with our fathers and mothers. People cannot think exactly alike about everything. But is it ever proper for us to speak laughingly of what our par- ents have held sacred ? Is it right when we are grown up, to adopt other DUTIES IN THE HOME. 135 customs and forms of dress, for instance; or other habits unlike those of our fathers and mothers? "Yes," you add, "we must follow our own judgment in such matters, too." But what if they dislike it extremely, and beg you not to do it? Would it still be right? "Yes," you assert, "it would be right, nevertheless." But, I ask you, would you do it just as promptly under those circumstances ? "No', one might hesitate or be more slow about it." And why? "Because they were the customs and ways of father and mother." Yes, that is why. Do persons ever speak contemptuously of the cus- toms or habits of their parents, of the way they dress, or of the language they use? Which ones do you think would be more contemptible, the persons who talked in that way, or the fathers and mothers who had the old-fashioned ways? I wonder if you have ever seen the proverb: "Remove not the landmark thy father has set up?" What does that suggest to you ? Would it apply just to a post or a fence in the ground ? "No," you explain, "it is a figure of speech." And what does it mean? "That we should be more cau- tious about departing from the customs and ways of our fathers and mothers than from the customs or ways of strangers." Yes, I think that is what it implies. Be a little slow to change from the ways and customs of your parents, more so than to change from the ways of other people. And what further, do we owe to our fathers and mothers when they are quite old ? Have you thought of that point also? Should they be left to take care of themselves, do you say? Ought we not to devote all our time to improving ourselves or working for our own families? Or do you assume that if your 136 DUTIES IN THE HOME. father and mother in their old age could not pro- vide for themselves, you ought to, do so? "How could it be otherwise," you ask. "Is it pos- sible that any human being would think of himself first, when his aged father or mother is concerned ?" I am not questioning you with regard to what might happen, but as to what one's duty would be under those circumstances. "Yes," you assert, "but the sense of duty ought not to be necessary on this point. One would do this as a matter of course." But what if it required a good deal of sacrifice? Suppose it should interfere with the happiness of your home. Perhaps there would be no other way than to take one's parents directly into one's fam- ily, and there might not be plenty of room there. "Yes," you continue, "but surely no one would let a father or mother go in want, without food and drink and clothing and a home, even if it should be necessary to inconvenience one's self or crowd one's own home a little." What if, however, the aged father and mother should be living at a great distance, so that it would be impossible for them to come and live with one of their children. "True"' you cofitinue, "but that would not set the sons and daughters free from the obligation of providing for their parents in old age." You imply, do you, under such circumstances, that the grown-up children might be called upon to stint themselves and gp without comforts or pleasures, just in order to help their parents? "Surely, what else could be thought of?" You speak very emphatically on this point, as if you took it for granted that everybody would act in this way. And yet, do you know, it often happens otherwise? There are at this moment probably many aged fathers and mothers in actual want for the neces- DUtlES IN THE HOME. 137 saries of life, with not enough to eat and drink or without enough clothes to wear, while their children may be living in comfort somewhere else in the world. "We cannot see how that is possible ! Such con- duct would be dreadful," you assert; "it would be unnatural. People who act in that way, would be despised. They would lose their self-respect." Yes, but others may not know about it ; they may not be aware that such people have fathers and mothers living. Then, too, there are men and women who may become so utterly selfish, that they do not even care for their own self-respect. ' Even when an aged father or mother may not be hungry for food, or lack for clothing, yet they may become what we call "paupers," live in a poorhouse in some city where they have resided ; and yet else- where perhaps a grown son or daughter is living with plenty to eat and plenty of clothes to wear. Can you fancy such a thing as possible? "No, surely not ! We do not see how that could happen," you exclaim. Well, I cannot understand it, myself. It is awful to think of. But there are a good many such instances. What is it that might tempt selfish persons, grown-up sons and daughters, to be neglectful in that way, or give them any possible reason or excuse for it? "Nothing could explain it," I hear you say. True, there is nothing to excuse it. There are selfish persons, however, who may not be quite bad enough to neglect their parents in that way under circumstances where they can see the suiifering for themselves. But suppose after growing up, they went to live in another city, or in another state or country, hundreds or even thousands of miles away. How would it be, then ? "Why," you continue, "if they were very selfish, it 138 DUTIES IN tHE HOME. would be easier for them to be neglectful." Yes, and this is how it happens, sometimes. Sons and daughters grow up and move away and live at such a distance, that they think less and less as years go on, about their fathers and mothers. It may be unintentional at first. But if they are naturally self- ish, by and by they forget entirely. Under what circumstances, then, at any rate, do you assume that grown-up sons and daughters ought to be peculiarly careful about keeping fathers and mothers in mind ? Would it be more necessary when they are living in the same town or city together, or when they are separated? "As to that," you answer, "if they are neglectful at all, it would be more liable to happen when they are far apart." You will all grow up by and by and become men and women and perhaps have homes of your own. But this would be no reason why you should not be constantly thoughtful of your father and mother, would it? "No, surely not!" Suppose now you mention some of the things you could do for father and mother when you are grown up. "Write to them often when you are' away?" Yes. "Send them little gifts?" Yes. "Go and see them often if you are living in the same city ?"' Yes. "Gratify little whims which they may have in old age?" About that point some of you may hesitate. Why should you do this, if they are only whims and not serious needs? You do not feel that you should gratify all your own whims, do you? "True," you assert, "but there is a difference; they may be the whims of father and mothei\" In extreme old age, people often show strong lik- ings or fancies similar to those they felt when they were children. Should you gratify such likings in aged parents? Should you not try to break them of such desires ? DUTIES IN THE HOME, 139 "No?" But why not? They might be old and feeble and have less judgment than yourself. You would be experienced mert and women. "Oh, but there is a difference ; they would be one's father and mother." Yes, that is true. Imagine the case of a boy adopted when he was but a few years old, and treated as a member of the family by a father and mother. Then when he and the real sons and daughters have grown up and go out into the world, what if he is neglectful, does not write to his foster father and mother or send gifts to them, or go to see them ? What if, on the other hand, the same neglect were shown by the real sons and daughters, which would you blame more, the adopted son, or the real chil- dren? "The adopted boy, of course." Why? "Be- cause he owes more gratitude?" Yes; but does he owe exactly the same reverence? "No, not the same kind," you admit. Then would it not be even worse for the real children of the home to show such neglect ? Suppose a father and mother are treated in this way, and become sick and die sooner on this account, because of the pain of dis- appointment in their children. Would that not be a kind of a father- or mother-murder? "How could it be," you ask, — "if it was not intentional?" But we are not asking with regard to what a son or daughter might intend in such a matter. You do not mean to say that any grown person would have to fix it on his mind all the while as an intention that he will continue to show regard for his father or mother? By the way, have you ever heard a proverb run- ning as follows : "Little children and headaches. Great children and heartaches." Do j-ou sec any sense in a sajdng of that kind? 140 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Look at it carefully ; examine it word by word. How about the first half: "Little children and head- aches?" Does that imply that headaches come to young children a good deal? "No, it indicates that the necessary care for the little ones in the home often gives headaches to the father or mother." And how could that happen? I ask. "Because they may have to neglect themselves and their own health at times, for the sake of their chil- dren, perhaps overwork themselves, tire themselves out, exhaust their energies." Yes, you are right. Now look at the second half of the proverb. What dO' those words imply? "They probably suggest," you assume, "that grown-up children may sometimes cause heartaches to their parents." Yes, but that is a figure of speech. What would this lead you to infer? "As to that," you point out, "while parents later on may not have to work as hard for their children, or take care oi them in sickness, and so not con- tinue to have pain in the head or weariness of body on that account, they may be so disappointed in the conduct or characters of their children, as to be very unhappy and suffer even more in this way than they did in the old times*from their headaches." True, that is just about what this proverb means. Do you believe it often comes true? "You hope not?" Well, we will not urge that question further. We shall all hope not. But have you known cases where a son or daugh- ter has been very good and kind to an aged father or mother? If so, did it strike you as being very noble conduct on their part? Did you not think that they were wonderfully good people to be so thoughtful and considerate for their parents? "No, not necessarily; there was not anything very praiseworthy in that," you insist. DUTIES IN THE HOME. I4I But remember how much they were doing. "Yes, but they were only doing what was right, what any- body and everybody ought to do without thinking anything about it at all." True. I must agree with you. Do you know what is the one great regret more than any other, which grown people usually feel? It is that they did not do more for those whom they have loved and lost. And most of all, they feel this with regard to their fathers and mothers, when it is too late. , Memory Qem. "The beauty of young men is in their strength; The beauty of old men is in their white hair." Points of the Xieason. I. That grown up children do not owe quite the same obedience to father and mother, that they would owe to them when young children. II. That as grown up sons and daughters they still owe a certain deference to a father or mother. III. That they should show a certain respect for the opin- ions of their parents on important questions, even when they may be obliged to take a different stand for themselves. IV. That they should always be very careful to speak with respect concerning those feelings which have been held sacred by a father or a mother. V. That they should never allow their fathers or mothers to go in want in old age, even though it means a great sacri- fice for themselves. VI. That they should be especially mindful of their parents in case they are separated from them. VII. That they ought to try to do little services every now and then for their parents, just in order to show their continued affection. VIII. That neglect toward parents may cause the most terrible distress in a person's memory after the parents have been lost by death. Sntles. /. We ought zvhen grown up to proznde for our parents in case they need our assistance. II. We ought to keep shomng an affection for our parents all their lives by little sennces we may render them. 142 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ///. We ought to take the greatest pains, that our parents may have a happy old age. IV. We ought luhen grozvn up to go now and then to visit our parents and let them see mid feel our devotion to them-. V. We ought to he faithful to our parents even unto death. Farewell, ye lofty spires That cheered the holy light ! Farewell, domestic fires That broke the gloom of night ! Too soon these spires are lost, Too fast we leave the bay. Too soon by ocean tost From hearth and home away, Far away, far away. Farewell, the busy town, The wealthy and the wise. Kind smile and honest frown From bright familiar eyes. All these are fading now; Our brig hastes on her way; Her unremembering prow Is leaping o'er the sea, Far away, far away. Farewell, my mother fond. Too kind, too good to me, Nor pearl, nor diamond. Would pay my debt to thee; But even thy kiss denies Upon my cheek to stay. The winged vessel flies. And billows round her play. Far away, far away. Farewell, my brothers true, My betters, yet my peers. How desert without you My few and evil years ! But though aye one in heart. Together sad or gay, Rude ocean doth us part, We separate to-day, Far away, far away. — Anonymous. DUTIES IN THE HOME. I43 Turtlisr Bng'B'eBtlons to the Teacher. We enter upon a subject in this chapter, which should be handled with care and thoroughness. It is of overwhelming importance because of new con- ditions in the modern world. At the present time, far more than in former centuries, the members of a family tend as adults to scatter to the four corners of the earth. The breaking of the home tie is far more violent than it used to be, and the menace to character on this account is equally great. The neglect on the part of sons and daughters, of their obligations to their parents, presents a very serious problem under these new conditions. When one sees pictures of groups of aged paupers, one asks in dis- may: where are their children? We are sure in many instances that sons and daughters of these people may be living elsewhere in comfort or afflu- ence. It is true also that a like neglect may be exhibited on the part of parents toward their chil- dren. • But the evil to-day would seem to be more in the other direction. Our theme could be divided into two parts; first as it concerns the general rela- tionship in adult life between sons or daughters and their parents, and secondly the obligations toward parents in old age. The teacher, however, might have this division in his own mind, and at the same time run the two aspects of the subject together in his conversations with the pupils. It will be very important in this lesson to introduce illustrations and examples of many kinds. Our analysis is a mere skeleton in comparison with what ought to be worked out in connection with the whole subject of the Dialogue. Many other problems will be sug- gested in the course of the discussion, and these should be taken up with painstaking care. One or two entire sessions should be devoted to making a list of the various services which the adult sons or 144 DUTIES IN THE HOME. daughters might render to their parents. We could deal with this aspect first according as they may be all living within the same city where they may meet frequently; and then in the second place according as they may be widely separated. The temptation to forgetfulness or neglect under this latter condi- tion should be explained. A warning note should be sounded. There is, however, the other phase of the subject to be kept in mind by the teacher. The story of neglect is not always on one side. There may be selfish parents as well as selfish children. It will not do to overlook the fact that every person also owes a duty to himself, and that he is called upon to do something for his own* self-improvement and self-advance. Instances do occur where a child's whole career has been immolated on the altar of devotion to a selfish father or mother. This hap- pens more especially in the case of daughters, whose careers may be half wrecked just in the bloom of their young womanhood, because of the sacrifices demanded of them in this direction. We must admit that there can be such a thing as an exaggerated self-sacrifice. At the same time we are all aware that these are the exceptions and that the tendency will be the other way. The disposition on the part of the parent to sacrifice herself or himself is instinct- ive, as something implanted in human nature ages ago, — existing, as we know, even low down in the animal kingdom. But the regard and care for par- ents in their old age on the part of sons and daugh- ters, is something which has to be fostered. It is not universal and has not yet become what we should call an implanted instinct. Hence the emphasis of our teaching must be in this other direction. We may admit the exceptions and under certain circum- stances exercise caution in the way we lay down our precepts. But on the whole, we shall be safe in DUTIES IN THE HOME. 145 dwelling very sternly and persistently on the duties and obligations of the child in maturity toward the parent. For picture illustration, we could do noth- ing better than to show scenes of paupers in their old age, of neglected parents, of groups of men and women as one may find them, for example, in the great workhouses of London. And to these pic- tures we may add the title as a query : where are their children ? On the other hand, it would also be well if we could introduce other scenes showing sons or daughters rendering service to their parents, tending them in their old age. We might present the cheerful picture of the grandfather or the grand- mother as a center of the home life. In connection with this general theme every one will, of course, be reminded of the well-known picture "Breaking Home Tieo," which was exhibited at the Chicago Colum- bian Exposition. CHAPTER XL STRIFE OR QUARRELING AMONG THE CHILDREN IN THE HOME. ProverlJS or Verses. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." ' "Two cannot fall out if one does not choose." "When one hits you with a stone, hit him with a piece of cotton." "The greatest quarrels do not always rise from deepest injuries." "He that returns good for evil obtains the victory." "No foolery like falling out." "Happy is the man who keeps out of strife." "It is better to keep out of a quarrel than to make it up afterwards." "Write injuries in dust, but kindnesses in marble." "It is better to suffer an injury than to commit one." "He that is not above an injury is below himself." Dialogne. By the way, do you suppose it ever happened at any time anywhere in the world in any family, that the children ever quarreled with one another? You mean to say that such a thing would never occur? Is that what you assert? "No'," you answer, "just the other way; it does happen quite often." Do you actually imply that children in the same home are not always fond of one another or devoted to one another? "At any rate," you add, "while they may be fond of one another, they do quarrel every now and then." Do you think this takes place in all families? "You do not know, but you assume that it happens in a good many?" How do children act when they quarrel; what do they do? "Oh, they say bad things to one 146 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 147 another, call one another names, refuse to help one another about anything." And when they use bad names to one another how do they speak them; — in a pleasant sort of a way? "No, in a harsh manner." Doi you mean that they are "snappish" like dogs ? "Yes," you admit, "some- times they are." They do not bite, do they? "No, not exactly with their teeth, but they may use biting language." Which do you think is worse; quarreling among acquaintances or friends, or quarreling between chil- dren in the home ? "Why, perhaps the latter would be even worse." But have you any reason for that opinion? "Yes," you point out, "they are brothers and sisters, and that makes a difference." True; quarreling is bad enough under any circumstances ; but quarreling between brothers and sisters does seem awful. Just think what it must imply for brothers and sisters to "snap" at one another or be "snappish" in what they say. How does it usually begin? Does it occur when one of the boys or girls says something nice or pleasant to the others? "No, it is the opposite of that." What then? "Why, perhaps one of them says something disa- greeable." And what happens? "Oh, the other one answers back." And does it stop there, usually? "No, then it may go on and sometimes it lasts for a long while." Does a quarrel usually start, do you suppose, from one of the boys or girls who is very rarely ever quarrelsome; is he or she the one who begins it? Or are there some boys or girls more quarrelsome than others in the home? "Oh, yes, some boys and girls are more given to b 148 DUTIES IN THE HOME. this than others, and they usually begin the quar- rels." ' Then what would you call quarreling, whaf sort of a thing is it for the person who usually begins it ? "A habit?" Yes, probably it is a habit. 1 should like to ask further as to the way such dis- putes develop. You tell me that they often arise be- cause one person says something disagreeable. But what makes anyone do this? From what does the feeling start? What impulse leads to it? "Well, perhaps it comes because one individual wants to have his own way, or to make the other children do what he wants to have them do." You assume, do you, that quarreling usually arises from the habit of insisting upon having one's own way, both for one's self and for one's brothers and sisters. I suspect that is true ; there is nothing that may lead to disputes sooner than the disposition to insist upon always having your own way both with yourself and with others. Can you suggest any other way by which quarrels may start in the home? Suppose that you were all sitting round a table reading by the same lamp; how might a disagreement arise among the children? "Oh, one might insist upon having more light than the others, or always be trying to get the most com- fortable chair." And then what do the others do? "They get cross," you answer, "and say unpleasant things." Yes, and in that case, who begins the quarrel, — ^those who say the bad things, or the one who takes the most light? "Why, probably the one who takes the most light or keeps the best seat." But is he altogether to blame? What if the others spoke quietly and said "please," and asked that the light be equally divided DUTIES IN THE HOME. I49 among them all, would there be a quarrel? "Not necessarily," you admit. But why not? "Because it takes two to make a quarrel." Yes, I have heard that before, and there must be some truth in it. What do you mean by that old proverb? If one person says something disagreeable to another, has not the dispute already begun? "No," you reply, "not unless the other one answers back." You really believe, do you, that you cannot have a disa- greement unless the second person will share in it? Behind all the bad words and cross sayings and the snappishness among the children when they are quarreling, what is going on in their minds or hearts at such a time? Are they cheerful within them- selves, for example? "No, they are cross inside, too." And what kind of feeling would they have on such occasions? "Oh, the feelings would be bad ; they would feel just the way they talk." But do yooi fancy they get any pleasure out of it? Do you believe one really enjoys quarreling; is there any fun to be had out of it? "No," you confess, "we cannot see the fun in it or any great pleasure in it." You assume, do you, that there is more real pleasure on all sides when you are all fond of one another, and no one is cross? "Yes, surely!" Then why in the world does any one start a dis- pute if there is no pleasure in it? "Perhaps," you answer, "it is human nature." Of what sort or kind? "Oh, bad human nature." When a number of children are quarreling to- gether, what does it suggest ? Did you ever hear the word, snarling? "Yes?" Who or what creatures are supposed to have this habit? "Dogs?" Then ISO DUTIES IN THE HOME. what does quarreling make us think of? "Oh, snarl- ing among dogs." Yes, that is really true ; when people are quarrel- ing together they never know how bad it appears on the outside; people who are looking on, at once be- gin to think about cats and dogs. But is there anything objectionable about it, be- sides the offensive appearance it may have in the eyes of others ? What else may people do, for exam- ple, if they see us acting in that manner? "Oh, they may laugh," you answer. And if so, how do people feel about you and your quarreling? "Why, they probably think it ridiculous," 3'ou confess. Then quarreling makes us contemptible in the opinion of others, does it? It makes us objects to be laughed at, as well as despised. Can you mention any old proverb telling how to avoid such experiences in the home; something about a "soft answer?" Do you recall it? "A soft answer turneth away wrath?" Yes; that is the old, old saying. And how do you explain it? Do you see any sense in it ? What do you mean by a soft answer? "Why," you tell me, "it implies not talking back when a person says something disagreeable to us ; answering gently and not in a cross tone." And what would be the effect of that, do you suppose? Do you think the boy or girl who is spoken to disa- greeably, vAW snap out again ? "No, not always; he may do just the other way." Why so? "Oh, possibly he may feel a little bit ashamed." But what should make him feel in that way? "As to that," you suggest, "the very fact that we speak so gently, or softly, shows that we are con- scious that he is saying something disagreeable, and makes him conscious of it too." Well, that is a DUTIES IN THE HOME. 15I roundabout explanation, but it describes the experi- ence. After all, there is nothing that quiets a dispute sooner than for one person who is concerned in it to begin to speak softly, in a quiet tone. We "cool down," as we say, and then perhaps the other one be- gins to feel a bit ashamed. When people have been having a disagreement among themselves, and want to make up, what do they do ? "Oh, they begin to act kindly toward one another, say pleasant things and try not to be cross anymore." But is that all? Nothing further ? What if anyone has said anything very disagreear ble to you, called you a name, for instance? If after- wards he changes and treats you in a better way, do you forget the unpleasant language altogether? "No," you admit, "it may still rankle in the mind a little." But can you think of any way by which he might try to make it all right with you and cause you to get over the feeling- entirely? "Yes, he might own that he had done wrong." And what then, must be asked? "Oh," you answer, "it means asking forgiveness." Yes, that is it; about the only way to end a dispute once for all is for the persons who have been quarreling to own that they have been in the wrong and ask forgiveness of each other. But if only one of them asks forgiveness, is that enough? "Yes," you assert, "if he is the one who started the quarrel." But wait, now; you said that there could have been no such disagreement if the other had not answered back. Then is the other not to blame, too? "Somewhat," you admit. Don't you think that both of them should own they have been a little in the wrong and both confess to a little shame. It is not fair always to expect the 152 DUTIES IN THE HOME. confession all on one side. When there has been a quarrel and both have said disagreeable things, then even if one of them did start it, both may have some- thing to take back. Do you fancy, by the way, that it comes easy to ask forgiveness when one has done wrong? "Not by any means !" you exclaim. But why not? I ask; if one finds out that one has really been guilty and becomes a little ashamed of one's self? "True, but it is humiliating to one's pride to make such a confession." You imply, do you, that it comes rather hard to own up that one has been in the wrong ? Which may be the more unpleas- ant experience — owning up to one's self, or to the other person? "Why, to the other person," you tell me. I am not so sure that you are right on that point. When you are older and have seen more of human nature, you may discover that people find it about as hard to own up to themselves that they have been in the wrong. But if one really has said something unkind, hurt the feelings of another of the members of the home, brought about a quarrel, what sort of a characteris- tic would it indicate for the guilty one not to ask for- giveness, or "own up," as we say? Suppose I put it to you in another way : Does it show courage or does it indicate cowardice, to con- fess that one has been in the wrong? "As to that," you answer, "it would probably be a manifestation of courage, because it would come hard and take real strength of will or force of character, to own up in that manner." And what would it imply, then, for one to be stubborn and not make a confession? "A kind of cowardice?" Yes, I agree with you. DUTIES ;n the home. 153 After all, it takes what we term "manliness" or "womanliness" to own up when one has been in the wrong. Some of the strongest and most successful people in the world have been among those who at one time or another in their lives have had the cour- age to make such confession. But what would be the best way of conducting one's self in order to avoid ever being obliged to confess that one has been in the wrong? "Oh," you smile, "of course one can escape that experience by not doing wrong to start with." Yes, most de- cidedly 1 By the way, how do you suppose your fathers and mothers feel when they hear you quarreling? "It pains them, of course." Why so? I ask. What rea- son can you give for such an attitude on their part? "That is plain enough," you say; "they know we are acting contrary to their wishes ; they see that we are showing a bad spirit, and they are disappointed in us." True, that is it. When our parents see us quarrel- . ing, they cannot think as highly of us as before, even while they may still love us. We may lose their regard at such times, and that is a heavy loss indeed. lUemory Qeaa. "A soft answer turneth away wrath." Points of the l^esBon. I. That the children in the family sometimes quprrel. II. That in quarreling some one usually begins it by being selfish or saying something unkind to another. III. That it takes two to make a quarrel, and that it is usually kept up by the other one losing his temper and answer- ing back. IV. That in quarreling one may make one's self laughed at or even despised by others. V. That we may lose the respect or esteem of our parents by quarreling with one another as children. VI. That the bad feelings aroused by a quarrel may often be smoothed over by confessing that one has been in the wrong. 154 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Foem. There is beauty all around, When there's love at home; There is joy in every sound, When there's love at home ; Peace and plenty here abide. Smiling sweet on every side — Time doth softly, sweetly glide, When there's love at home. In the cottage there is joy. When there's love at home; Hate and envy ne'er annoy When there's love at home ; Roses blossom at our feet; All the earth's a garden sweet. Making life a bliss complete. When there's love at home. — ]. H. McNaughton. Duties. /. We ought not to quarrel, because of the in- jury it may do to one's ozvn character. II. We ought not to quarrel, because of the had feelings it arouses and fosters. III. We ought not to quarrel, because in doing so we may lose our self-respect and the respect of 'other's. IV. We otiglit not to quarrel, because it increases the amount of pain and misery in the world. V. We ought not to quarrel, because it puts us on a level with the beasts. VI. If we have said anything unkind or done wrong to another, we ought to ask forgiveness. VII. If we have been quarreling, we ought to ac- knowledge our own share of the blame for it. VIII. We ought least of all ever to quarrel in the home, just because it is home. IX. We ought to avoid strife with brothers and sisters because they are our brothers and sisters. DUTIES IN THE HOME. I5S Fnrtlier Sag'g'estiona to the Teacher. This will be an unpleasant subject to develop for the young people ; and yet it is of the greatest impor- tance. The members of the class will not care to dis- cuss it and be disposed to regard it as of slight sig- nificance. Quarreling or strife may seem interesting only when we are ourselves concerned in it and are stirred by the excitement of it. But the experiences discussed are sadly common enough and make up only too much of every-day life. It is this phase with which we ought to grapple in our efforts tO' in- fluence the characters of the young. Instead of in- troducing the subject, however, by a direct series of questions, we might enter upon it by means of a story or anecdote and carry on the whole lesson in this way. The proverbs at the beginning offer a great deal of material, and they might be taken up one by one in detail. Each one of them tfould form the subject of consideration for a half-hour's dis- cussion. We must develop the theme elaborately by any means in our power. It should form the sub- ject for a number of sessions, unpleasant as it may be. On the whole, in this chapter it would be ad- visable once more also to look from the home "out of the window," extending the discussion to experi- ences in the outer world. We may use the theme as the basis for a consideration of the problemi of strife in all its many forms, beginning first with petty quarreling among children in the home, and then studying it as we see it among adults. Some teach- ers may object to the emphasis we lay on the ludi- crousness oi quarreling persons. We certain!}- doi not wish to encourage people to stand and laugh at scenes of this kind. On the other hand, it is to be remembered that at this point we may employ one of the most subtle and powerful of human motives. Our purpose, first of all, is to discourage the habit 156 DUTIES IN THE HOME. of strife or quarreling, and if we can do this by torching on the humiliation of "being laughed at," the method should not be overlooked. People will endure almost anything rather than the smile of con- tempt. It is well, too, that young people should be made to see the vulgarity of the quarrelsome at- titude or disposition. Still further, we may draw a picture of the loss of dignity when a person is using abusive language or is forming one party to a quar- rel. Let the young people understand' how utterly contemptible an individual may look at such a time. Show pictures of the faces and attitudes of people at such moments. Let children appreciate the sense of disgust that may arise in observing scenes of this kind, and ask them what it implies for a person to be the object of that disgust. Touch on the vul- garity displayed by people when they run to see a fight, and -show how animal-like this is, how unwor- thy it seems for human beings to take pleasure in anything of that kind. On the other hand, the teacher must be cautious about discouraging any kind of self-assertiveness. We do not wish to hold up for admiration types of meekness which young people instinctively may be inclined to despise. There may be forms of "disputatiousness" or self-assertive- ness which young people are quite sure to outgrow. So, too, there may be a display of animal spirits in children, which will appear aggressive, and yet which pertain only to the child temperament. In dealing with the ethical training of the young, we must always keep this distinction in mind. Certain traits or habits will be shed by children as they grow older, precisely as they lose their first teeth. With these we are not especially concerned. At the same time, it may not be difficult to draw the distinction between real quarreling on the one hand, and the transient display of animal spirits or childlike self- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 157 assertiveness on the other. It is the quarrelsome dis- position we must contend against and deal with, in working out the points of this special lesson. Pic- tures for illustration may easily be secured and will be of great service when introduced from time to time. It might be advisable also to show scenes of animals quarreling with one another, pointing out the ugly expressions and brutal attitudes. Per- haps we might even put side by side the face of a snarling dog and the ugly look of a child in the heat of a quarrel. The "lesson" of the picture would be manifest at once. CHAPTER XII. SOME OF THE BAD FEELINGS WHICH MAY ARISE AMONG THE CHILDREN IN THE HOME. ProTerlis or Verses. "Self-love and self-conceit fill the land with fools." "Envy — the dyspepsia of the mind." "The envious hurts others something, but himself more." "Jealousy shuts one door and opens two instead." "The jealous person — who spreads his bed with stinging nettles and then sleeps on it." "I mistress and you maid, who's to sv-^eep the house?" "Unwilling service earns no thanks." "Though they are brothers, their pockets are not sisters." "He who rides on horseback, no longer knows his own father." Dialogne. If there were no quarreling among children in the home, if they did not say bad things to one another, or call one another bad names, do you suppose they ever could have bad feelings toward one another? "Perhaps not?" But are you sure about that ? What if a prize had been offered in school, and two brothers or sisters have been trying to get it, and only one succeeds, how does the other feel ? "Well," you assert, "he ought to feel very glad." But why? "Oh, because it is his brother who got the prize, even if he did not get it himself." But do you think that is always the feeling which brothers or sisters manifest under the circumstances ; are they always exceedingly glad that the other one could get it even if they themselves failed? "No," you reply, "not always; in fact, it may often be quite the contrary." 158 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 159 Do you actually mean that they would rather that some other person should get it, than their own brother or sister ? "Sometimes it is so," you admit. What kind of feeling would that imply on the part of the one who lost the prize? How would you describe it? "Oh, it is jealousy." Do you regard it as possible that one brother or sister could be jealous of another brother or sister? "Certainly, it will occur at times." What is it, then, that may awaken jealousy be- tween one child and another in the same home? "Oh, it may be when one gets more attention than another, or one succeeds or gets ahead of another." Do you feel that there ought to be such a thing as rivalry between the members in the same home? Should one brother try to get ahead of another brother? Should two brothers try for the same prize ? "No," you tell me, "perhaps they ought not to do soi." You imply, do you, that there should not be any rivalry between children in the same home ? But why not? "Because it may start bad feelings, it may arouse jealousy." Yes, I answer, but jealousy is bad and ought to be conquered. "That may be true," you add, "but still, if such a feeling may be called forth, one had better try to act so that it shall not be awakened." Yes, I am in- clined to believe you are right; rivalry between members of the same home does not seem the best sort of a thing. But is there any other experience which may lead to bad feelings between the children in the home? Suppose, for instance, that your father or mother for some reason should do more for one O'f you than for the others, what might happen then ? "As to that," you reply, "it might cause the dis- l6o DUTIES IN THE HOME. play of disagreeable feelings." Toward whom, for example? "Perhaps toward father and mother." Would it usually be in that way, however? "No," you add, "probably if they are aroused at all, it will be toward the one who has been favored." Would such a feeling be right? "Yes," you assert, "because father and mother ought not to favor one of us more than the others." Stop now, before you are too positive about that. How would you know that your father or mother was favoring one more than the other; how could you always tell? "It may look that way," you con- tinue. Yes, but how can you judge? Perhaps there is a reason for it, that you do not understand. In the case of a very poor family, what if the parents should do a great deal for the oldest child, so that he might be able to earn his living better and help the family more by that means; — that would be showing favor to one of the family, would it not? Yet would it be wrong? "No," you admit, "not if there was such a purpose in view." You assume, then, after all, do you, that a father and mother might show special favor to one of the children and not to the others, without being unfair? Would the feeling of jealousy in that case be right? "Not necessarily," you answer. Let me give you another instance. What if, among several children, there was one who hap- pened tO' possess a great deal of talent in one special direction, perhaps music or mathematics, or in some other special kind of study. In that case, are you convinced that all the chil- dren should be treated exactly alike, that no more privileges should be given to the one who had a great deal of talent, than to the others? Don't you DUTIES IN THE HOME. l6l think that this one child ought to have more oppor- tunities for education? Would it be right, then, that disagreeable feelings, such as jealousy or envy, should arise among the other children because special privileges were given to the one who had the unusual talent? "No," you answer hesitatingly, "at any rate, one ought not to have such a feeling." But why do you hesitate? "Well," you say, "we are afraid that one would have it, nevertheless." But now, on the other hand, if a boy or girl does receive unusual opportunities because he or she has more talent, and therefore becomes more educated than the others; how do you suppose he or she will feel toward the others when they are grown up? "Why, probably this one will feel superior to the others, perhaps even look down on them." But would that be right, would that be just? "Yes," you answer, " if he or she is really superior." But remember that the interests of the others have been sacrificed or neglected, in order that this one might have an education. How, then, should this one really feel toward the others? "As to that," you add, "if the right spirit were displayed, he or she would want to make it up to the others in some way." Yes, I must agree with you. Instead of acting as if superior to the others, such a person ought rather to show the others all the more consideration, because their interests have been sacrificed partly for that one's sake. Do you fancy that it ever happens that a child after being educated in that way, may even come to look down a little upon the father or mother who worked so hard in order to provide that education ? "You don't see how that would be possible?" Why not? I ask. "As to that," you exclaim, "just think what a sacrifice the father and mother l62 DUTIES IN THE HOME. have made; think how the child has had his advan- tages solely because of what the parents have done 1" Yes, that is true ; although I am not asking at this point as to what the attitude ought to be, but rather what feeling actually may exist. "At any rate," you assert, "if such a feeling exists, it is all very bad." I certainly believe you are right. It would be bad enough for one brother or sister to look down on the others, after having received special advantages or opportunities. But it would be even worse, to be- gin to be a little ashamed of one's father and mother on that account. Does it not strike you as something awful that children should ever become ashamed of their fathers and mothers, because they may be more educated than their parents? Now, one other point. I wonder if you can sug- gest the best m.ethod for checking the bad feelings which may arise among the children in the home? "Perhaps something could be accomplished by try- ing not to say disagreeable things, or trying not to be cross with the others." But is there any other way? I think, you have said that bad feelings often start through asking favors of another. What could be done to obviate this ? "Well," you continue, "it may be that if we tried to do more favors for others instead of asking favors of them, there would be less bad feeling, less jeal- ousy, less envy, less quarreling, among the children in the home." Yes, that is emphatically true. "This would not come very easy, however," you assert. "It is natural for one to think more about the favors one receives than of those one has to give." But the point is worthy of consideration, at any rate, I insist. One might make an effort in this direction and see what came of it. Does it ever happen, by the way, that one of the DUTIES IN THE HOME. , 163 children in the home is better looking than the oth- ers, more attractive to the eye, more "beautiful," as we. say. "Yes, indeed!" you exclaim. And is that right? I ask. Is that fair? "As to that," you say, "there is no question of right or fair- ness. It is just a fact; children cannot all look just alike or be equally beautiful." And is the most beautiful one usually the most unselfish, most kind-hearted, the least given to think- ing about himself or herself? "Not always," you confess. And why not? "Oh, it might happen that the very fact of being more attractive or more beautiful than the others, would make that one vain or proud." Does this have to happen, would you say? "No, it is not true in every case," you answer. You assume, however, that this might take place ; that beautiful people are not always unselfish; that the possession of a more attractive appearance thai? the other brothers and sisters in the home, may sometimes be a temptation and cause bad feeling in the way of pride or vanity or selfishness on the part of the one who is superior in this way? But how about the other members of the home, the other children, in their attitude toward the more beautiful one? Would their feeling always be of the best kind. Are they glad that the other one is ■ more attractive than they are, themselves? "They ought to be," you exclaim. True, but I am not asking you just now what the attitude ought to be. "Well," you confess, "it might happen that the others would also show bad feelings and be envious of the superior beauty of their brother or sister." And would that be a good sort of attitude to take? "Not by any manner of means !" Why not? "Be- cause it would imply a mean kind of feeling." 164 ^ DUTIES IN the: H0ME> How would it be, again, for instance, if one of the brothers and sisters attracts more attention from the outside, than the others, is talked about more or admired more? Is he or she to blame, on that ac- count? "No," you hesitate. What makes you doubtful? "Oh, because some^ times attention from the outside makes one of the children disagreeable to the others." In what way? I ask. "Why," you explain, "he or she may be all the time trying to attract more admiration or to get more notice from other people and think less about the duties in the home or what is due to other mem- bers of the family." Would you say, then, that it is wrong for one to receive admiration or attention from people on the outside? "No, not if one does not seek it or is not selfish about it." But are the bad feelings in this case, do you sup- pose, always on one side? If there is admiration or attention shown to one more than the others, how will the others act? "As to that," you say, "they, toO', could be disagreeable and show bad feeling." But would this be right? I ask. "No, not exactly right," you admit. Theri, if one is not to blame for being more attractive or beautiful or for being more ad- mired than the others, is there anything which such a member of the family could do in or- der to try and discourage bad feelings on the part of the others ? "Yes, if he or she did not show pride or vanity or would not be selfish about it, that would make a great difference." Don't you think that the others also might help a little in keeping down bad feeling under those cir- cumstances? Might they not take pleasure in the DUTIES IN THE HOME. 165 superior attractiveness of their brother or sister and be glad, just because it is a brother or sister? After all, if you will look into it closely, you will see that it all turns pretty much around the main point as to whether one is selfish in such matters and thinks only about one's self. Does it usually happen, for instance, that any one child has ail the superior gifts? "It would not be probable," you answer. You assume, do you, that while one may be su- perior in one way, another might be so in another? "Yes, indeed!" In what way, then, do you suppose each one might be of service to the other, with regard to the gifts or advantages which are distributed amongst the various members of the family? "As to that," you explain, "they might each perhaps try to help the others in their respective advantages or superior gifts." Yes, that is the whole point, — although it may come pretty hard. If we 'would try to help the oth- ers to get the most out of their special gifts or advan- tages, instead of thinking about our own superiority or inferiority, we should all be much happier and there would be less bad feeling in the home. Do you know how we describe one of the meanest feelings one could possibly have in connection with the home life? Suppose we write it down and look at the word. Begin with a capital E, and then add the other three letters n-v-y. There it stands, the word "Envy." It is one of the most loathsome feelings which can exist in the human heart, — and worst of all and most loathsome, if it is felt toward a brother or sis- ter. Now erase it. Suppose we try to forget the word, because we despise so much the feeling which it represents. But there is just one other experience in the home I^ DUTIES IN THE HOME. I wish to ask you about, before we come to the end of this subject. What was it, we said, was perhaps the root of most of the bad feelings among children in the family. It was a word of three syllables be- ginning with S. "Selfishness?" Yes, that was the word. Do you fancy it could possibly happen that one brother or sister might be given something good to eat, for instance, candy, it might be, or something else; and that this one brother or sister might eat it all without sharing it with the others. "It would be pretty mean," you assert. Yes, but I did not ask you about that. It was only a question as to whether it could happen. "Yes," you admit, "there are children who could be as mean as that." And what would you assume that a person really ought to do if a gift of that kind comes to him. "Oh," you exclaim, "he ought to share it with the others, of course." Why do you add "of course?" I ask. "Because the others are his brothers and sisters." Yes, that is a great point and one we must never overlook. It certainly does seem pretty mean and selfish not to share our pleasures at least with the members of our home. But if such selfish conduct does occur among some of the children, how does it make the others feel? "Oh, they have bad feehngs, toO'." Against whom? "Why, against the one who has been so mean or selfish." You would say, then, would you, that bad feeling on the part of one has a way of leading to bad feeling on the part of others? "It looks that way," you confess. Memory G-em. "He that ivalketh uprightly walkcth surely; But he that p.erverteth his ways shall be known." DUTIES IN THE HOME. 167 7 oints of the Iiesson. I. That there is danger in rivalry between children in the home, in leading to bad feeling or jealousy, unless the rivalry is conducted in the right spirit. II. That jealousy between children in the home is a feeling one ought to be ashamed of. III. That a feeling of envy is sometimes displayed, when special consideration has to be given to one child more than to the others in the home." IV. That superior gifts on the part of one child may lead him or her to be foolishly proud or vain and selfish. V. That any child is in danger of becoming vain and selfish, if he or she is better looking or more attractive in appearance than the others. VI. That one child is liable to become conceited or dis- agreeable in the home, if other people on the outside notice that one more than the others. VII. That superior education som.etimes leads one son or daughter to look down on the others, or still worse, to think less of their parents. VIII. That where one has superior gifts, advantages or opportunities over the other brothers or sisters, one needs to be especially considerate of the feelings of the others. Duties;. 7. We ought to rejoice over the superior gifts or advantages falling to our brothers or sisters. II. IVe ought to avoid putting on an air of su- periority in the home, because of special gifts or ad- vantages we may possess. III. We ought to share with others in the home the good that may come to 'us or the opportunities for pleasure we may receive. IF. IVe ought to try to help one another in the home, in making the most of whatever gifts or op- portunities may fall to each and every one there. Foem. Let them sing who may, of the battle fray. And the deeds that have long since past ; Let them chant in praise of the tar whose days, Are spent on the ocean vast. I would render to these all the worship you please, I would honor them even now ; l6S DUTIES IN THE HOME. But I'd give far more from my heart's full store To the cause of the Good Old Plough ! Let them laud the notes that in music float Through the bright and glittering hall; , While the amorous twirl of the hair's bright curl Round the shoulder of beauty fall. But dearer to me is the song from the tree, And the rich and blossoming bough; O, these are the sweets which the rustic greets As he follows the Good Old Plough! Full many there be that daily see, With a selfish and hollow pride. Who the ploughman's lot, in his humble cot, with a scornful look deride; But I'd rather take, aye, a hearty shake From his hand than to wealth I'd bow ; For the honest grasp of his hand's rough clasp, Has stood by the Good Old Plough ! All honor be, then, to these gray old men. When at last they are bowed with toil ! Their warfare then o'er, they battle no more, For they've conquered the stubborn soil. _ And the chaplet ch wears in his silver hairs ; And ne'er shall the victor's brow With a laurel crown to the grave go down Like the sons of the Good Old Plough ! — Anonymous. FnTther Snsrsrestlons to tlie Teaolier. The points of this lesson may call for "subjective" treatment, and therefore involve problems of some difificulty. While jealousy, for example, may appear among very young children, it will not be under- stood by them as a feeling until they are much older. So, too, a discussion with regard to the "excep- tional" child, in so far as gifts or talents may be con- cerned, and what is due under these circumstances, will introduce considerations which may be beyond the experience of most pupils of the class. And yet the problem has its serious aspects. Children cannot be treated exactly alike. It is itievitable as the years go on that there should be some discrimi- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 169 nation ; and this is liable to arouse a certain amount of bad feeling. It were better, perhaps, for this reason that there should be a discussion of such pos- sibilities in advance. It is not always feasible to give each child the same amount of pleasure or to dispense exactly the same number of opportunities to each and all. It is certainly unfortunate when children form the habit of criticising their parents and clamoring for their special rights, whenever any discrimination of this kind is manifested. We ought to do everything in our power to break up this habit if possible, and to foster a disposition on the part of the young people in the home to look upon such experiences as something inevitable. We should try, therefore, to encourage on their part a disposition to take pleasure in the good fortune of the others even if this may not fall to themselves. There is a wide field for discussion in this chapter when we come to deal with the subject of rivalry between young people in the home. We should go into an analysis of this point very thoroughly, be cause it is an experience which they can all appre- ciate and understand. We can teach them to distin- guish very sharply between good and bad forms of rivalry among themselves. We should make quite a list of possible bad forms of rivalry, and the bad feelings which may arise on this account. Some- thing could be said of the disposition to "brag," which may be manifested on the part of some of the brothers or sisters. We are not to confine ourselves here to what may take place while the young peo- ple are children, but also to look forward to the time when they shall become older or be grown up. It may be advisable to point out some of the dangers ahead of them in these directions, before they have had the actual experiences. We might illustrate from the rivalry that could develop among older l^O DUTIES IN THE HOME. sisters, in the desire to secure a greater amount of attention from others. So, too, and still more im^ portant, would be the problem of rivalry in dress, or the desire to "show off" in the home when guests or strangers are present. We can mention the bad feelings which are fostered by such habits, and the painful experiences to which they lead. We may use the classic words, "sisterly" and "brotherly," and let the children see how "showing off" is even worse in the home than outside, because of the dis- regard of the sisterly or brotherly relationship. The "superior" attitude taken by one or another child in the home, is a very common experience and its consequences are often serious. Stories or anec- dotes shold be introduced telling of manifestations of such pride on the part of brothers and sisters toward one another, or toward their parents. In this lesson we may also find it advisable to discuss certain phases of the subject exclusively with the girls and other phases exclusively with the boys. The motives and temptations here may be different and therefore require separate treatment. Furthermore, we must continue to be on our guard lest we allow the young people to draw their obser- vations too much from their own homes or their own brothers or sisters. A great deal will depend in this direction on the way the teacher puts the questions. We certainly do not wish to encourage the children to watch or examine one another in order to find instances of the bad traits or feelings we may be discussing. At the same time they are obliged all the while to a certain extent to draw on their own experiences, and they will be doing this whether we encourage them in it or not. In dealing with this lesson as a whole, stories will be more serv- iceable than pictures. There are, however, face- types of envy and jealousy which could be intro- duced to advantage. CHAPTER XIII. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN CHILDREN OF THE SAME HOME WHEN THEY ARE GROWN UP. Proverbs or Verses. "A brother is a friend provided by nature." "No distance breaks the tie of home, Brothers are brothers ever more; Nor virrong nor wrath of deadliest mood That magic may o'erpower." — Keble. "The child is father to the man." "A brother's sufferings claim a brother's pity." — Addison. "Affection is the broadest basis of a good life." — George Eliot. "Our domestic affections are the most salutary basis of all good government." — Bea. Hialogne. When children grow up and become men and women, do they usually continue to live together in the same home? "Certainly not," you answer. And why not? I ask. "Oh, that is plain enough, they may have homes and families of their own." True, but what if they should go on all their lives without having families of their ovra? Is it proba- ble that they would then remain in the old home with their fathers and mothers? "It is very doubt- ful, at any rate." And why soi? "Because they may not be living in the same lo- cality ; if they have to earn their living, this may take them elsewhere." Yes, that happens very often. You are quite right. And it must come very hard on father and mother when such changes occur. How about the brothers and sisters? If they do not remain with their parents, are they liable to be 171 172 DUTIES IN THE HOME. thrown together a good deal when they are grown up, or to occupy the same homes? "No," and for the same reason. They may have their own fami- lies." And you assume, do you, that they will be scat- tered in diiiferent localities owing to the necessity of earning their living. But must this always follow? "No," you say, "even if they have separate homes, they may be neighbors to one another, residing in the same town or the same city." And do they continue brothers and sisters? "Most decidedly." But do they always act when they are grown up, as if they were of the same family? "No?" Why do you hesitate? "Because it may depend on the kind of people they are; whether they have been selfish as children or have become more selfish when grown up." But you don't mean to assert that they are under the same obligations to one another as men and . women that they were to one another when children. "No, not exactly." And why do you use that word "exactly." What makes you so cautious in the language you employ? "Oh," you point out, "circumstances have changed. They are grown up ; it would be impossible for them to remain quite in the same position to one another." In what ways do you mean, for example? In the matter of obedience, for instance, what rule did we lay down concerning the relationship between the older and younger children in the same family? Could the older brother or sister command the younger, did we say? "No, only in so far as he or she was 'delegated' to do it, by the parents." And does such an authority continue in later life; may the older brother or sister represent the father DUTIES IN THE HOME. 173 or mother in exacting obedience, just the same? "On the contrary, all that has to change." Yes, you are right. The authority of the older children over the younger ones ceases when people are grown up. But what of that other attitude we talked about, in the feeling which the younger child should have for the older one in the home; what did we call it? Something beginning with a capital D. "Defer- ence?" Yes, that was the word. And should that continue just the same all through life? "Not quite?" And why not? The contrast be- tween the ages does not change, does it? The younger children never catch up to the older ones in this respect, do they? "No," you smile. "Yet there is a difference," you insist. In what way? I ask again. "Why, as to that, we shall know a great deal more about the world and how to act for ourselves, when we are grown up. We shall feel more justified, then, in using our own judgment, even if it be contrary to the advice of an older brother or sister." Are you quite sure on this point ? Be a little care- ful now. Should you say, for instance, that a brother twenty years old ought tO' show any spe- cial regard to the advice of an older brother at thirty? "Yes," you admit, "at that age, at any rate." And why so? "Because at twenty, one is not very much grown up, even if one is no longer a child." Yes, that is quite true. And yet I can tell you for a fact that young peo- ple at twenty years old often feel themselves much more grown up and much wiser in their experience in judging as to the way they should act for them- selves, than when they are even forty years of age or reaching middle life. 174 DUTIES IN THE HOME. This is called on that account a "danger point" in the life of many people. They have learned so much since they were children that it is hard for them to realize that there is anything more for them to find out. But what about brothers and sisters when they may be forty or fifty years old ? "Why, as the age increases, perhaps the difference in experience or judgment lessens somewhat." Yes, that is probably the case. Five years differ- ence in age when children are ten or fifteen years old, means a good deal more, perhaps, than the same number of years when brothers and sisters are forty or fifty years old. It implies that as a person goes on in life and passes from youth to early manhood or womanhood and then on to middle age, he is more and more justified in thinking and acting for himself. Would you infer from this, I wonder, that as peo- ple grow older they cease to go on learning any- thing, and on this account become justified in giv- ing advice to those who are younger than them- selves? "Not if they are sensible people," you assert. And what do you mean by that ? "Why," you tell me, "a person ought to be able to learn new things or get more knowledge right along to the end of his days." Yes, that is true. But is there any differ- ence, do you fancy, in the kind of knowledge they get, in contrast with what they are acquiring when they are children? "You do not quite understand my point ?" Well, think a moment, now. What do many of you have to be doing day-times during the winter? "Going to school?" And what occupies you there? "Study- ing, O'f course." But what may father or mother DUTIES IN THE HOME. 175 be doing at the same time ; — going to school ? "No, indeed!" Then how does your manner of acquiring knowl- edge differ from that by which your fathers and mothers are getting it? "Oh, it may be in the fact that we have to study books more." Does that imply, however, that your parents may be getting no knowledge whatever from what they are doing? "Oh, no," you assert. But how can they be learning anything, if they are not studying books all the while? "Why, it may come from experience, from the work they are doing, from the duties they have to perform." Yes, that is quite true. Do' you assume, then, that you get no knowledge by experience, but only out of your books or studies? "No," you assert, "we may find out something from experience also." Then there are two ways by which you are obtaining knowledge. Perhaps this explains why a person grows so fast when he is young. One is acquiring knowledge both from experience and also from one's teachers. And so you think, do you, that when you are grown up, you will really not owe anything more to your brothers and sisters? "You did not say that?" What was it, then, that you implied ? "Why," you continue, "we only asserted that we should not owe quite the same regard to their advice or judgment, as we went on in life." But would that not change everything? Would that not set you entirely free from one another? "No, that does not change the fact that even when grown up, children have had the same father and mother, that they have been brothers or sisters in 176 DUTIES IN THE HOME. the same home." And they will be brothers and sis- ters still, you imply? "Most surely!" Do you believe, for instance, that they will go on being fond of one another, having the same brotherly or sisterly feeling as before? "Why not," you ask me; "how could it be otherwise? It ought to be so, at any rate!" True, but if they go out into the world, they will have new friends; and, as you have told me, per- haps they will also have homes and families of their own. Will not their first duties be to their new friends or to their own families? "Not necessarily to their friends," you assert. Well, to their families, at any rate. "Yes?" And why do you hesitate? "Oh," you add, "there is the father or mother." I am glad you mention that point. Perhaps the first duty still may be to one's parents. But how about the next duties ; will they be to brothers or sisters, or rather to one's own family? "Why," you answer, "probably to one's own family." Yes, I agree with you. Husband, wife and children may have to come in first, before brothers or sisters. And why so? "Oh, because brothers and sisters will be grown up and ought to be able to look out for themselves." Yes. And yet, now I hesitate a little in agreeing with you. Is it just because we need one another as chil- dren in the same home or are dependent on one another, that we owe something to one another? "That is one reason, at any rate." But is that the only reason ? "No, there is always the other point. There is the tie of relationship; we are brothers and sisters." Then you think, do you, that if children in the same home should grow up and be separated, go to different parts of the world and take no further DUTIES IN THE HOME. 177 interest in one another, there would be something wrong? "Yes, indeed!" Well, what? I ask. "It would show that they no longer took any responsibility for one another, that they no longer helped one another or cared for one another." Well, what could they do, would you say, in order to show that they still felt that they were brothers or sisters? "As to that," you tell me, "there are a great many things that they could do for one another even if they should be separated." What, for instance, would you suggest? "Oh, they could try to keep informed about one another." How, for example? What do you mean by that? "Why, they could write letters to one another; let the others know what they themselves are doing ; or try to find out what the others are doing; keep- ing informed in that way about the welfare of broth- ers and sisters." Yes, that is a very important point. It is very sad to see how often it happens that grown-up broth- ers- and sisters fail to keep in touch with one another in that way. They lose knowledge of one another's lives, and perhaps by such carelessness, even lose interest in one another's welfare. But is that all they could do ? Writing letters may be comparatively easy, — sending a few words now and then, which only cost a postage stamp and a few minutes' time with pen and paper? "No, indeed," you exclaim. What else, then, might they do? " Why, they could exchange tokens." What do you mean by that ? I ask. "Oh, it implies something in the way of remembrance." Any par- ticular kind, do you suppose? "Yes, it might be photographs of one's self or the members of one's new home." And what besides ? "Oh, there might be little presents of one kind 178 DUTIES IN THE HOME. or another sent backward and forward." Would you say, then, I ask, that people ought to keep on sending Christmas presents all their lives? Is not that a rather severe tax on themselves, when their money may be needed for their own families? "Yes," you add, "but the presents need not be expensive; perhaps they need not cost money at all. They can be presents just the same and show the spirit of affection." But what if brothers and sisters, separated in this way and in different parts of the world, should con- tinue to write to one another or exchange tokens occasionally, but never make any effort to see one another or to meet again; would that show that there was the right kind of family spirit continuing between them ? "No, decidedly not," you assert, "because if they really cared for one another, they would try now and tlien to go to one another's homes, see one another's families, to meet occasionally." Yes. But ought they to do it, if it really costs money? "Perhaps so," you continue. And why? I ask again. That may be a severe tax upon their time. "Yes, but they are brothers and sisters just the same, and they ought to show a recognition of that fact by seeing one another and taking an interest in one another's homes and families." But now, one other question. It may happen sometimes that one brother or sister is much more prosperous than another, more fortunate in busi- ness, more successful, has more comforts or lux- uries than another. Is that right, v^'ould you say? "Yes, of course," you answer; "why should it not be right? Perhaps that special member of the fam- ily has worked harder or h(?d more gifts or oppor- tunities." - But if it is right, is that ah? Could the one who DUTIES IN THE HOME. 179 is more prosperous than the others, do anything for the rest or show any recognition of the fact of his greater success? What if such a brother or sister sliould try to show off or boast to the others, how would that strike you? "That would be mean and contemptible," you answer. What might they do, in a better way? "Oh," you suggest, "in a quiet manner, without being offensive about it, they could help the others a little, contribute something out of their good fortune, for the sake of the others ; in this way showing that they recog- nized the fact of brotherhood and sisterhood just the same." Do you mean that they ought to divide equally with their brothers and sistera? "No, not at all," you answer; "what they possess, they may have earned, and it is theirs ; but this does not change the fact that they owe something to the other members of their former home, just because they were the children of the same father and mother." What did you mean, however, in using that word "offensive?" How might it happen that a brother could show such a spirit -in helping another brother or sister? "Why, for instance, he might perhaps blame the other one when making the gift ; or try to show off his own success in the way he rendered help to his brother or sister." Yes, that is possible. Young people will not understand from the experience they have had, just how this may happen. But they will see as they grow older. This may occur over and over again. People can be very unkind in the way they render help or assistance to brothers and sisters when they are all grown up. What is the point of distinction here ; where does it lie, for instance? "You do not quite know?" l8o DUTIES IN THE HOME. Well, I will tell you. . It lies, I should say, in the spirit in which the help or g-ift is contributed. When is it, most of all, do you suppose, that brothers and sisters might be of service to one another, if grown up? "Why," you exclaim, "when they are in need or in distress." Yes, but what is the greatest kind of distress? "Hunger or need of food and clot];iing?" No, you are quite mistaken. There is something worse than that. I will tell you plainly. It is in the loss by death. Every now and then this awful calamity strikes a home. And it is then, of all times, when grown up brothers and sisters may be of service to one another in a great many ways. What this all implies you may not understand. But the point of it you can appreciate even now. One last question, and a very important one. You were saying that affection or love might continue just the same all through life, even if brothers and sisters are separated. Suppose, however, that in spite of one's self one found that the old affection was not there. It would be a very painful experi- ence, I am sure. But would this set one free from all obligation to a brother or sister? "Not by any manner of means," you assure me. What, then, might hold the man or woman true to such obligations ? "Why," you answer, "it would be one's duty just the same." Yes, that is the great point. Write it down and remember it always. Even if by some strange experience, affection should die, yet Duty continues, and it should hold a man true to those obligations. "What do I mean by this ?" you ask me. Well, I should answer that if a man found that his old fond- ness or care for his brothers and sisters died out, DUTIES IN THE HOME. l8l and he felt little inclined to take interest in them, then he should literally compel himself to do so whether the interest was there or not ; he should then say to himself even more: It is my Duty. Suppose, however, it should happen when the children of a family are grown up, that one, a' brother, for instance, is really lazy, shiftless, unde- serving, a man who will not work hard and try to earn his living; do you think even then that the other members of the family ought to make sacri- fices for that brother in order to help him? "Perhaps they ought to do something," you con- fess. Why? "Well, there is no escape from the fact that he is a brother." But ought a good deal to be done for him ? I ask. "No," you insist, "it is not right that a man should give up a great deal of his own life or his own work, perhaps sacrifice the interests of both himself and his own family, for the sake of a brother who will not help himself." Yes, I suspect that you are right on that point. It does seem hard ; but there is a limit to what chil- dren when they are grown up ought to do for one another as brothers and sisters. A man who will not do his best in trying to earn his living, deserves some kind of a punishment for it. Memory Oem. "He that gathereth in summer is a wise son; But he that sleepeth in harvest causeth shame." Points of the ^Oesaon. I. That when children grow up, the relations between them in various ways must change. II. That children of the same home when grown up are more justified in judging for themselves as to the course they have to pursue with regard to their own lives or conduct. III. That this right or privilege becomes greater as years go on and one reaches middle life. IV. That there is, however, a tendency to exaggerate one's estimate of the experience and knowledge one has acquired, 182 DUTIES IN THE HOME. just at the time when one is leaving the "teens" and passing into maturity. V. That when grown up, brothers and sisters will probably be obliged to leave their early homes, and perhaps have homes and families of their own. VI. That their first duty will then be to their own homes and families rather than to their own grown up brothers and sisters, — although this does not apply also to one's father and mother. VII. That affection should continue between brothers and sisters when they are grown up, and a permanent interest in one another's life be shown. VIII. That they should try in various ways to keep up the interest in one another's life, by correspondence, mutual visit- ing, exchange of tokens and other ways. IX. That a brother or sister much more prosperous or for- tunate than the others, ought at least to share a little some- thing of that good fortune or prosperity with the others, if the others have done their best for themselves. X. That one ought not, however, to make as heavy sacri- fices for a brother or sister who has been really undeserving and not done his or her best or made the best efforts to take care of themselves. XI. That even under those circumstances, .however, one may not overlook the fact that there is still the blood rela- tionship and that they are still brothers and sisters. XII. That even if affection should die out, from one cause or another, between brothers and. sisters, they should make it a duty to show an interest in one another and do their best to keep themselves reminded of the fact that they are brothers and sisters. Saties. /. When as children zve grow up and go away from home, ive ought never to forget that zve are brothers and sisters. II. We ought w'hen grown up to try to preserve some kind of a bond with our brothers and sisters. III. As grown up brothers and sisters we ought to share to some extent our prosperity or our adver- sity together. IV. We ought to be true and faithful to one another as brothers and sisters zvhen grown up, because we have been children of the same father and mother. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 183 A Story. I should like to tell you of two incidents in the lives of two sets of brothers. This is a true story of what actually hap- pened. It seems that there was a family in humble circum- stances with two children, brothers of each other, one of whom grew into manhood, entered the navy of his country and became a prominent officer there, ranking very high and taking an important position in the world. The other was an honest, earnest fellow, but with much less ability. He, too, entered the navy, on a different vessel, however, and lost sight of his brother. He did his work as well as he knew how, but con- tinued a plain sailor all his life and never rose to become an officer or take any important rank. The two brothers lost sight of each other and had not met for years; until at one time they found themselves by accident on the same vessel. And then the plain sailor recognized the comrade of his home and childhood, walked up to him, holding out his hand, and said, "You are my brother." The officer looked at him a moment without saying a word and then turned away and refused to speak to him. And the two brothers never met again. The names of these two persons I do not know, but I met their mother and she told me the story. On the other hand, let me remind you now of an incident in the lives of two brothers whose names we are familiar with. As you grow older, you will sometimes hear of a cele- brated statesman, a very important man in the history of the United States, one of the greatest men who ever lived in America. His name was Daniel Webster. He, too, had a brother who was not as gifted as himself. But before he had gone out into the world and become a prominent man, just after he had finished his education at college and when he was ambitious to study a profession, he became aware that his younger brother had not the means to go to college. And what do you suppose Daniel Webster did? He turned aside from the plans that he had made for himself, and went and taught school, earning money in this way in order that his younger brother might have the opportunity for a complete education. Picture now the two brothers I have spoken of, that officer in the navy, and this one, Daniel Webster, coming to the end of their lives and looking back over their past careers. And suppose the subject of brotherly feeling should be mentioned in their presence, which one of them would blush with shame and feel mean at heart, and which one would have a glow of satisfaction, as the memory of his early days came back to him? . W. L. S. ruither Sug'g'eBtions to the Teacher. In this lesson we are dealing once more with a problem which has been touched upon incidentally l84 DUTIES IN THE HOME. in previous chapters. But the subject is of immense importance and should be developed further. Even for young- people at this early age, we should lay down certain very positive, elemental principles, as broad rules of life. With regard to some of these we cannot be too emphatic and decisive. Young people begin very soon to think about what they will do when they are grown up, to lay plans and have dreams with regard to that coming time. We should endeavor to influence these thoughts, or give some direction to dreams of this nature. On the other hand, we shall be obliged to be more dogmatic on some of these points, because we cannot avail our- selves of the personal observations of the class mem- bers to any great extent. They should be led to have a respect for the judgment of older people on such matters, and to feel that we are drawing on the experience of the whole human race in what we are telling them. The word "obligation" which we introduce from time to time, has much significance; and we should use it with care and consideration. It is a very strong term and profoundly suggestive when rightly employed. With regard to the distinc- tion between the kind of knowledge which grown people are acquiring and that which is being obtained by children in the schools, we do not wish tO' let the young people assume that they also are not learning by experience. Our main point in this direction is to have them understand that the hori- zon for human beings may continue to grow wider to the very end of life, if they properly use their opportunities. The problem which arises in decid- ing as to what should be the attitude between members of the same family living under widely diverging conditions of prosperity or adversity, is a delicate one. But we ought to touch upon it, and at least suggest one or two general principles with DUTIES IN THE HOME. 185 regard to it. One or two entire sessions should be devoted to a consideration of the services which chil- dren when they are grown up may do for one another. A long list of these should be prepared and each suggestion should be talked over thor- oughly. This point could not be too much elabo- rated. The young people themselves will offer many hints on this phase of the subject. But the teacher will be required tO' add extensively to the list by drawing on the whole range of human experience. This is the main feature of the whole chapter and, therefore, should have very thorough treatment. We shall exert some influence on the young people by having a prolonged discussion or consideration of these matters, although much of what has been said may pass out of the minds of the pupils for the time being. We can never be sure that some of these points will not come back to mind again many years after, when as adults these same individuals are called upon to deal with the big life problems. The last point of the lesson is perhaps the most subtle of all. Yet it is not to be overlooked. Young people will constantly be inclined to assert their sense of justice, and they will naturally rebel if the theory of obligation is pressed toO' far. But they themselves will recognize the differences between one person and another, and observe how it is that one is industrious when another is lazy, one is selfish while another is self-sacrificing. Whatever may be the tie between members of the same family, there is a limit to the sacrifice to be expected from one to another. It is the same problem that we had to face when considering what the adult person owes to his parents. It is not right that the life of any individual should be immolated on the altar of devo- tion to a weak or selfish sister or brother. Here, too, we must insist, how'ever, that while there are limita- I»0 DUTIES IN THE HOME. tions in this direction, )fet the fact always remains that there are pecuhar obhgations involved in the relationship of sisterhood or brotherhood. For pic- ture illustration, we ought to have scenes of groups of brothers and sisters in adult life, family groups of one kind or another, even if they are somewhat formal. A mei'e picture of a number of grown sons and daughters on the same card or canvas, is very suggestive, by the very fact that they belong to the same family. But it would be of addional value if there could be scenes presented in which the grown up sons or daughters are performing some service for one anothei-. CHAPTER XIV. OBEDIENCE AND WHAT IT IMPLIES. Proverljs or Verses. "Obedience is the mother of happiness." "When you obey your superior, you instruct your inferior." "A naughty child must be roughly rocked." "He's an ill boy that goes like a top, only while he is whipped." "A headstrong man and a fool may wear the same cap." "He that doth what he will, doeth not what he ought." " 'Tis education forms the tender mind ; Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined." "Obedience is our first duty and destiny." — Carlyle. Dialogue. In one of our discussions you said that you owed obedience and submission to father and mother. But those are large words, and perhaps they could mean all sorts of things. Do you think, for instance, that obedience implies doing what your parents tell you to do, and not doing what they tell you not to do — ^just this and nothing more ? Is that all ? "Yes," you say, "of course that is all ; we are to obey when we are told to obey. What else could it mean ?" you ask. But now tell me, do you recall the word which people have connected with obedience, as the one great thing which we owe to our parents? What is the language in the Commandment which has come down to us from former years, — do you recall it? Thou shalt— what? "Honor?" Yes, that is it. What, then, is the Commandment; will you repeat it? "Thou shalt 187 l88 DUTIES IN THE HOME. honor thy father and thy mother." You know it, then? "Yes, indeed!" I wonder what that suggests to you, when you speak about "honoring" one's parents ; can you think of any other way of expressing it? "Paying regard to them ?" Yes, that is a form which we might use. "Showing respect for them ?" True, that is another. "Being good to them ?" Yes, that is still another. But after all, suppose that you were to ask your father or mother what was the one thing more than anything else which they cared for, when you tell them that you would like to honor them ; what would they answer? You know, I am sure. "They would like to have us obey them," you answer. Yes, I think that is true, beyond a doubt. If you propose to "honor" them, the first way of showing that honor, in their opinion, would be by your obedi- ence. Do grown people ever have to obey? How does that strike you? "No," you exclaim, "they can do as they please." Are you sure about that? What if a man steals something because he wants it very much, — what happens to him ? "Why, if he is caught, he is pun- ished." Then he cannot do exactly as he pleases, — as it looks toi me. What is it that grown people are expected to obey? "The laws?" Yes, surely. But the laws of what ? I ask. "Oh, of the state or of the country." But are there any other laws one has to obey, if one is grown up? Suppose a man should say that he felt perfectly free to do as he pleased, that he could eat what he wanted tO', and drink what he wanted. And then what if he took poison; he would die, would he not? "Yes, indeed!" But why would he die? "It would be," you explain, "because he took poison." Then what kind DUTIES IN THE HOME. 189 of a law would he be breaking? "You don't quite know?" Suppose we call it the "law of nature." That is a phrase grown people often use, and a most important one. You see, then, that adult people have to obey the Laws of Nature and the Laws of the State. Even they cannot do quite as they please. But now is there anything else that grown people have to obey ? Do they ever have to submit to one another, or follow one another's rules? How would it be here in this country where we are free; if a man obeys the laws of the State and the laws of Nature, can he do exactly as he pleases, otherwise ? If one of you boys, when you are grown up, should be working in an office, do you fancy you would be able to do just as you please in that office? "No," you admit, "we should be made to follow cer- tain rules." But who will lay down those rules? Yourself, do you suppose? "Ph, no, they will come from the head of the office." Then while you are working there, you would be obliged to obey the head man in the office? "Perhaps we should," you confess. And what about the head man who lays down the rules, will he be able to do just as he pleases? "Surely," you exclaim, "he can do as he likes because he is the head of the office." Wait a moment, now. What if it happens to be a company with a board of directors. He is chosen by that board. Do you think those men would have anything to say about the rules of the company? "You do not know?" Well, I can assure you that they would. It is pretty certain that they will also fix certain rules for him, and he will have to obey them. You see, then, that obedience does not pertain igO DUTIES IN THE HOME. only to childhood. Some persons have said that we have more freedom at that early age, than at any other time in our lives, and that we have to do more "obeying" when we are grown up, than ever before. A man in one position or at one moment may be free to do as he pleases, but in another position at another moment, must obey the rule of his superior officer. We must go back now to the one form of obedi- ence we were to talk about at the beginning, that which is due to father and mother. You said that it meant just doing or not doing what they told you to do or forbade your doing. What if you were left alone in the house in the evening, and your parents were not coming back until twelve o'clock at night, and what if, on such' an occasion, you stayed up until eleven or twelve o'clock playing with the other children, because your parents had forgotten to tell you just when to go to bed ; would that be disobedience ? "Not if they had said nothing about it," you assert. But why? "Because," you insist, "we should not be breaking any command; we should not be doing anything we had been forbidden to do." Then if your father and mother came home and blamed you for staying up so late, would you feel perfectly free to say to them, "you did not tell us tO' go to bed earlier?" Is that the way you would reply ? I observe that you hesitate. They had usually told you to go tO' bed earlier, had they not? You would know that they had expected you to do so, although they said nothing about it. Do. you think that you could make such a plea to your parents at that time with a perfectly clear conscience? One can see by your faces how you would feel about it. You know quite well that conduct of such DUTIES IN THE HOME. 19I a kind would not be true obedience. But if so, then the word means something more than just merely doing exactly what you might have been told tp do. What else does obedience imply? again I ask. Does it refer to what }"ou know to be the real wishes of your father and mother? "Yes," you admit, "after all, that is what it really suggests. We are to do what we are sure they want to have us do 1" If so, then we have found a new meaning to the word. But I am wondering whether this covers the whole subject. What if at such a time when your father and mother had gone away for the evening and forgot- ten to tell you when to go to bed, you reaUy did act on what you knew to be their wishes ? But what if the next morning, you were peevish or cross about it, unpleasant in your language to your parents at the breakfast table; what if you were sullen or disagreeable over the matter, would that be the real spirit of obedience, would that be "honoring" your fathei' and mother? Again I see, you hesitate. We ask you to think about this carefully. Some people will always say, "I did what I was told to do, and that was enough ; now let me alone." Did you ever see a person when he was cross or out of sorts? "Oh, yes!" you exclaim. If, for example, you ask another boy or girl to do you a favor, and they do it in a snappish sort of a way, do you like it ? "Not by any means !" Why not? They do what you ask them to do; why shouldn't you be satisfied? "Because," you add, "they are disagreeable about it; they show such a mean sort of spirit that we should not want to ask them to do us a favor again." You assume, do you, that doing what your father or mother tells you to do, but being cross about it 192 DUTIES IN THE HOME. or snappish, is not real obedience. I am afraid you are right. And yet many boys and girls act in just this way under those circumstances. Again, for instance, did you ever know of a boy or girl who was told to do something by their parents, but who took twice as long as was necessary to do it, because they did not like the work ? You smile over that; I can see that you have known of such children. But would that be obedi- ence? "You think not?" But why ? I ask you. They did exactly what they were told to do. Nothing had been said to them about how long they should b.e about it. Why was it not obedience? "Oh," you explain, "they knew their parents would wish them to do it as quickly as possible." Yes, that makes a difference. Perhaps you think this analysis is tiresome; but we must find out what the words mean. We have placed the word "obedience" alongside the old word "honor," as something due to father and miOther. You notice that the word honor is connected with the word honesty. Perhaps we may discover that there is a kind of obedience which is mere make- believe or actual dishonesty. How would it be if you were to do' something, but at the same time avoid asking permission of your parents because you were pretty sure they would refuse ? Did. you ever know of any boy or girl act- ing in that way? Do you think that such a thing might be possible? "Yes," you admit, "that might happen.." But would that be disobedience; what do you say? They had not been told not to do it ; they only went ahead on their own account and did what they wanted to do? "After all," you say, "perhaps that would not be disobedience. A boy or girl cannot every moment DUTIES IN THE HOME. I93 be going to father and mother and asking their per- mission about everything." Then suppose you acted in that way, and went ahead, following your own liking, although you had in your heart a feeling that your parents would have refused permission to you, if you had asked for it. Now when you come home and meet your father or mother, would you feel perfectly free to tell them what you had been doing? "Perhaps not?" But why not? "Because," you answer, "we might get pun- ished." Indeed ; do you mean that ? But would your father or mother be justified in blaming or punishing you, if you had not been forbidden to do this? "Oh," you exclaim, "it depends a little on what it was we had been doing." Yes, but if they were to say to you, "You knew very well that we would not have given you per- mission," what answer could you make in reply? Then it would have been disobedience, would it not ? We will stop at this point to-day, because we are talking about a pretty big subject. Memory G-em. "Reprove not a scorner lest he hate thee. Rebuke a wise man and he will love thee." Points of the Wesson. I. That obedience is implied in the great commandment: Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother. II. That obedience means a regard for what we know father or mother would wish to have us do. III. That obedience implies being cheerful in the way we obey. IV. That grown people also have to obey rules or com- mands, perhaps even more than children. V. That grown people must submit to the rules of the office where they work, to their superior officers, to the laws of the State and to the laws of Nature. iy4 UUTiiib IJN T±lii JdUMJi. Duties. I. We ought to obey a command in the spirit in which it is given. II. We ought to obey cheerfully, as if it were our pleasure to obey. III. We ought to obey all rules and precepts in the spirit of honor and sincerity. IV. We ought to obey rules because they are rules, and because it is good for every person tc{ learn the lessons of obedience. Poem. I love it, I love it ! and who shall dare To chide me for loving that old arm-chair? I've treasured it long as a sainted prize, I've bedewed it with tears, I've embalmed it with sighs. 'Tis bound by a thousand bands to my heart; Not a tie will break, not a link will start; Would you know the spell ? — a mother sat there ! And a sacred thing is that old arm-chair. In childhood's hour I lingered near The hallowed seat with listening ear; And gentle words that mother would give To fit me to die and teach me to live. She told me that shame would never betide With Truth for my creed, and God for my guide ; She taught me to lisp my earliest prayer. As I knelt beside that old arm-chair. I sat, and I watched her many a day, When her eye grew dim, and her locks were gray; And I almost worshipped her when she smiled, And turned from her Bible to bless her child. Years rolled on„ but the last one sped, — My idol was shattered, my earth-star fled ! I learnt how much the heart can bear. When I saw her die in her old arm-chair. 'Tis past, 'tis past ! But I gaze on it now. With quivering breath and throbbing brow ; 'Twas there she nursed me, 'twas there she died. And memory flows with lava tide. Say it is folly, and deem me weak, Whilst scalding drops start down my cheek; But I love it, I love it, and cannot tear My soul from a mother's old arm-chair. — EUxa Cook. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 195 Fiirther Sog'greBtlonB to the Teacher. We are to remember that in this chapter our pur- pose is not merely to deal with the subject of obe- dience to parents. The children are already approaching the period when they must begin to act for themselves. The time for inculcating the lesson of submission to the father and mother should be at an age much younger than the ages of the pupils of our classes. If boys and girls have not had the drill in this direction from their infancy, we shall find it hard to impart new suggestions to them on this one point. But the study of obedience as such, opens out a wide range of subjects, and gives an opportunity for dealing with a number of deep moral problems. The young people ought to be made to understand that the principle under consid- eration in one form or another will apply to all our relations throughout life. They must see that self- control is a form of obedience, just as an act of ca- price of any kind may be a form of disobedience; that one can play "make-believe" with one's self, just as one can play "make-believe" in the matter of submission to parents. Some of our observations in this lesson, therefore, must also be of the dog- matic character. We shall be talking about the "grown up time" and applying the experiences of childhood to this other period of life. We should make the children understand what caprice means and how it is that people often yield to caprice. In dealing with problems pertaining to obedience to rules or to superior officers, in the work grown peo- ple may have to perfom, we should introduce a large number of illustrations. One special session might be devoted to this feature of the subject. We are to apply it to the life of the daughter as well as the son, the woman as well as the man. The girls of the 10 DUTIES IN THE HOME. class should understand how it is that the mother in the home is obliged to obey the rules of the home, just as the father may have to submit to the rules of an office or a workshop. An excellent example in this part of our lesson could be drawn from the ex- perience of schools, showing how young people, for instance, may have to obey rules laid down by the teacher, the teacher submit to rules established by the principal, the principal follow rules fixed by the superintendent of the schools, and the superin- tendent submit his judgment to the school board, while the members of the school board in the broad sense are subject to the people. In all this we can see how each person is free in one direction and obliged to obey in another. So, too, we might use the example of a railway train, showing how the traveler must submit in certain ways to the con- ductor, and the conductor to his superior officer, and that officer to his superior officers, and these to the heads of departments, and the heads of de- partments to the president, and the president to the board of directors, and the board of directors per- haps to the stockholders or the corporation. By this means we add a dignity to the conception of obedi- ence, exalting it in the minds of the young and mak- ing them see that it is not merely from the fact that they are children that they are obliged to surrender their wills to authority. For picture illustration, we might introduce in this connection scenes of men working in a factory or sitting at an office desk, exhibiting in this v,-ay the principle of obedience in the life of the adult and how these persons in their work are obeying rules. Then, too, there is always the opportunity of showing scares of children ren- dering service to their parents in a variety of ways, as a form of unconscious obedience. The main mjTllS IN THE HOMB. I97 thought of this whole lesson is manifest in the sen- tence from Carlyle, which should be always in the mind of the teacher, although it would be too pro- found for the understanding of the children : Obedience is our first duty or destiny, against which ■whosoever will not bend must break. CHAPTER XV. "eye-service" in the home. Proverbs or Terses. "Beware of the man of two faces." "A nod of an honest man is enough." "Never carry two faces under one hood." "A clean mouth and an honest hand Will take a man through any land." "He is most cheated who cheats himself." "The eye is blind, if the mind is absent." Sialogrue. Did you ever hear the phrase "e)'e-servant ?" Can you guess what it would mean? Suppose I give you an example. Have you ever known a pet dog in the family to take food from the table when no one was in the room, although he would never do this if anybody was present? "Some dogs would not do it," you tell me. Yes, that is true; but how about all kinds of dogs? "Oh, there are dogs which would steal in just that way." And so you really call it stealing, do you? But how was it that the dog dared tO' take the food when nobody was present ? "Because he somehow felt that nobody was watch- ing, and therefore nobody would know anything about it." You imply, do you, that he was the kind of a dog which would obey when some one had an eye on him. Do you begin now to understand what is meant by an "eye-servant?" "Oh," you point out, "it may refer to anybody who obeys when he is being watched, and perhaps disobeys when nobody can see 198 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 199 him." Yes, I suspect that you have discovered what is meant by "eye-service." Did you ever see any person working hard when somebody was looking on ; when, for instance, their teacher or father or mother was near; and then working more carelessly when nobody was by? What is the difference between such conduct and that of the dog we have talked about? "It is pretty^ much the same?" What, then would you call such persons? "Eye- servants?" Yes, that is the term; we should call them eye-servants. And do you believe that people who follow rules in that way, can say they are truly obedient ? Or is it make-believe? "Oh," you assert, "it is make- believe, of course." Suppose you had a dog and he were to disobey you sometimes, would you rather have him act in that way before your eyes, or would you prefei- that he did it when you were not by ? Think now before you answer. "Why," you tell me, "if he is going to disobey at all, we should prefer to have him do so when we are present." But why? "Because one would know about it." True. But what if you could find out about it after- wards, and punish him, then ■Ovould you care? "Yes, surely!" But you don't explain why. You would punish the dog just the same, I insist. "Oh," you point out, "if he did anything of that kind, we should somehow feel that he might do it again, and so we could not trust him." Is that the point? Then what is it that- the dog loses if he dis- obeys when you are absent? "One's confidence?" Yes, that is what he loses, one's confidence. Now let me put another question. Which do you think would be worse, or which would show the aoO DUTIES IN THE HOMB. worse spirit, — to disobey your parents before their eyes, or to do it when they are not by and would not see it? "Why,' you assure me, "it would be all the same, it would be disobedience." And how would your mother or father feel about it? If you were to disobey, which would they pre- fer, — ^that you should do it in their presence, or in their absence? "Well," you confess, "perhaps they would prefer to have it done in their presence." But why so? "Because they would somehow feel that if we did it when they were not near and could not see us, then we might do it again, and so they could not trust us." What is it that you would lose in the minds of your parents, when they discovered your disobedi- ence? You have answered that question already in another illustration. "Their confidence and trust?" Yes, that is just it. When, therefore, a person disobeys under those circumstances, he has done something else besides showing disobedience, has he not? He has shown besides, that he cannot be trusted. But do you think that this sort of disobedience ever takes place among adult people? When you are grown up and there are a number of you working together, and you have agreed to follow certain rules, suppose that only one of you should be present at the work for a time, and he should break the rules because it would be easier, although it would make more work for the rest of you when you all came back? Now when you found that other one out, what would he have lost in your respect? "One's confi- dence?" Exactly. And what would you be in- clined to call that man? Would he not be like the dog you have described? How would you name DUTIES IN THE HOME. flOt him? "An eye-servant?" Yes, that would be the right way to describe him. Do you think, then, that a boy or girl who would behave in that way with a father or mother, might have the same habit when he grows up and is deal- ing with other people? I wonder if you can think of another term for that form of disobedience. Suppose you write it down. I will spell it out for you. There is the word — "C h e a t i n g." Is not such disobedience a kind of cheating towards your parents when you are chil- dren or toward grown people when you are grown up? You said, however, if one acted in that way towards one's father or mother, and one were fo'Und out, one would lose their confidence. But what if one were not found out, then would it make any difference? "Not in so far as one's parents would be concerned," you say. But would it make any dif- ference at all? "Yes, it might lead one to do it again, and so one might be found out next time." But what if the person were not found out the next time, is there anything he would lose? What if he were discovered all of a sudden, — would he blush? "Yes," you admit. But why so? "Oh, he would feel ashamed." Then, in that case, he would lose something; can you think what it is? Self — something, self — what? "You don't know?" Well, I will tell you and ask you to write it down. He would lose his own self- respect. In regard to this subject of obedience, I should Hke to ask one other rather curious question ; we raised it once already, in talking about confessing one's guilt if one has been in the wrong. We assume that you 202 DUTIES IN THE HOME. admire pluck; we all do. Now does it take more pluck tO' obey, or disobey ? For instance, when a boy says "I won't," does this show weakness or strength on his part? "Oh," you assert, "it implies courage ; he is bold, he dares to speak in that way, even if he is going to be punished." Then you would admire him, would you, when he says "I won't?" You hesitate, I see. If, however, when you ask him a favor, at that moment he should say, "No, I won't;" would that show pluck on his part? It would be bold and de- fiant, surely. "Yes," you add, "but perhaps it would be mean." When we talk about pluck or courage, do we usually understand by this word, doing easy things, or hard things ? "Why, it usually means doing hard things, perhaps doing things that we don't like to do." And which comes easier, if a man has something disagreeable before him to do, — to say, "I won't," or to go and do it? "Why, it is easier to say. "I won't." Then which would be the courageous course? I wonder if you ever knew a child who was laughed at because he was going to do something which he had been told tO' do by his father or mother ? What if he had given in to the laughter of the other boys and girls, and not shown obedience, would that have been pluck on his part, or would it have been cowardice? "Oh, that would have been a kind of cowardice," you assert. Then it looks, does it not, as if obedience, after all, meant more often showing courage, and that it is rather the coward who^ tries not to obey, or who endeavors to sneak out of what he has to do? DUTIES IN THE HOME. 203 Speaking of grown people, of those who become strong, powerful men, do you think, as a rule, they were the kind of boys who were obedient, or diso- bedient, — which ? With reference to that form of submission to the will of the parent, which we have called "eye-serv- ice," what possible motive could there be for such a make-believe kind of obedience; why shouid not one refuse to submit altogether? "Oh," you ex- claim, "there is always the possibility of punish- ment." But that looks like a rather contemptible motive, does it not, for rendering a service or following a command ? Fancy what sort of a home life it would imply, if all the children acted in that spirit. Would it be a hapy home, do you suppose? "No, indeed," you assure me. Might there be any other explanation, however, for the habit of "eye-service," besides the fear of punishment? I wonder if you have ever heard a term which has come down to us from early times, containing the phrase we have been talking about in this lesson. Suppose we write it out, so that we can look at it and talk it over. There it stands : EYE-SERVICrB AS MEIT-PI^EASEXS. Think now and see if you can explain what it im- plies. Is it not right, for instance, that we should desire to please, be men-pleasers, — that is, give pleas- ure to other men or stand well in their opinion ? "Yes," you answer, " if one deserves it." Would you say, for instance, that any human being might try to shine in the eyes of others or to please them by dishonest means? "That might happen," you confess. Might it even take place in the way one acted toward a father or mother? "Perhaps so," you ad- JM4 DUTIES In the home. mit. And how? I ask. "Why," you explain, "chil- dren might like toi have a parent think well of them, feel pleased concerning them, even when they knew that they really were not worthy of it." But ought they not to fed ashamed of consenting to such a make-believe? "Yes, indeed!" you ex- claim. You assume, do you, that persons whoi are men- pleasers through "eye-service," would not be a very trustworthy class of people or be a true kind of men- pleasers? I certainly think you are right. "Eycf- service" as a form of obedience, is, after all, another form of a lie. What is it that is so thoroughly bad about it all, — the act itself, would you imply, or the spirit behind it? "Oh, it is the something which is behind it, or the something on the inside." Yes, that is the point. It is the motive which is bad. Eye-service proceeds from a bad motive, and therefore is most unworthy. SXemory Gem. "Turn not to the right hand nor to the left; Remove thy foot from evil." Point! of the tessou. I. That there are some persons whose service is an eye- service. II. That eye-service means obeying orders only when one is being watched. III. That eye-service makes us lose the confidence of others. IV. That obedience as eye-service makes us lose the trust of our parents. V. That true obedience requires courage and force of will. VI. That strong men usually are men who have learned to obey. VII. That obedience as a form of eye-service proceeds from a bad motive. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 205 Datlei. /. In rendering obedience or service, we ought to do it as if all eyes were upon us, or ois if we feared no possible discovery. II. In rendering obedience or service, we ought to do it with the mind as well as with the body, serving and obeying with the whole heart. III. We ought to respect obedience whenever it is displayed by others, and to honor them for such obedience. IV. We ought always,to avoid "make-believe" of any kind either toward ourselves or toward others. V. We ought never to do anything which should make us lose our self-respect, or sacrifice our sin- cerity. Foem. "I love you, mother," said little John; Then, forgetting work, his cap went on, And he was off to the garden-swing, And left her the water and v/ood to bring. "I love you, mother," said rosy Nell — "I love you better than tongue can tell ;" Then she teased and pouted full half the day, Till her mother rejoiced when she went to play. "I love you, mother,'' said little Fan ; "To-day I'll help you all I can ; How glad I am school doesn't keep !" So she rocked the baby till it fell asleep. Then, stepping softly, she fetched the broom And swept the floor and tidied the room ; Busy and happy all day was she, Helpful and happy as child could be. "I love you, mother,'' again they said. Three little children going to bed. How do you think that mother guessed Which of them really loved her best? — Joy Allison. 206 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Farther Sucreestlons to the Teacher. It will be obvious that this lesson is a continuation O'f the one in the previous chapter. But we must pro- long the consideration of the problems of obedience and seek to introduce the topic in a variety of ways. We may touch upon it over and over again without mentioning the word. In this chapter we have given an example of a method which could be em- ployed in connection with many of the other topics treated in this volume. Naturally we must be on our guard not to hint toi the young people of possible forms of conduct which they would not think of, themselves, and in this manner lead them astray by the mere suggestion. At the same time, young peo- ple who attend school or play together in the home, have already seen a good deal of life and have had a pretty wide range of experience. They have ob- served sham and "make-believe" in others, if not in themselves, and they have begun to pass judgment upon it. The temptation in this direction is very great, not only with regard to obedience to parents, but with regard to one's conduct in all its aspects. The whole subject of shams is more or less involved here; and this will always prove an interesting topic for discussion among small people and big- people alike. Individuals are ready enough to detect this in others, even if they do not recognize it in their own conduct. We can draw on our observations from the animal kingdom, in the forms of eye-service one may see there. Every boy or girl understands what this implies with regard to the pet dog. We are always proud of the creature who will obey rules and not touch forbidden food when he is alone and unobserved. Young people must be led to appreci- ate why we honor even the animal for such conduct, in that it implies a dawning charactei- in such a crea- ture. We shall also accomplish a great deal if we DUTIES IN THE HOME. 207 can make children understand our point that obedi- ence implies courage or bravery, and that it is the strong character which has learned how to surrender the will to authority. We touch here on the same theme which was brought out when we were dealing with the duty of asking forgiveness. The adult and the child both can appreciate how it is that obedience to the authority of another, may strengthen us in being able tO' keep our own resolutions or to obey ourselves. One can grasp the point at the outset that eye-service is not merely sham submission to another, but often implies actual cowardice on the part of the person guilty of it, while weakening his own power of will and making him less able to fol- low out, himself, the course he may wish to pursue. There is a great deal suggested in the thought that successful men have usually been those who had learned to obey, and that weak people who never accomplish anything and fail in many directions, are often those who were allowed in childhood for the most part to do as they pleased. We must asso- ciate the principle of obedience with the instinctive regard for strength; and this can be done by the proper use of anecdote or biography. One or two points connected with the subject of this lesson were already introduced at the close of the previous chap- ter. Any healthy-minded child should be able to rec- ognize that obedience accompanied with an irritable mannei' is a form of sham submission or eye-service. For picture ilustration, by all means if possible show a scene of a dog left alone in a room and refraining from availing himself of the opportunity to seize for- bidden food. Then, further, have a scene of a child at work by himself, alone at study, exhibiting the spirit of faithfulness to the task before him while he is not being watched. Also add a number of an- ecdotes or incidents from biographies, emphasizing the points of this and the previous chapter. CHAPTER XVI. HUSBAND AND WIFE IN THE HOME.* Proverbs or Terses. "A good wife and health Are a man's best wealth.'' "A world of comfort lies in the one word wife.'' "He drives a good wagonful into his farm who gets a good wife. "He that has a wife and children, must not sit with his fingers in his mouth." "He who has a good wife can bear any evil." "For better or worse, for richer or poorer, until death doth you part." "Be a good -husband, and you will get a penny to spend, a penny to lend and a penny for a friend." Dlalogne. What terms, by the way, are used as applying to those who are at the head of the household, in their relations to each other ? We speak of them as our "parents" when we think of them together. But how do we refer to them, in mentioning them sepa- rately? "Why, as father and mother." True enough; and we have a great deal to say about them from that standpoint. But what are they to themselves or to each other ? Does it ever happen, for instance, that a mother may use the language of her children and speak to the other parent as "father?" "Oh, yes, it does occur; some of us have heard it," you answer. Well, I am not surprised. This often happens as parents grow older. So, too, the father may ad- *This lesson may be omitted altogether at the discretion of the teacher. 20S DUTIES IN THE HOME. 209 dress the other parent just as the children do, and speak to her as "mother." How do yofu suppose this habit arises ? "As to that," you explain, "it may be that they fell into the habit of it by speaking of each other to the children in that way. From saying 'father tells you to do so and so,' by and by one may come to address him directly as 'father* in a homelike familiar way." Yes, I think that accounts for it. We see that it may grow up as a habit by copying the language of the children in the family. But if they are not really father and mother to each other, as we take for granted, what are they to each other ; how would they address each other, if they used precise lan- guage? "Why, they are husband and wife." Yes, that is true. And so you see besides being parents to the children they are husband and wife to each other. And have they always been this to each other, do you suppose ? "No, indeed," you conHnue, "that would be ab- surd." Why so? "Because at one time they were children in other homes and knew no other life save that of the one family where they played with their brothers and sisters, as members of that home." And what do we call this relationship between husband and wife? It is a solemn word and a very important one. Put down on the blackboard a capi- tal letter M. What is it that we shall write now ? "Marriage?" Yes, they have been united in marriage and it is that which has made them husband and wife to each other. And what do you suppose led them to want to marry each other ; why did they not prefer to remain in their own homes where they had been children ? 2IO DUTIES IN THE HOME. "Oh," you tell me, "they must have loved each other." Yes, we take that as a matter of course; it is that which leads men and women to become hus- band and wife. But do they owe anything to each other in this relationship, besides loving each other? Is there any kind of debt or obligation between them? We have said a good deal about what children owe to their parents and what parents owe to their chil- dren. On the other hand, what do the husband and wife owe to each other? "As to that," you suggest, "it depends on whether one is speaking of the wife or of the husband." You mean, do you, that while they may owe something to each other, it is not exactly the same in either case? "No," you insist. And why not? I urge. "Be- cause," you add, " one is the wife and the other is the husband; one is a man and the other is a woman." Yes, that is true, and it is a very important point. Suppose, for instance, in a certain home there was a husband who was strong and capable, but who was lazy and v/ho would not work hard and therefore scarcely earned enough to support himself, much less his family ; would it be a great crime, do you think, if the wife refused to go out and work to help support her husband? "No, surely not," you exclaim. And why not? I insist. They are husband and wife. "Yes," you assert, "but it is the duty of the husband, if he is able to do so, to support his wife, to earn a living for her, as well as to earn a living for the whole family." Then it means, does it, that the first duty of a husband is to provide the means of subsistence for DUTIES IN THE HOME. 211 his wife, just as it is the first duty of a father to earn a living for his young children? And this implies, does it, that the wife has noth- ing to do with the support of the family? It all rests with the husband, does it not? She is a free person, who can spend the money he earns, and be happy and enjoy herself while he is working? "Oh no, not a bit of it!" And why not? I keep asking. She is not usually expected tO' earn the money with which the family is supported ; she gets no wages or salary. This may, perhaps, all come through the husband's efforts. How is it, then, that the wife does anything for the support of her husband or the family? "Why," you ask, "what would the husband do if he had no home ; suppose he came back from his work and there was no dinner or supper for him?" You assume, do you, that the wife also has some- thing to do, after they have been married? "As to that," you say, " she has to make the home for her husband." Any kind of a home, do you say? "No, it should be a happy home, a pleasant home, as nice a home as she knows how to make." You insist, do you, that the first duty of the wife is to make a happy home for her husband? What if, for instance, the wife did not take any pleasure in looking after the home, in directing it or working for it? Perhaps she would rather be going out seeing people all the while, enjoying her- self among her acquaintances. Or it might occur that she would prefer to earn money in the world, do work outside, rather than have the cares of a home. Should she not feel free to take this course, if she wished? "If that were to happen," you exclaim, "how 212 DUTIES IN THE HOME. would there be any home?" Yes, I ask, but should she not be free to do as she pleased? "No," you assure me, "not if she is a wife. And what do you mean by that? "Why," you add, "when two persons become united in marriage, it must imply that one gives up something and as- sumes an obligation to another." Yes, that is certainly true; when a man and woman become husband and wife, they give up a part of their freedom. It means that they have, as we express it, assumed an obligation to each other. Where, then, would be the trouble or the mistake or the wrong, if the wife preferred to go out and earn money in the world, or simply to enjoy herself, instead of devoting her efforts to making a happy home for her husband? "In that case," you ex- plain, "she would not be doing her share ; it would not be right or fair toward the husband." But it would be right, would it mot, for a grown woman, if she were free, to earn her own living, if she pleased, by any honorable means? "Yes," you answer, "if she is not a wife." You assume, do you, that in that case she is not free to do as she pleases. "No," you insist, "when the man and woman become husband and wife, they have to consider each other; it is the home and family they have to think of, and not their individual selves." Yes, that is the all-important point. You may not understand this now ; but it will be plain to you when you are grown up. It is well, therefore, that we should know about this from the very start. Mar- ried people owe their first duty to each other, to the home and the family, and not to themselves indi- vidually. "But what if they do not like it?" you exclaim. Yes, I insist, but it is not a question altogether of DUTIES IN THE HOME. 2I3 what they like or dislike; they were married by their own choice, were they not? Then, I should say, this ought to settle it And it implies, does it, that the husband has nothing to do with the home and its happiness, save just to enjoy it and take pleasure in it? "Yes," you answer, "it would seem that way." What if, on the other hand, he just earned the living for his wife and family, but made no effort to give any pleasure to his wife? Suppose he left her entirely to herself? What if he never stayed at home with her in the evenings or Sundays ? Would that not be right? He is a free man, is he not? He has done his full duty, in earning the living for his wife and home? "No'," you hesitate, '"it means more than that." And why? I ask. "Oh," you insist, "he ought also to care for the happiness of his wife; he, too, has a duty to the home, besides merely earning the money for its support." But why so? Should he not feel himself free? "Not if he is a married man, not if he has a wife or a family," you continue. But suppose he finds that he enjoys himself more by staying away from home, that he gets more pleasure by going out into the world all the while. "But that is not the point," you assure me; "he may not act as if he were wholly a free man ; he has his duty to his wife and the home; it was by his choice that he entered into the relationship of mar- riage." What, then, should be the second duty between husband and wife? "Why," "you suggest, "to make each other happy." Yes, I certainly agree with you. But suppose one of them should find out that he or she cared more about making some of their friends happy ; what if the husband has a number of 214 DUTIES IN THE HOME. men acquaintances of whom he is very fond, and he should take more pleasure in giving- happiness to one of those friends ? It is right to give pleasure to others, is it not? "Yes," you continue, " but his first duty is to the wife and the family. He must first think of giving happiness there." And would it be the same with the wife? I ask. "Of course it would," you answer. You speak of the husband and wife as being united to each other by marriage, and assume that they have become joined together in that way be- cause they loved each other. It would, then, be a kind of beautiful friendship between them, would it not? "Yes, surely." But is it just the same as friend- ship? For instance, does a man or woman have only one friend ? "No, they may have quite a num- ber of friends of whom they are exceedingly fond." And what, then, in this direction, would you say made marriage unlike friendship? "Why," you ex- plain, "it is because there can be only one husband to one wife, or one wife to one husband." True, that is a very important point. "But it is not so, everywhere," you say. How do do you know about that? I ask. "Why," you tell me, "we have read of people or of countries where a man has several wives." I am afraid you are right, although I wish we did not have to know about this. But do you suppose they are the same class of peo- ple that we see here? Would they be the kind of persons we should be fond of or should like tO' live with? Would they be people we should especially admire or have a high regard for ? "You doubt it?" And why? "Oh, because it is not right for a man to have more than one wife." Yes, you have said it all, and that settles it. Cer- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 215 tainly it is not right for a man tO' have more than one wife. But how do we describe those races or countries where anything like this could happen? Are they civilized, like ourselves, for example? "No, indeed, that would be impossible," you say. True, that is the point ; we think of races where a man has more than one wife, as being uncivilized or only half civilized; we look upon them as being inferior to ourselves; we should not. care to associ- ate with them on the same plane as we would associ- ate with people in our part of the world. Would they be wholly bad persons, however, do you think; — altogether wicked? "Perhaps not quite that," you admit; "but they would not be the kind of people that civilized men would care to live with." Do you suppose it has always been the rule that a man might have only one wife? "No," you an- swer, "we have read in books, how in early times the customs were not the same." And what would that imply with regard to people in those days? "Why, that they were less civilized than we are nowadays." And you assume, then, do you, that as human beings become civilized, one of the evidences of such advance is that they have a fixed rule that a man should have only one wife. True, it is only among inferior people where the dreadful custom could exist. And what would it indicate, for instance, if the rules should change in certain parts of the world, and people should return to the custom of having more than one wife in the family or the home? "Why," you say, "it would be going backward, fall- ing down, starting in over again for the human race. And how do you suppose it will be, then, by 2l6 DUTIES IN THE HOME. and by, in the distant future, hundreds or thousands of years from now? Will there still be races or countries where a man can have more than one wife? "Not if the world goes on improving," you assert. You believe, do you, if the human race advances, that the less civilized people will become more civ- ilized, and that they will therefore abandon such cus- toms? "Surely," you answer. And so we hope and ex- pect, do we not, that some time in the future all over the world there will be just one fixed rule for every- body everywhere, without any exceptions; that everywhere there should be just one husband to one wife, and one wife to one husband. "Oh, yes, in- deed !" you exclaim. I certainly agree with you. We are convinced that the world is improving and advancing. We are per- fectly sure that it is not right for a man to have more than one wife; and so we feel confident that the hnman race everywhere will come to take this stand- point by and by. And so we have found that marriage implies something more than friendship, in that it is be- tween two persons only. A man may have many friends that he loves and cares for and in whose hap- piness he is interested. But the union in marriage is between one husband and one wife, and no more. Speaking of the relationship between friends and the affection between them, is it customary for them to make any pledge of devotion tO' one another, as the tie is formed between them? "No," you an- swer. But they are friends for life, are they not? "That depends," you say. In what way? I ask. "Oh, one may have one set of friends at one time in life and another set at another time." Do you mean that it is not a duty to keep up your DUTIES IN THE HOME. 217 friendships all through your life ; or that when you form a friendship, it is not understood that it will last always? "Oh, no,'" you exclaim, "there is no rule of that kind." But how is it with marriage? When two people are joined in this way, can they say to themselves, "We will live together as husband and wife as long as we please, and then separate at any time we desire?" "No," you assert, "it could not be in that way." What would be the trouble? I ask. "Why, it would be against the law ; when people are married, it is supposed that they are married for life." You are quite right. How is it, for instance, in the usual marriage service? Have any of you ever at- tended a wedding ? What does it say in the service, about being joined together for life; what is the phrase that is usually introduced? "Until death doth you part?" Yes, that is it. They take each other as husband and wife, "until death doth them part." But, I ask, what if, a few weeks after, they have changed their minds ? Are they not free to separate or marry again, even if they have used those words ? "No, oh no !" you exclaim. And why not ; where is the difficulty? "As to that," you answer, "there is the law. It would be against the liw." Yes, but the law of what? "Why, the law of the State, the law of one's country." Do you mean to say, then, that marriage is not simply an agreement between two persons themselves ? "No," you insist, "it is more; it is a contract, according to law." True, and that is a very solemn point. In enter- ing upon the marriage relationship, two persons make a contract before the world and are permitted to do this by the law of the state or of their country. Suppose they did it contrary to the law of their 2l8 DUTIES IN THE HOME. State or country, what would happen ? "They might be punished ?" In what way? "Why, they could be put in prison." Do you mean to say that for a man to leave his wife. without any reason, just because he chose to do so, and to go and marry another person, would be a crime like stealing or trying to kill another man, for instance ; an actual crime, to be punished by im- prisonment in the penitentiary? "Yes," you say, "that is the law." True, you are correct, and it is a right law. It implies, then, does it, that if two persons have become united by their own choice, in marriage, they cannot of their own accord break up that relation- ship and cease to be husband and wife, just by sepa- rating from each other. "No," you say, "that would be impossible; they cannot do that of their own ac- cord." "Yet," you assert, "it does happen that people are separated; they may get a divorce." Yes, that is true; it is sad to know it, or even to think about it; marriages do not in all cases last for life. But, I ask again, what permits or authorizes this divorce? Can the two people separate themselves in that way by their own choice? "No," you re- peat, "we have just said to the contrary." Where, then, can they get the authority by which to be separated, or what grants a divorce? "As to that," you say, " it must be the same power which gave the right to the marriage, the State or the law of the State." Yes, that is just it. People are not free under any or all circumstances to marry just as they please. And what is more, people are not free to divorce themselves, after marriage, just as they please. It is the State which permits the marriage, and it is by DUTIES IN THE HOME. 219 the authority of the State only, that there can be what we call a divorce. How do you suppose it is in the world generally, in the civilized world, as we think of it? You have said that when people marry they marry for hfe. But do most marriages last until one or the other dies? "As to that," you tell me, "there are many mar- riages which do not last as long as that." Yes, but I must tell you that the estimate as to the number of these is exaggerated. Taken altogether, there are not nearly as many of that kind as people often suppose. All over the civilized world, in the great majority of cases, marriages last for a lifetime. There are only a limited number of exceptions, if we were tO' count tiiem, in comparison with the whole number of married people in the civilized world. These exceptions do not make one quarter or a half of one quarter of all the marriages. One must be a little on one's guard about forming impresssions on such matters, without having the figures. Tlie exceptions often attract a great deal of attention, and are misleading. The general cus- tom or rule of the civilized world is, that when peo- ple are joined in marriage, it lasts until death sepa- rates themi. How is it, by the way, do you suppose, with other orders of living creatures, much lower than our- selves, in the animal kingdom, for instance; with the birds and the beasts ? They have homes and fami- Hes, do they not? "Oh, yes," you say. And among them, usually, does that one condition prevail which we regard as alone making a true marriage nowadays, that there shall be only one husband and one wife? Do' you fancy that rule holds in the animal kingdom as it does in the civil- 220 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ized world of human beings ? "No, not by any man- ner of means." But does it happen anywhere, among any kind of animals, — among the birds, for instance? Is there usually more than one husband and one wife in the same nest? "No," you answer, "on the contrary, usually there is one pair to each nest." But how about the other fact? Are they joined for life, do you suppose? "No, not at all," you assert. Do you think this never happens? "As to that," you say, "it might occur." But if it did, what would it be? I ask. "The exception?" Yes, that is the point. The rule or the custom in the human world would be the excep- tion for the animal world, and what is usual in the animal world on this matter would be the exception in the human world. What, then, do we look upon as the ideal for the marriage relationship in regard to the time it should last. "Why," you answer, "the ideal is that it should be a Union for Life." Does it ever happen, do' you suppose, that one man dies for another person, sacrifices his life for the sake of another? "Not very often?" But it might occur, do you think? "Oh, yes, in rare cases." But under what circumstances, do you fancy, would it be most liable to occur; would it be one man dying for the sake of another man, one woman dying for the sake of another woman? "No, probably not," you answer. In what relationships, then, would it be more likely to happen? "As to that," you explain, "we take it for granted that it would be where a hus- band dies for the sake of his wife, or a wife for the sake of her husband, or either of them for the sake of their childreii. Yes, you are right. And it is an illustration of the DUTIES IN THE HOME. 221 strength of the home or family tie or the tie between husband and wife. These two live together as one ; they may be ready to risk their lives for each other ; they may be even willing to die for each other. Memory Qem,. "And they twain shall become one flesh." I. That parents, besides having a relationship to their chil- dren, have a relationship to each other as husband and wife, and owe something to each other as husband and wife. II. That it is for the husband to provide the means for the home and earn a living for his wife. III. That it is for the wife to make a happy home for her husband, and that her first duty is to the home. IV. That husband and wife are not only to make a home or earn a living for the home, but that it is their duty to strive for each other's happiness. V. That on entering the marriage relationship, people cease to be free in the sense they were before, and assume obliga- tions to each other and to the home. VI. That in the true family there can be only one husband and one wife. VII. That any other custom than this, could prevail only among people that we should have to regard as uncivilized or less civilized than ourselves. VIII. That it is allowabk for a man to have only one wife, and that we expect this will be the rule and law for the whole world, some time in fae future. IX. That when people marry, they are expected to marry for their life-time. X. That marriage is not merely a contract between two people by themselves, but that it is a relationship subject to the law of the State. XL That separation between two persons joined in mar- riage may not take place af the will or wish of the people themselves, but only for most important causes, and oiily by the same authority of the State which allowed them to marry. XII. That those cases where marriage does not last for a life time are the exceptions rather than the rule, in the civil- ized parts of the world. Duties. /. People ought never under any circumstances to marry each other, unless it is their expectation to remain married for their lifetime. II. Persons united in marriage ought to be 222 DUTIES IN THE HOME. willing to give up a part of their freedom for the sake of each other. III. It is the wife's duty to make a happy home for her husband. IV. It is the husband's duty to earn a living for his wife and family. ' V. It is the duty of husband and wife each to strive for the happiness of the other. VI. It is the duty of the wife and husband to be faithful unto death. Foem. O, lay thy hand in mine, dear ! We're growing old; But time hath brought no sign, dear, That hearts grow cold. 'Tis long, long since our new love Made life divine; But age enricheth true love, Like noble wine. And lay thy cheek to mine, dear, And take thy rest; Mine arms around thee twine, dear, And make thy nest. A many cares are pressing On this dear head ; But Sorrow's hands in blessing Are surely laid. O, lean thy life on mine, dear ! 'Twill shelter thee. Thou wert a winsome vine, dear. On my young tree : And so, till boughs are leafless. And songbirds flown. We'll twine, then lay us, griefless, Together down. — Gerald Massey. FortZier Suggestions to the Teaclier. As stated in the foot-note at the beginning of the , chapter, this lesson could be omitted entirely at the discretion of the teacher. Or, on the other hand, the pupil might be encouraged to read it without DUTIES IN THE HOME. 223 any discussion. Opinions will vary widely as to the advisability of treating this theme with young peo- ple at such an early age. There may be reasons for introducing a lesson of this kind for children at the present day, which would not have applied to condi- tions in the world several hundred years ago. In our school system nowadays, there is less of the method of isolation, and young people talk over a great many problems together about what they will do when they are grown up. They are seeing life and passing judgment all the time, and perhaps know more of life as a whole when they are ten years of age than young people of twice those years would have known under conditions which may have prevailed a few centuries ago. Under these circum- stances, it is at least worthy of consideration whether we should not do wisely to enter into the conversation of children themselves, if they are inclined to talk about these subjects ; and in this way teach them a few of the great and vital ethical principles with regard to the big and important rela- tions of life. At ten years of age, many boys and girls are already talking about marriage and the homes they themselves will have some time. If this is true, would it not perhaps be well then and there to fix certain theories or doctrines firmly in their minds as to what is right and wrong on these mat- ters? It will be something to establish some broad, general principles at a time when they are so sus- ceptible on the emotional side. All the more impor- tant this may be at a period in the world's history when an impression is growing that respect for the family tie or the marriage relationship is weakening. Why not, then, at the very outset encourage the young people to look with loathing and horror upon conduct which is in defiance of certain great and accepted standards of the civilized world with 224 DUTIES IN THE HOME. regard to marriage ? May we not accomplish some- thing by giving a certain fixed and lasting bias to their minds in favor of the truth that monogamy is the only possible right relation among human beings, making them feel a positive disgust and loathing at the thought of the possibility of any other standpoint? ' So, too, we may do a service to the world by strengthening in their young minds the feeling that the marriage bond is supposedly for life. This is always implied when two people assume the obligations of this relationship. We should hammer hard on this point, and speak with loathing and horror of people who were joined in marriage while thinking for an instant that they might ever be separated. To be sure, we may not go extensively into the problem of divorce. We must admit frankly that there are conditions which allow of some kind of separation. Furthermore, we should take care not to arouse prejudices in the minds of the young people toward persons who' have had this sad experience and suffered from it. We should allude to it simply as a profound misfortune. It would not do at the present time with children of that age, to discuss what conditions should make divorce permissible. Thoughtful people do not agree on this point and the laws of the States are not in accord with regard to it. While the attitude of the author of these lessons is sternly conservative on this whole problem, he does not feel justified in intro- ducing his own personal or private opinions into these discussions. We are simply undertaking to bring out the established lessons which have been acquired by the experience of the human race. We must also take great care, if we deal with the sub- ject of marriage at all, to avoid any disposition on the part of the children to draw the lessons or obser- vations from their own parents. This danger will be constantly present throughout the whole series DUTIES IN THE HOME. 225 of discussions, and would be especially great in this lesson ? At the same time the topic could be so han- dled as to avoid the risk, provided the teacher is judicious in the matter. There may be also some dispute as to the advisability of going into the his- toric phases of the subject, as we do in some of the paragraphs in the chapter. The method to be employed here also will depend on the teacher who is handling the subject. In all probability, how- ever, the young people by the time they are ten or twelve years old, from their readings, from their talk among themselves, from what they hear in the conversation of adults, have acquired a prett)'- wide knowledge of these facts. They know the differ- ence in a general way between monogamy and polygamy. Thy are obliged to learn about this from their first readings or studies in history. We may therefore do a service by showing them in what light they should view these facts, how it is that we should condemn very strongly a form of conduct at the present time, while we may look upon it with pity when reading of examples of it in early history. There should be no discussion as to the rightness or wrongness of it. The assertions here should be posi- tive in the extreme. But children can understand how it was that in those eirly days people did not know any better. On the other hand, we can let the young people understand at once that the gen- eral acceptance of the principles we follow in this matter to-day is a proof that the world is more civil- ized than it was thousands of years ago. There will be no especial occasion in this lesson to use picture m.aterial. Perhaps, limve^-er. we might show a beau- tiful scene of two aged people, who have lived top;ether as husband and wife in devotion to each oilier far half a century or more, as exhibiting the beauty of the tie which has held those two people together during all that time. CHAPTER XVII. THE ABODE AS A PART OF THE HOME. FroverbB or Verses. "Happiness flies court for garret." "If happiness have not her seat And center in the breast, We may be wise or rich or great, But never can be blest." — Burns. "True happiness is to no place confined. But still is found in a contented mind." — Horace. "O happiness, how far we flee Thy own sweet paths in search of thee !" "Rather possess a freehold, though but a cottage, than live in a palace belonging to another." Dialospue. When talking about the home, in what did we say that it was usually located ? "Why, in houses," you tell me. You assume that most people nowadays live in houses? You imply, do you, that each family occu- pies a whole dwelling to itself? "Oh, no! But the family does live in some sort of a house, although there might be a good many families under the same roof." And what do we mean by a house? I ask. "It is the building where one resides," you explain. But what kind of a building, — a church, for instance, a hall, an office building? "No," you assure me, "a dwelling with rooms, where one eats and sleeps and is at home." Do you suppose that people always have lived in houses, or had such dwellings for their homes? "How else could they have lived?" you ask. I do not wonder at your question. But surelj'' you have heard of dwelling places where families 226 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 227 lived, and yet which were not exactly the same as houses ? "Yes," you say, "there are tents." And what would be the difference between a tent and a house? "Why, a house is made of wood or brick or stone; it has chimneys and windows." And what about tents? "Oh, a tent is made of cloth and a tent-pole." You believe, do you, that tents have always been made of cloth? "What else could people use?" you ask me. But what did families do in former times before they knew how to make cloth? What did they wear, for example? "The skins of animals?" Then what do you sup- pose the first tents were made of? Can you answer now ? "Yes, they may have been made of the skins of animals, instead of cloth." What class of persons would have been inclined to live in tents instead of houses? "Well, for instance, people who have had to move from place to place and could not have their homes any length of time in any one locality." And what was the occupation of thostf men and women in former times, who used to live in that way? "Oh, they were shepherds or people who kept flocks and herds. They had to go around from place to place to find pasture; and so they would live in tents, carrying these with them wherever they went." Do you suppose any persons live in such houses or homes nowadays? "Yes," you answer, "the Arabs." ' And who are the Arabs? "Why, the people in Arabia, who live in tribes and do not always have settled homes as we do." How about wigwams ? What do they suggest to you? "Oh," you exclaim, "that was the kind of 228 DUTIES IN THE HOME. dwelling which the Indians of this country used to occupy." Yes, and you know all about them, I am sure, from the pictures you have often seen. By the way, what was the first type of house or home a long while ago, when men and women were uncivilized? Do you fancy they had dwellings of brick or stone in those days? "Probably not?" What did they have, then, would you assume? "Why, they may have begun by living in tents." But how would they have known at first in. what way to make tents? "Well," you ask, "if they did not have tents, what sort of homes or houses could they have had?" Don't you think it possible that dwelling places may be found already made? "That sounds like non- sense," you insist. But now take care. Are you sure about that? What if some people got lost in a forest and were caught in a storm, can you think of any possible way by which they might sometimes find shelter? "Yes," you admit, "it might so happen that there would be a cave near by, and they could go into the cave." Then what may have been the first dwelling places of human beings? "Caves?" Yes, you are right. I have no doubt that our forefathers a great while ago had their first homes in caves. "A strange sort of house it must have been !" you exclaim. True, but you see that people in early times had to learn a great many things and at first they did not know how tO' build houses. What would you guess came next, ^ifter they became tired of living in caves, and wanted a better dwelling place for a home? "Huts?" And what was the hut made of? "It might be made of earth, branches of trees, stones, or anything of that kind," you explain. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 229 But where would the chimneys be, the dining room, the bedroom,, the windows and all that sort of thing? "It would not have any?" What would have become of the smoke, then, if the people had a fire in their huts? "Why it would have gone out of the' door or up through a hole in the top of the hut." It looks, then, as if the first homes of our forefathers must have been pretty smoky places. And what would perhaps come next after the hut? You have already told me something of another type of dwelling? "The tent?" Yes. And so we picture to ourselves the three forms of dwelling places in early times : first the cave, then the hut, and then the tent. It may be that for thousands of years our forefathers had no other kind of a home. Even nowadays, in some parts of the world, there are people who have no other dwell- ing places than a hut or a cave or a tent. By the way, -I wonder if you have ever heard about the cliff-dwellers? Are there such persons nowadays? "Yes, they are people who have their homes in cliffs, in the rocks." Note to the Teacher: If there is time, at this point, one could devote a half hour to a description of such homes. Ac- counts and illustrations may be found in magazine articles of recent years. But in those old days, if people wanted to have more settled homes, what could they have made for themselves instead of tents? "Houses," you assert. But what kind of houses? You mean buildings made of hewn timbers, boards and shingles, with doors and windows and all that sort of thing? "Well, perhaps not quite all of that at first." But if they did not have axes and saws and tools such as we have nowadays, what could they have done in order to make such dwellings? "Why," you con- tinue, "they could have used logs." 230 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Yes, you are right ; the log-house would perhaps be a fourth type of residence or home where people may live. I suppose after that, would come simple "frame houses," as we should call them, made of plain boards or hewn timber. And so next to the log- house we may picture a dwelling made of wood, which has been cut and shaped by tools. What if, however, in former times, people had not been satisfied with log-houses and wanted to employ other material? Can you suggest what they might have done? "Yes, they could 'have used brick." And what is brick made of? "Why," you explain, "it is clay or earth baked hard." True, and we know that bricks were in use two or three thousand years ago in some parts of the world. We will therefore add the brick house to our list. What other material, however, could have been employed ? — a kind of substance that is hard and has been already baked? "Stone or marble?" Yes, and so we will also include houses made of marble or hewn stone. This makes quite a long list, does it not, — of the dififerent types of houses or dwelling places which human beings have occupied since they first began to exist on this earth. I wonder if you have any idea how long ago it was, when people first had glass windows in their houses? "Why," you ask, "if they did not have glass, how could they have had windows?" Your question is not surprising. But can't you think of anything else that could have been used instead of glass, to let in the light and keep out the cold? "Oh," you suggest, "one might use paper." Yes, aod as a matter of fact, long before they had window glass, paper was employed to cover the win- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 23 1 dows. You have heard about the great riches of the people of Rome two thousand years ago. Yet so far as we know, they did not have window glass, as we do, nowadays. How about chimneys, for instance? How could a house exist without a chimney? "It hardly seems possible," you exclaim. Yes, but it is true, nevertheless. In early times even in large houses or the palaces of kings, there were no chimneys. I believe true chimneys came into use for the first time only about a thousand years ago. "What did they have before that time?" you ask. Well, they had the doors or the windows, or thei-e may have been openings in the roof. Perhaps they had holes in the walls of their houses at the side where the smoke could go out. But in the old days, houses must have been pretty smoky, I suspect. Speaking of windows in houses, where do we nsually put the windows ? "Why," you tell me, "on the street or on the outside of a house, so as to let in 'ight or make it possible for people to see outdoors." But do you suppose this is so, everywhere? "How could it be otherwise?" you insist. Strange as it may seem, it is nevertheless true, :hat in some parts of the world there are large cities with handsome houses, where you could walk along :he streets for a mile and never see a window. "How could that be?" you ask. Think now, before you put the question. You can see how a house might be constructed so that the windows need not open on the street? "Oh, yes," you explain, "the house might be built around an open court and the windows could open on that court inside, and not on the street." Quite true, and that is just what you would find in certain parts of the world. What is more, we 232 DUTIES IN THE HOME. know that in great cities like Rome, two thousand years ago, the rich people used to build their homes in that way. In fact, this was the custom nearly everywhere in those times in that part of the world. "How, do we know that ?" you ask again. Well, perhaps some of us have seen one of those old cities somewhat in the way it was fifteen hundred or two thousand years agO'. Have you ever heard of Pompeii ? "Oh, yes ; that was the city which was destroyed by the volcano Vesuvius in early times." Quite true, and you could go there nowadays and see the foundations of that very city, which |ave been "excavated," as we say. The ashes have (been removed and you could examine the shape of the houses there, the walls along the street and the inner courts which are open to the sky. Note to the Teacher. — If there is time and opportunity, show the children a restored illustration of one of the houses ai^d homes in Pompeii. It is well for the young to appreciate th^t theirs may not be the only civilized way of living and th^ there may be or may have been other beautiful homes or beautiful houses quite different from the ones we are accu^ tomed to. Pictures with descriptions can be found in moderi magazine articles illustrating this subject in detail. By the way, speaking of the houses of kings, whsjt are such dwelling places usually called? "Palaces?' Yes, and what is your idea of a palace? "Oh, it would be a house which is very big, witi a great many rooms, and lots of furniture, beautiful pictures, all sorts of comforts, elegant rugs or car- pets, plenty of people to wait on you, — a place, ill fact, where one could be happy all the time." But why did you introduce that last point, about being happy all the time? "As to that," you insist, "how could one help being happy if one lives in a palace?" But do you know, if you were toi put that question DUTIES IN THE HOME. 233 to people who have hved in such abodes, they would actually smile, because they would think it so ridic- ulous. Yet it would be a sad sort of a smile, because they would tell you that people who reside in palaces are often the most unhappy or wretched people, and least of all, able to have their own way. You may not believe it; but that is what some of them say, and they ought to know. At any rate, there are persons who have once lived in very simple homes with only a few rooms, and they sometimes may speak in the same manner. They may have grown wealthy and come to reside in palaces. Yet more than one such person has asserted that he was happier when living in his plain home than when living in a palace. Memory Gem. "Through wisdom is an house builded; And by understanding is it established." Points of the ]tesson. I. That people have not always lived in houses of wood or brick or stone. II. That the human race must have begun in a very hum- ble way in so far as the first abodes were concerned. III. That the first abodes may have been caves, then per- haps huts, tents, log-cabins, frame houses, and finally houses of brick and stone. IV. That many of the comforts of home, which we now consider almost necessary for life, have only been in the pos- session of the human race for a few hundred years. V. That experience has shown the possibility that many people may be more happy in a humble home than when residing in a mansion or a palace. Duties. I. We ought to try to make the very most of whatever home we have. II. We ought to prcscn'c the spirit of love and contentment even in the humblest home. i»34 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ///. We ought to care more for the loving spirit in the home than for the house zve live in. IV. We ought to rejoice over the superior com- forts of our home life as it exists nowadays. V. We ought to appreciate the superior advan- tages of our homes to-day in contrast with those of former times. VI. We ought to he grateful for what the human race has learned ivith regard to the improvement of the home and the life of the home. Poem. Our old brown homestead reared its walls From the wayside dust aloof, Where the apple boughs could almost cast Their fruitage on its roof: And the cherry-tree so near it grew. That when awake I've lain In the lonesome nights I've heard the limbs, As they creaked against the pane ; And those orchard trees, O those orchard trees ! I've seen my little brothers rocked In their tops by the summer breeze. The sweet-brier under the window-sill. Which the early birds made glad. And the damask rose by the garden fence Were all the flowers we had. I've looked at many a flower since then, Far brought, and rich, and rare. To other eyes more beautiful. But not to me so fair: For those roses bright, O those roses bright! I have twined them with my sister's locks, That are laid in the dust from sight ! We had a well, a deep old well Where the spring was never dry. And the cool drops Aovjn from the mossy stones Were falling constantly: And there never was water half so sweet As that in my little cup, Drav/n up to the curb by the rude old sweep. Which my fatheVs hand set up; And that deep old well, O, that deep old well ! I remember yot the splashing sound Of the bucket as it fell. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 235 Our homestead had an ample hearth, Where at night we loved to meet; There my mother's voice was always kind, And her smile was always sweet : And there I've sat on my father's knee, And watched his thoughtful brow, With my childish hand in his raven hair — That hair is silver now I But that broad hearth's light, O that broad hearth's light, And my father's look, and my mother's smile, They are in my heart to-night. — Phoebe Gary. Further Sug-ffestions to tie Teacher. It will be seen at a glance that this lesson is a mere skeleton, far more so than would be the case with any of the previous chapters. Inasmuch as we are dealing with facts of history on a large scale, we can only to a very limited extent employ the method of question and answer. At the same time it should be followed wherever possible, and it can be made available in a slight degree even with regard to the historic phases. The young people have already acquired some knowledge from their own readings or school studies, and may therefore be able to suggest a number of points in the course of the conversation. But the outline here should be filled in with much detail and form the theme for a number of sessions. At first thought, it will look as if there were really no ethical elements to be intro- duced in connection with the points of this chapter. But on further consideration, this will perhaps prove otherwise. It will mean a good deal to establish in the young mind a faith in human progress. But still more, we shall accomplish much if we can make them appreciate better the advantages of any ordi- nary home to-day, in comparison with what people had a thousand or two-thousand years ago. We should elaborate on this with much detail. As each link in the story is brought out, there should be a prolonged consideration or analysis, taking it up in 236 DUTIES IN THE HOME. all its various phases. The young people should be assigned topics which they could investigate by reading articles in the best encyclopedias. One might collect all the information he could discover with regard to tents and their history ; another, huts ; a third, log-houses; a fourth, caves; a fifth, brick and the history of the brick house ; a sixth, stone and stone houses. Then, too, the same method could be pursued with regard to the various comforts of the home or features pertaining to the house. One pupil could be assigned the subject of the history of chim- neys; another, windows or window glass; a third, matches and means of lighting; a fourth, stoves and means of heating; a fifth, doorways or floors; a sixth, cooking utensils. In this way the young peo- ple may take a keen delight in studying the historic phase, learn a great deal about it, and alsO' be made to appreciate better the comforts of even the plainest home nowadays in contrast with the conditions in former times. The best encyclopaedias now furnish a great deal of information on all these subjects, and oftentimes with picture illustrations. Something might be said, also, with regard to the contrasts in homes to-day in different parts of the world, even among people who are civilized. While, however, we wish to assert a definite standard on certain points, on the other hand we should be cautious about letting the children assume that all the cus- toms in our part of the world, must necessarily be the only right or fitting ones for houses or homes everywhere. There is always a dangei' of fostering arrogance when drawing such contrasts between conditions of people living at the present time. There may be a fixed standard in matters of ethics along with great variety of diversity in matters ol taste. Furthermore, the races or corvitries which are the most civilized or advanced in some directions DUTIES IN THE HOME. 237 may be behind less advanced races in other direc- tions. It will be seen at a glance that the teacher can develop this lesson much more satisfactorily by having a series of pictures and introducing them from time to time as the links are suggested in the story. Without much trouble any one may be able to secure scenes or illustrations of the cave, tent, hut, log-house, frame house, brick structure, and stone mansion or the "palace." CHAPTER XVIII. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE DECORATION OF THE HOME.* Proverbs or Verses. "It is not the gay coat that makes the gentleman.'' "The perfection of art is to conceal art." — Quintillian. "A room hung with pictures is a room hung with thoughts." — Joshua Reynolds. "Your dirty shoes are not welcome in my parlor." "A good book is the best of friends, the same to-day and forever." — Tucker. "A library is a repository of medicine for the mind." — Greek. "A fat kitchen has poverty for a neighbor." "Silks and satins put out the fire in the kitchen." "What and how great, the virtue and the art. To live on little with a cheerful heart." "They who are often at the looking-glass, seldom spin." Dialosrue. By the way, when walking along the street, have you ever noticed in the windows of people's houses, perhaps at the window sill, something green there? "Yes, they are house plants." And what do people have these for ? "In order to make the houses look pretty,' to add beauty to them, to decorate the home," you assume. Then we come upon a new feature of home life, do we not, what we mig-'ht call house or home dec- oration? Do you suppose, however, that people have house plants solely in order to decorate the home? "What other reason could there be?" you ask. *This lesson may be omitted altogether, at the discretion of the teacher. 238 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 239 But don't you think that one could like something all for its own sake, apart from the beauty it may add to the house? What is the difference, for example, between a plant and a piece of furniture? "Oh, the plant is alive, it grows." Yes, that is the point I am thinking of. In a way, we feel a certain kinship between it and ourselves more than we feel for a piece of furniture, in that it is alive. Then, too, there is a peculiar charm in watching a thing grow, seeing it change, — observing the bud appear, for instance, and then noticing how it expands into a blossom. How do you explain the fact that all people do not have house-plants in their homes ? "Perhaps it is because they cannot afford it?" But I wonder if that is generally true. Some plants are very expen- sive; but there are other kinds which cost very little? What is it after all, that house-plants require, besides the expenditure of money? "Care, or atten- tion, or labor?" Quite so. Perhaps, therefore, one reason is, that people may not be willing to take the trouble or pains necessary. Suppose, for example, you were to visit two homes, both of them very plain indeed, with little furniture and that of the cheapest kind. But what if in one of them you were to find house-plants, just a few, but nothing of the kind in the other dwelling? Would this perhaps suggest any contrast in regard to the character of those two homes ? "Yes, somehow we should assume that the abode where the plants were found, might be the more attractive." Why so? I ask. "Because those plants would show a certain refinement of feeling on the part of some one there." 240 DUTIES IN THE HOME. True, I agree with you. We should be inclined to look upon this second home as an advance upon the first, as if it had something superior about it. Then, too, would it not also imply that there was more of a desire on the part of people in that home, to make it attractive to others. I wonder, too, if those plants would not suggest to us that the people in that house cared for something else besides eating and drinking, making money, or just getting their living. What else, however, might we have in the dwell- ing besides house-plants, as a means of home decora- tion? "Oh, for instance, there are the pictures on the walls." True, and anything else? "Well," you continue, "the decoration of the home may aldo depend upon the furniture." You mean, do you, that a person might select two pieces of furniture, each costing the same amount of money and serving- the same purpose, — one of which, however, would be a decoration to the home, and the other, quite the contrary ? You are right; the choice of furniture makes a great difference in the attractiveness of the home, altogether apart from what it may cost in money value. Is there anything further that many people have in order to add to the beauty of their houses ? "Yes, vases," you suggest, "pretty things on the mantel." True, and is there also anything of a living kind, besides house-plants, which may constitute a feature of home decoration? "Birds?" Yes, I am sure the canary bird may often add great charm to the home life. How about fishes also? "Indeed," you add, "one might have gold fish or an aquarium." Why is it that people do not have more of these DUTIES IN THE HOME. 24I decorative features for their homes, apart from the expense? "For one reason," you point out, "per- haps because they may not think about it." Yes, that explains a great deal, I assure you. Do you suppose it might be possible for twO' fam- ilies to have the same amount of money to spend, the same annual expenses, the same number of per- sons, etc., and yet for one of them to have more pretty things in the home than the other? "That might happen," you confess. In what way? I ask. "Why, it may depend on how people use their money." What do you mean by that? "Oh, one class of persons might spend more in having nicer things to eat; laying out more for candy, sweetmeats, tobacco, that sort of thing." And what might the other family do? "Why, they would spend less in that way, and save some- thing with which to buy pictures and house-plants or a little nicer furniure." It implies, then, does it, that the difference in the beauty of houses or homes does not always depend on how much money a family has to spend, but also on the choice they make in their pleasures? But when people lay out money for the purpose of decorating their homes, do they do this in order to make it look attractive to outside people, or to people in the home itself, — which? "Well," you say, "it depends a good deal on the people; some persons like more than anything else to make a show to the world, have people admire them, and so they may spend money on their homes in order to win admiration." What, then, is one motive leading many people to decorate their homes ? "For the sake of the admira- tion of others?" Yes, that is one very prevalent motive. 242 ■ DUTIES IN THE HOME. But what oither inducement might people have? "Why, they might do it just in order to make the home attractive as a home, to make it beautiful to those who live there, because they love their home." Which would be the finer or higher motive in home decoration, — to do it for the sake oi show, in order to win admiration; or to do it for the sake of the home itself in order tO' make the home more attractive to those who live in it? "The latter," you assert. Suppose a person is going to buy something in order to decorate the home, a picture or a piece of furniture or something of that kind. And suppose there were two articles, one of them really much prettier than the other, and from which the people in the home would get more pleasure. But what if on the other hand the second object made more of a "show," so that persons from the outside coming to the home would know at once what the article had cost? Now do you suppose that it ever happens that an individual under these cir- cumstances would choose the article which would display its money value and cost more, although it might not be nearly as pretty as the other ? "That might occur," you say. Yes, I can assure you it does happen. People will sometimes buy things for the home, which may not be nearly as attractive or beautiful as others costing less money, but which will make more of a show. When it comes to the best way of deciding, what would you say should be the true principle in select- ing articles for the decoration of the home? Should it be beauty for its own sake, or beauty for the sake -of display? "Why, of course, it should be beauty for its own sake." A case is on record, for example, of a family which had become very rich, having the seats of DUTIES IN THE HOME. 243 their parlor chairs covered with hundred dollar bills ? You smile at that, do you? Yet it has actually happened. So, too, we are told of people who bought valuable shawls costing hun- dreds of dollars apiece, and then cut out the center of each shawl in order to use it as a covering for the seats of their parlor chairs. What could have been the motive for this? Do you suppose it made those chairs more beautiful? "No," you assert, "it was for the sake of the show, in order to do something which cost a lot of money and made a great display." Do you think people might do this, however, who did not have a great deal of money, perhaps not more than a few hundred dollars a year for their whole family? "That hardly seems possible," you answer. But I ask you to be clear on this point. If a per- son buys an article costing not more than twenty- five cents, which makes a show on the mantel-piece, and yet could have bought something for one- quarter of that amount which would really have been prettier in itself to those who live in the house, — would it not be the same thing, after all, as the rich man covering the seats of his parlor chairs with hundred dollar bills? In regard to this matter of home decoration, how- ever, would you say that, after all, the beauty of an article should be the only reason for having it there ? What if there were a simple old picture on the wall, belonging to one's father, something he had had since he was a child and was therefore exceed- ingly fond of, bcause of the associations connected with it,- — although it might not be especially beau- tiful or in accord with the rest of the furniture, and although something else might be put there at a small cost and look much, prettier to the eye ? 244 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Would it be right for you under such circum- stances to ask to have that picture removed, and have something more beautiful put there in its place ? "No," you admit, "probably not." But why so ? You said that the principle of home decoration should be beauty for its own sake and not for the sake of the display. "Yes," you con- tinue, "but the father may be fond of that picture, and his pleasure is more important than having the walls decorated in the most beautiful way." What else, for example, do we sometimes have on our walls and mantels in the way of pictures, which are not there chiefly for ornament? "Portraits or photographs?" Yes. Why are they there, however, if not for the sake of their beauty? "As to that," you explain, "we may put them there because it is home and we like to have the pictures around us, of those whO' are dear to us." And what part of the house should be the natural place for these or other articles, whose charm lies chiefly in the tender associations we may have with them ? Should they be put in the room where we are accustomed to receive guests, or rather in the more private living rooms of the house? "Why, in the latter," you reply; "because such pictures or objects have their chief interest for those who reside in the home, and not to outsiders." Yes, that is quite true. One ought to think a little about the right place for all articles which are used as a means for home decoration. — And yet we ought also to be a little careful about judging others in such matters. But do you think, on the contrary, that people may sometimes go to the other extreme and put nearly all their prettiest or most beautiful possessions in their DUTIES IN THE HOME. 245 reception room, parlor or drawing room, which they seldom occupy save when they have company; and keep the poorest for the living rooms where the members of the family usually stay? "Oh, yes, that might also happen." How would you account for that ? "Why, in that case," you explain, "they would look upon their articles of decoration as mainly for show or display, rather than as intended for the beauty of the home itself." Yes, you are right on that point ; in some homes the living rooms are very dingy and mucli neglected, while all the attention to beauty or decoration has gone to the reception room or parlor. By the way, at what time of life is it, for instance, that people usually take the most pains in getting objects of decoration for their homes? "Oh, when they are young, perhaps, or when they are just beginning to have their own homes." What is the reason for this ? Why is it that many families have not spent any money at all on pretty things, for a number of years? "For one reason," you continue, "it may be that the -necessary expeneses of the family have been in- creasing." True, but is that all? "No," you add, "perhaps they grow careless as time goes on," Yes, that is also possible. We have been talking now for quite a long while about home decoration ; but you have not mentioned one important article which may add beauty to house and home. What do parents sometimes give for Christmas presents, besides playthings; I mean for reading purposes? "Books?" you suggest. Yes, that is what I am thinking of. Don't you think that these may be a great decoration to the home ? Is it not a little strange that people should be slow 346 DUTIES IN THE HOME. about Spending money for books, when they will continue to spend money for the theater and other forms of amusement, for pleasures which do not last ; while a good book may be read many times and be like a picture on the wall, as an ornament of beauty in the home. Memory Gem. "Wisdom is better than rubies; And all the things that may be desired are not to be compared unto her." Points of the Iiesson. I. That a care for decorative features of the home, such as house-plants, pictures, etc., shows a desire on the part of those who have charge of the home, to make it attractive to those living there. II. That where one meets with house-plants or other sim- ilar decorative features in a home, one feels as if a refining influence were being manifested there. III. That decorative features of the home may depend on how the members of the family save or spend their money or the kind of pleasures they most care for. IV. That while it may be right to decorate a home for the sake of winning the admiration of others, the more important reason should be in order to make the home attractive as a home to those living there. V. That an article of decoration which is itself important chiefly for the money it cost, is a sham and not truly decor- ative to the home. VI. That pictures are more important than their frames, and that the beauty of a picture does not always lie in its money value. VII. That books make a highly decorative feature of a home. VIII. That there is a suitable place for each and every article of decoration according to the purpose of the room where it is put. IX. That for sentiment's or association's sake on the part of the older members of the family, we may keep articles of decoration there, which may be of inferior merit in other respects. Snties. /. We ought -first of all to decorate the home in ("rder to make it attractive to those who live there. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 247 //. We ought to be honest in the kind of decora- tions we put into our homes. III. We ought to value an object of beauty as a decoration for the home according to the actual beauty it possesses, rather than according to its money value. IV. We ought to take into consideration the feel- ings of all the members of the household when add- ing decorations to the home. Foem. Woodman, spare that tree ! Touch not a single bough ! In youth it sheltered me, And I'll protect it now. 'Twas my forefather's hand That placed it near his cot; There, woodman, let it stand, Thy axe shall harm it not ! That old familiar tree, Whose glory and renown Are spread o'er land and sea, And wouldst thou hew it down? Woodman, forbear thy stroke ! Cut not its earth-bound ties; O, spare that aged oak, Now towering to the skies ! When but an idle boy I sought its grateful shade; In all their gushing joy Here too my sisters played. My mother kissed me here; My father pressed my hand — Forgive this foolish tear. But let that old oak stand ! My heart-strings round thee cling Close as thy bark, old friend ! Here shall the wild birds sing, And still thy branches bend. Old tree ! the storm still brave ! And, woodman, leave the spot; While I've a hand to save. Thy axe shall hurt it not. — George P. Morris. 248 DUTIES IN THE HOME. rurther Sngrsrestlons to tlie Teacber. It will be observed at once that many of the points in this chapter must be handled with a good deal of caution. We shall undertake to lay down only a few principles, and those of a general nature. The teacher may even prefer to allow the young people to read over the lesson without having any discus- sion at all. We certainly wish to be very cautious about encouraging them to be critical of their own homes, of their older brothers and sisters or their parents, in connection with this topic of home deco- ration. On the other hand, the subject affords an opportunity for the treatment of some ethical points of great value, provided they are introduced in the right way. A young person may receive hints by this means, which could be of value for him through- out his whole life. Beyond any question, there is an ethical element involved in the subject of home deco- ration. What is more, a frightful waste is going on in this direction in many parts of the civilized world. Surely it would be of significance if we could stem the tide a little here, with a few thoughts which these children may apply afterwards in their experience as adults. On the other hand, we must take great care to let young people see that these principles may also have reference to homes of the plainest kind. At first they may only be amused or astonished at the stories of wasteful extravagance on the part of wealthy people who do not have right principles with regard to the decoration of a home. But it may affect them in another way when they see how this applies to the humblest home as well, and that the wage-earning family on an income of ten dol- lars a week, may be doing precisely the same thing or showing precisely the same weakness on a smaller scale. This latter point should be elaborated, and a large number of illustrations introduced in connec- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 249 tion with it.-- We must apply these rules to average experience and not to the exceptional home or ex- ceptional people. We must also draw our examples from a distance as much as possible so as not to seem to be passing judgment on people near at home. If we are dealing with pupils who come from humble surroundings where the average family income is small, we might be able to furnish a number of very valuable suggestions with regard to home decora- tion, showing how these could be carried out at a irery small expense, — ^and trying also by this means to discourage on their part the imitation of the homes of people of much larger means. The point we have touched .upon with regard to photographs or por- traits, may not be of much importance, and, if thought desirable, it could be omitted altogether. It might lead the young people into ^ talk about their own homes, — which, of course, we wish to avoid. Indirectly, there is the greatest opportunity for a dis- cussion of ethical problems in treating of the fea- ture of shams in house and home decoration, pro- vided we can draw our examples in a way so as to avoid direct reference to the homes of the pupils themselves. We shall certainly achieve a great deal if we can discourage the disposition to value objects by the sum of money they have costi Picture ma- terial to any extent can easily be secured, in order to illustrate this subject as a whole. One could per- haps find all that one needs from the advertisements appended to the magazfne literature in circulation at the present time. CHAPTER XIX. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE HOME. ProverliB or Verses. "Good brothers make good sisters." — Johnson. "There is no one like a sister In calm or stormy weather. To cheer one on a tedious way. To fetch one if one goes astray. To lift one if one totters down, To strengthen whilst one stands." — Christina Rosetti. Sialoffue. Does it ever happen, do you suppose, among the children in the family, that they are all brothers, with no sister or sisters? "Oh, yes, it is that way sometimes." And might it also be just the contrary ? Are there homes where the children are all sisters and there are no brothers ? "Yes, certainly." But how is it usually, in most families? "Why, probably there are both brothers and sisters." What makes you think so? I ask. "Because it would be natural ?" "Besides ' that," you continue, "there must be about as many boys as there are girls in the world, and so we take it for granted* that there will be some of both in most families." Yes, that is true. The number of boys and girls keeps nearly even, although not exactly so, — ^taking the world as a whole. But it does happen, as you suggest, that sometimes there may be only brothers in a home, and at other homes only sisters. How would it seem, if there were only brothers 250 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 251 on the one hand, or only sisters on the other? Would it make any difference in the life of the home? "How coiild it?" you ask. But do any of you boys have sisters in the home? "Oh, yes," you reply. Now, would it be exactly the same to you if there were no sisters there? "No, of course not." Does a sister treat you quite as a brother would? Is it precisely the same to you whether you deal with one or the other? "By no manner of means!" you exclaim. Would you say, for instance, that brothers and sisters could not always act toward one another ex- actly as brothers might act to brothers, or sisters to sisters? "Surely, there is a difference," you in- sist. In what way? I ask. They may all be children to- gether, all members of the same happy home, all ex- pected to obey the same father or mother, perhaps all going to school together. "Yes," you say, "that is all true enough; but it is not quite the same whether the other children are all brothers or all sisters ; for instance, girls do not always choose the same games as boys. So, too, boys and girls do not always play alike; they are not always fond of the same things." That is all quite true. "Then, too," you add, "they do not dress alike; girls usually have long hair and boys wear their hair cut short, for example." How about their voices? "Their voices are also different," you answer; at least when they grow older." So, you assume, do you, that they may not play the same games, do not wear the same dresses, do not look quite alike as brothers or sisters? Which would usually be the stronger, do you sup- pose, if they happen to be of the same age, — ^the boy 252 DUTIES IN THE HOME. or the girl ? "Oh, probably the boy." Then you as- sert that boys may be stronger than girls if they happen to be of about the same age? "Yes, and they are rougher in their manner of play," one of the girls suggests ; "sometimes they hurt in the way they tease or strike." I am afraid that also is true, although we don't quite like to believe it, — at least, we hesitate to think that they would hurt a sister, just because of their superior , strength. But at any rate, they probably are more violent and boisterous in their games to- gether. Which one studies the harder, would you say, the boy or the girl, the brother or the sister ? "Oh, that depends on who' they are." You do not assume, then, that there is necessarily a difference on that point, whether the child is a sister or brother? "No?" In what way do boys and girls in the same home or family, differ in their games, or amusements, for example? "Why," you add, "girls, at least the younger ones, play with dolls, for instance." Yes, and does it ever happen that boys do the same? "Not unless they are very young indeed." How long do girls usually go on playing with dolls, do you suppose? "Oh, it depends on the girl." But do boys regard it as silly for girls to play with dolls ? Would they call it childish ? Dolls are not real things ; they ai"e not alive ; is there any sense in play of that kind ? "Oh, it is all right for girls," you answer, "be- cause it is natural for them." Yes, that is true. It is just as natural and right and dignified for them to play with dolls, as it would be for boys tO' play at a game of ball. And how about the boys and what they like to play? "Why, they are more fond of what are called DUTIES IN THE HOME. 253 athletic games, the kind which require much use of the body, the rr^uscles, the arms and the legs." Girls also play at those games sometimes, do they not? "Yes," you say, "but usually they are rather awkward at it; they do not seem to know exactly how ; they cannot do it in just the right way." But do you suppose it ever happens that a brother teases a sister because she plays with dolls, laughs at her or annoys her on that account? "Yes, indeed he does," some of the girls say. And why does a brother do it? "Oh, they just want to be disa- greeable," you answer, "to be mean." Is that true; what do the boys say to that? Do brothers take pleasure in being mean and disagreea- ble? "No', it is not exactly that." What is it, then? I ask. "Oh, it is a kind of fun just to tease one's sisters now and then." But is it kind? I ask. "No, in- deed !" the girls exclaim. Is it right, do you think ? "One does not mean anything by it, at any rate," you answer. But I dO' not ask you from that stand- point. Would it be right, if it seems disagreeable to one's sister? "No," you admit, "not exactly right." But is there any other reason why brothers may be inclined to annoy their sisters in that way? "Oh," the girls continue, "boys like to be tyran- nical." And what do you mean by that? "Why, they are stronger than girls are, and sometimes the sisters cannot help themselves." Then, do you boys regard it as a manly kind of thing to annoy a sister just because you are stronger than she is ? When you grow up and become men, you will be told that such conduct is unmanly, that it would be contrary to the laws of chivalry. Do you know what has been regarded as the first great rule of chivalry? "To uphold the weak," you tell me. But to what persons, most of all, would this 254 DUTIES IN THE HOME. t apply, among those who may be weaker than we are? If, for example, there happened to be a man and a woman in need of assistance, each less strong than one of us, which one should we help first, in accord- ance with the rules of chivalry? "Why, the woman," you exclaim. True, and does not this apply also to one's sis- ters ? Ought not a brother to uphold them, be chiv- alrous toward them, just because they may be less strong than he is, — but, most of all, because they are his sisters? "Yes," you admit, "it ought to be that way." Do' all brothers act in this spirit ? "You are afraid not?" But would they do it more as they grow older, when they are grown up, for instance? "Yes, more so, probabty," you confess. But don't you think that one should begin by being chivalrous as a young boy, by being manly even as a child, before one is a grown man, in the way one defends a sister, shields her, tries to be her cham- pion, because she may not be as strong as the brother ? How is it, too, with the sisters; are they always kind, do you suppose, in the way they act toward their brothers, or in considering what their brothers like to play or like to do ? "It depends on the sister," you tell me. You assume, then, do you, that sisters are some- times cross or disagreeable, because their brothers like to go out and play athletic games, instead of having games at home? "It might happen," you admit. I wonder if we could not lay down a sensible rule in the relations between brothers and sisters or be- tween sisters and brothers, in the way they should DUTIES IN THE HOME. 255 treat one another as regards their respective tastes or pleasures. Do you think they ought to be always quarreling with one another, one trying to make the other change the game the other likes, or to play at something else, simply because the first one wishes it? "No, that would not be fair." You believe that brothers have a right to the kind of games they most prefer, unless there is some other objection to them, — and sisters likewise? "Surely." Then, in what way might they show a respect for one another in this matter ? "Why, they could respect one another's tastes and pleasures." Yes, I quite agree with you. Children would often be much happier in their homes, if they would show this kind of respect for one another as brothers and sisters. But now, is there not something else that a brother owes to a sister, or other services he could render her, of a kind that he could not render to a brother ? Might it happen that a brother would uphold his sister in the presence of others or when others from the outside annoyed her or interfered with her, and yet neglect her at home, and not be her supporter there ? "It might be so," you confess. But would it be right? "No, surely not." How would it be as brothers and sisters grow older and are no longer lit- tle children? Is there anything which a brother might do for a sister then ? Are girls as free to go about as boys, for instance in the evening, when they grow older? "No," you say. Then, what might a brother in this case do to help a sister ? "Why, he might accompany her when she could not go out alone, help her to get pleasure at those times, when if she did not have such com- pany, she would be obliged to stay at home." 256 DUTIES IN THE HOME. As a brother grows older, is it possible that he might care for his friends or comrades so much, that he would go out with them evenings all the while, and never think about his sister's pleasures or do anything for her at such times ? "That might also happen," you say. But would it be kind or brotherly? "No, indeed!" And what is more, I can assure you, it would not be manly or chivalrous. A brother owes something to his sister, just because she is his sister, and he ought to be glad tO' perform little services for her, and to give her pleasure in circumstances when she cannot act for herself unless by his assistance. And is that all? What do girls take more pleas- ure in, perhaps, than boys, as they grow older? "Dress?" Yes, that may be so. And is it right that a sister should care more about dress than a brother does? "Yes, surely!" And why so ? I ask. "Oh, because it is natural !" True, I think that a good reason, although it may be carried too far, as everyone knows. But what if a brother teased a sister about her fondness for dress, laughed at her because she cared for pretty clothes; would it be brotherly to act in that way? "Not at all," you assert. What would be the true brotherly spirit at such times? I ask you. "Why, he might show an inter- est in the way she dressed and the clothes she wore; he might even make her little presents of pretty things." And now suppose, for a moment, we turn about and ask in regard to what a sister might do for a brother? Are there ever any selfish girls who take little interest in their brothers, make no effort to please them or do anything for them? "Yes, per- haps ?" But would you admire that sort of a girl ? "No, indeed !" you exclaim. What sort of a wife DUTIES IN THE HOME. 257 do you believe that girl would make when she grew up and had a husband and home of her own ; do you think that she would be liable to make her husband happy or give him a happy home ? "You doubt it ?" And why so? I ask. "Oh," you assert, "if she has been selfish in her first home toward her broth- ers, she might act in just the same way after a while in her new home and toward her husband." I sus- pect that is true. Selfish sisters are liable to make selfish wives. And how would it be with brothers ? If a brother were inclined to be kindly toward his sister, do serv- ices for her in all sorts of ways, be considerate of her pleasures ; what sort of a husband do you fancy he would make when he grew up and had a home of his own? "Why," you suggest, "a chivalrous brother would probably make a good husband." I suspect you are right on that point, too. In what ways, then, could a sister be of service to a brother ? To what sphere is it that the work of a woman is assumed especially to belong, whether as a sister, child, or as a wife? "To the home?" And what, then, might she do for a brother there? "Why, she might try to make the home more attractive to him, perform little services for him in directions where she is more adept, seeking to render the home life pleasanter for him, or to make him like more to be at home when he is at leisure." What if, for instance, he liked to have some of his companions come to his home, evenings, now and then. How might a sister act at such times? "Why," you suggest, "it would depend on the sis- ter." In what way? "As to that, she could be sulky and selfish about it, or she might do just the other way ; encourage her brother to have his friends visit 258 DUTIES IN THE HOME. him at home and try to add to their pleasures while they are there." And as they grow older, and are no longer chil- dren, what could a sister do besides this? Suppose that the mother in the home was busy with other cares, is there anything which a sister might do' in the way of service to a brother? "Oh, yes," you add, "she might help him about his clothes, perhaps look after his mending, aid him in little ways where he would not be efficient because he is a boy and not a girl, or a man and not a woman." True, that is a very important point. There are ways in which a girl is more efficient than a boy, and a woman more efficient than a man, just because they are girls or women. Is that not so ? "Surely," you tell me. Would it not be just the same on the other side? Are there not ways in which brothers are more effi- cient, just because they are boys or men? "Yes, indeed!" And how, then, could they help one another in the home ? "Why, they could do all sorts of little things in these directions where one was more effi- cient than the other." Yes, and that is a point well worth remembering. Memory Crem. "The evil bow before the good; and the wicked at the gates of the righteous." Points of tlio l^eESOB. I. That brothers and sisters are not alike, because brothers are boys and sisters are girls. II. That boys tend to like one kind of games and girls to like another kind. III. That it is right and natural that each one should be fond of certain kinds of pleasures, according as one is a boy or a girl, a brother or a sister. IV. That it is unmanly for a brother to annoy or tease a DUTIES IN THE HOME. 259 sister because he is stronger than she is, and might be able to tyrannize over her. V. That a brother should be his sister's champion and protect and help her both inside and outside of the home, all the more because he may have more strength than she has. VI. That a selfish brother may make a selfish husband, and a selfish sister a selfish wife. VII. That a brother as he grows older, may be of service to his sister, by accompanying her, evenings, when she cannot go out alone, or giving her little pleasures which she may desire or care for. VIII. That a brother should take an interest in a sister's care for dress and be of service to her in this direction. IX. That a sister can do much to make a home more attractive to a brother. X. That a sister as she grows older may do many services for her brother, by looking after his clothes, mend- ing, etc. XL That a sister might take an interest in her younger brother's friends, if they come to him now and then at his home in the evening. Duties. /. We ought as brothers and sisters to have a re- spect for one another's tastes and one another's pleas- ures. II. We ought as brothers and sisters to remember that chivalry begins at home, in the way we act toward our sisters. III. We ought as sisters to try to make home more attractive to our brothers. IV. We ought as brothers and sisters to render to one another special services zvhere each one may be more efficient than the other, because one is a woman and the other is a man, and man and woman each have their own respective gifts. A story. I wonder if you have ever heard of a great poet by the name of Wordsworth? Perhaps not; inasmuch as the beautiful verses he has written are of the kind which young children may not care for, but which are of interest more often only to grown people. The poems he wrote usually make one think as well as feel. What he cared most about was the beauty of nature, trees, flowers, grass, the woods, the lakes, the mountains and anything pertaining to the Mystery of Nature, 26o DUTIES IN THE HOME. He lived in the country most of his life, where there were mountains and lakes and where he could be happy in having such beautiful scenery about him. And in his great poetry he tells of the delight he took in those trees and brooks and fields and lakes and mountains. He used to go walking every- where, morning, noon and night. He would be up before the sun, in order to climb a hill and witness the sun rise. He would go out in the night time along the pathways in the open fields to look at the stars. So, too, he loved to wander through the woods in order to' listen to the sound of the brooks or the waterfalls. But I tell you this, not on account of his great poetry or on account of the nature he was so fond of. You may think that he usually went alone. But it was quite otherwise. More often he had a comrade with him, one who joined him in his wanderings, morning, afternoon and evening ; one who was with him to look at the sunrise from the hilltop or to see the sunset there. They used to go out together in the night time to enjoy the beauty of the stars in the stillness of evening, or the soft ripple of the waters in the brook. The poet's name was Wordsworth — one of the greatest poets who has ever lived. And do you know who the comrade was ? Why, it was his sister. The story of the affection between this sister and brother, and how it lasted on through the years, is one of the most touching narratives in the lives of any of the great poets. It was not only that this sister was a comrade to him in his wanderings, not only that she took pleasure in what he enjoyed, not only that she read his verses with the keenest delight, but still more, she gave him thoughts and sentiments. She inspired him with new feelings and added a new charm to his verse. In one of his greatest poems, where he tells of his love of nature and pours forth his heart in the delight he had felt in the beauty all around him, he turns aside and pays a tribute to this sister and what she has been to him. When you are older you will want to read that poem; and if you do, you will meet wifh those lines there, and you will be reminded of what I am telling you now of that devotion between those two people who had been children in the same home together, who had loved each other, who had rendered all kinds of services to each other, who had taken pleasure in each other's tastes, who had read books together, and who had seen and enjoyed the beauties of nature together. All those who know of the lives of the great poets, have read of this beautiful friendship between that sister and the poet Wordsworth. It brings home to us the thought how much a brother and sister can be to each other, not only as children, but as grown men and women. — how much they can add to each other's lives, how loyal they can be to each other in life and in death. W. L. S. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 261 rartber Sugirestloiis to tlie Teacbar. We have only touched in a general wayupon a few of the many points which ought to be introduced in connection with the subject of the lesson. The charm of home feeling will always depend a great deal on whether brothers and sisters treat one another in the right spirit. We must emphasize the distinction be- tween the boy and the girl in temperament, disposi- tion, tastes, pleasures and possible careers. Further- more, we must take great care to make the young people understand that the obligations are mutual. There will always be the danger of encouraging the critical spirit of the sister toward the brother, or of the brother toward the sister, leading them to pass judgment on the other side rather than upon themselves. At the same time, it will probaoly be found that the only way to bring out all the duties and obligations here, may be to let the sister name over what she thinks are the duties and obligations of the brother toward herself, talking them over one by one in the presence of the boys and the girls; and then reversing the situation and letting the brothers suggest all the duties and obligations which he thinks a sister owes to him. A candid discussion of these points in the presence of both boys and girls, or brothers and sisters, may add a great deal of light and be of real service. It were far better that this should be done in the pres- ence of an adult who is able to assist in the argument and add points from a wider experience. Young people undoubtedly talk this over among themselves a great deal, but they need to discuss it in the pres- ence of those who have come more in contact with real life in all its many forms and phases. We should center our attention a good deal more on the obligations of the young people to one another as they grow older, 'rather than confine ourselves to 262 DUTIES IN THE HOME. the right attitude between them when they are little children. We may begin with this latter phase and deal with it thoroughly at the outset; afterwards advancing to the larger problems, when we shall once more be obliged to touch on the whole theme of chivalry, pointing out what it implies for the strong to be the champion of the weak. It will be better not to offer any reason in detail as to why man should be the protector of woman. This should be taken as one of the fundamental rules of life, as a principle which is right in itself and not even to be discussed. The example tO' be introduced must in every case depend on the type of pupil the teacher is dealing with, or the home environment from which the pupils come. We may also find it advisable to fix on certain limits as to what degree of service should , be exacted from a brother to a sister, and from a sister to a brother, and how far the interests or pur- suits of the one should be sacrificed to the selfish dis- position of the other. Again we should point out the danger of encouraging the habit on the part of the young people of criticising their own brothers and sisters. For picture material, show a scene of a brother perfoming some chivalrous service for a sis- ter, or a sister in the home doing some little service of one kind or another for the older or younger brother. Chapter xx. CONSIDERATION FOR THE RIGHTS AND FEELINGS OF OTHERS IN THE HOME. Proverbs or Veraes. "What is right for one is reasonable for the other." "Where force prevails, right peqshes." "Where right is might, right is not upright." "Where will is right, law is banished." "A gentle hand may lead the elephant with a hair.'' "Gentle comes the world to those That are cast in gentle mould." — Tennyson. "Gentleness does more than violence." "There is no severity like gentleness." "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Bialogrue. I have an odd question to put to you to-day, and it may puzzle you at first; do not answer until you have thought for a moment; and then will you tell me exactly the way it strikes you. Do children have rights ? I ask. "Why, of course !" you exclaim. Yes, but please do' not be so prompt with your reply. I want a thoughtful answer to my query. "How could it be otherwise," you insist; "every person has rights." True, but is it always in the same sense ? I wonder. You have already assured me at another time that you may not do as you please, that you must submit to the will of father and mother. "True," you add, "but even our parents may not do with us exactly as they please." You do not mean, do you, that parents would take pleasure in doing wrong to their children or injuring them. "No," you explain, "that is not the point; 263 264 DUTIES IN THE HOME. we imply that no persons, not even a father or mother, might act as if they owned the Uves of their children." Yes, that is true ; a child has a right to life, for in- stance ; he has a right to food and clothing, enough to keep him alive, if the parent is able to provide it. What you have said is correct ; a child has rights just as a grown person may have. But would he have the same rights in all respects? "No?" And why not? "Because the child is not a grown person," you continue. You assume, then, do you, the older one grows, up to maturity, the more rights he may ac- quire? How would it be with property, for instance? We have talked about that before, you remember, at the beginning of these series of lessons. Can chil- dren own things? "Yes, although not quite in the same sense in which grown people may claim owner- ship." If, for example, you had a book which was called your own, and your parents deemed it best that you should not keep it or have it for your special prop- erty, could they be blamed if they took it away from you? "No, surely not." And why not ? What would justify them in tak- ing that book away from you? "As to that," you explain, "they would know better than we do what would be best for us to own just for ourselves." Now, on the other hand, suppose that a brother or sister took that book a way from you, after it had been given to you to own. Could they be blamed for acting in that way? "Yes, certainly!" And why? "Oh, because it would be interference with our rights." True. But you said to me that you could not own things quite in the same sense that grown people do. "That DUTIES IN THE HOME. 265 may be so," you continue, "but the book belongs to us in so far as the other children are concerned." You believe, do you, that while you may not have certain rights as regards your position to, your pa- rents, you may have them as regards your position to your brothers and sisters? "Yes, indeed!" you exclaim. How, for instance, could sisters and brothers in- terfere with one another's rights in the home? "Oh. they could take things which had been given us as our property, or they could misuse them or injure them." Do you mean to say that brothers and sisters should not use things which belong to one another ? Have they no right to one another's property, no privileges in that matter at all? "That is not the point," you insist; "of course brothers and sisters in the home ought to be allowed to use one another's things, at times." Under what conditions would such conduct im- ply interfering with one another's rights ? "Why," you tell me, "they ought first to ask to be allowed to use what belongs to another, and they ought to be more careful with what belongs to another." How would it be with playthings, for example? Should brothers and sisters not share their play- things with one another ? "Most certainly ; but they should not break the things or misuse them or injure them." You feel, then, that in relation to one another, brothers and sisters do have rights and that they must respect one another's rights with regard to things which each one may own for himself or her- self. And does this imply that if anything has been given you just for yourself, you may treat it in any way you please, break it or injure it, or lose it, ^66 DUTIES IN THE HOMEI. without thought or care? "More so, at any rate,' you insist, "than if it is something which has been given to one of our brothers or sisters." True, but why don't you answer my question directly? "As to that," you hesitate, "even a gift, if it has come from one's parents, should be treated with respect." And why? "Because father or 'mother gave it to us," you reply. You are convinced, then, that a grown person has more rights over something he has earned for him- self, more freedom to do with it as he pleases, than a young person in the home would have, who has received something as a ^ift from a parent. "Surely!" But what if the gift had come from a brother or sister; would it be quite the same, then? "Not exactly," you hesitate. And why not? "Oh," )'ou reply, "the greatest regard, of course, must be shown to what comes from father or mother." Yet, you feel, don't you, that even with some- thing which has been given you by a brother or sis- ter, you ought to show some consideration and not be careless with it? "Yes, indeed!" And why? again I ask. "Because," you add, "it has come from a brother or sister; and then, too, it may have cost some sacrifice on their part." How would it be on the other hand, with more useful or necessary things, such as clothing, for instance? Does one's clothing belong wholly to one's self? "It ought to," you reply. What makes you answer in that way ? I ask. "Why, because one's clothing is just for one's self and not for the others to wear." Yes, but did you make it or buy it for yourself? "No, it came from our parents." It is partly theirs, then, is it? But what about the clothing of your brothers and sisters? Do you Duties in the home. 267 feel that you might at any time go and take some- thing of theirs and wear it for yourself, because it would be more convenient? "No, indeed!" And why not? "It would be interfering with their rights." Yes, that is quite true. It means, then, does it, that mem- bers in a home have a certain right to own their clothing or what they wear? But how would it be in play or when you are at work together, if one of the young people soils or tears the clothing of the other ? It may not be inten- tional? Do you think there would be any one to blame in that case ? "It depends," you answer. In what way? "Why, if brother or sister could have helped it, then it would not be fair or just." Do you mean to imply that there may be justice or injustice in the conduct between brothers and sisters in the home? "Surely!" And you feel, do you, that it would be unjust for a brother or sister to be careless with regard to the clothing of the others." "Yes, it would be interfer- ing with one another's rights." True, I admit; but perhaps by and by when you have outgrown that clothing, it may be worn by a younger brother or sister. "All very well," you assert ; "but while we are wearing it, it is ours and not theirs." Do you assume, then, that young people in the home ever act unfairly to one another in the way they deal with one another's books or clothes or playthings? "Sometimes," you confess. And if it happens, what kind of feeling is aroused? "Oh, one may become angry, indignant, or hurt." Injustice, then causes bad feeling in the home, does it? "Yes, surely." Do you suppose it is quite as easy to be fair and just to one another as children in the home in deal- 268 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ing with one another's property, as it will be when one is grown up and may have to deal with the prop- erty of other people? "Why not?" you ask. "What is the difference?" Yes, but think, now. Are grown people obliged to use one another's things as much as children must do ? "Perhaps not ; it may be easier when people are grown up, to keep their things in a separate place, for instance, where it would be more difficult for other people to interfere." How is it, then, in the home; is a person under a greater temptation to interfere with the rights of others there, than he may be when grown up and dealing with people on the outside? "It looks that way," you answer. Yes, you are right, and it is a very important point to be considered. Sometimes it is very hard indeed to be exactly fair and just with one another's property in the home, because the members there live so close together, and they are obliged to use one another's things more or less every now and then. But is this the only way in which young people could interfere with one another's rights, simply by being careless or unjust in dealing with what each one owns for one's self as one's actual prop- erty? What if a brother or sister should be busy study- ing, for example, getting their lessons, and another comes along and interrupts, makes a noise, causes a disturbance ; do the busy ones like it ? "No, indeed !" you exclaim ; "it is just the other way; they are indignant." What harm does it do? I ask. Does each one not have as much right as the other in the home, to make a noise or play or enjoy one's self? "Yes, but there is a limit," you insist. In what way, do you mean? "Why," you explain, "a person DUTIES IN THE HOME. 269 ought not to act as if he, owned the whole house or as if he were there all by himself." And why not? He may not actually be doing anything to anybody else, but only be amusing him- self or following his own wishes. "True," you con- tinue, "but it may be interfering with the others, interrupting them in their work." You assume, do you, that people in the home have rights there, with regard to what others are doing; that sometimes one may have a right, for instance, not to be disturbed if one is at work, or even if one is at play? But if this is true, how is it possible for any mem- ber of the home to do as he pleases, without disturb- ing the others? "Why," you add, "of course he cannot always do just as he pleases ; there are times when he must surrender his own wishes so as not to interfere with the others." And we call this, too, do we, showing respect for one another's rights in the home, by not interfering with the occupations of the others or the games or the pleasures of the others, if it can well be avoided. But does this interference sometimes take place in the home, do you suppose? "Yes," you admit. And why? I ask. "Oh, because we are all living close together there, and cannot all be occupied in the same way at the same time." How would it be, on the other hand, if some one of the brothers or sisters were all the time reading or studying and constantly finding fault because the others were making a noise or causing a disturb- ance; that would be right, wouldn't it? "Not neces- sarily ?" And why not? Would it not be praiseworthy that a member of the home should be serious in that way and care so much about work? "Yes," you continue, "but the others have rights, also." 270 DUTIES IN THE HOME. You assume, do you, that one might be selfish in trying to insist on one's rights and in that way ac- tually interfering with the rights of others in the home? Whose rights ought to be considered first, under any circumstances, would you say? Your own? "No?" you hesitate. Whose, then? I ask. "Why, father's and mother's." Most surely. And whose next? I ask. "The children?" But we must make distinctions, even there, — as for in- stance, between those who' are at play, and those who have work to do. "Why, as to that," you con- fess, "probably next in order would come the chil- dren in the home who may have work to do?" And those who want to play must be considered last, do you think? "Yes," you admit. I wonder, however, if you have not overlooked one other pos- sibility. Suppose that one of the children should be sick. "Of course," you exclaim, "he would have to be considered before the others." Even before those who had to work, to get their lessons, for example? "Yes, surely." I wonder by the way, if thei-e are others in the home who may have rights, besides the ones you have mentioned. "Yes, there may be a grandfather or grandmother." True, I am glad you thought of that. Any others? "No, that is all," you tell me. Are you sure about that? What other persons may be in the home who' are not members of the family? "Why, there might be the guests," you answer. And besides the guests, what others? "Oh, perhaps there may be a domestic, or the domestics, who help in the work of the household." And have they any rights? "Yes?" Why do you hesitate? "As to that," you point DUTIES IN THE HOME. 27I out, "they are not members of the family, Uke broth- ers and sisters or father and mother." But what if one of the children did something mean or unkind to a domestic in the household? Could that possi- bly happen? "It might take place," you confess. Is it possible that a brother or sister could really be selfish or un- kind to those who are helping in the housework ? And how would you describe such conduct? "Why," you answer, "that, too, might be interfer- ence with the rights of others." Yes, surely, I agree with you. Do you suppose that young people are ever tempted to do this? "Sometimes," you admit. Do you mean to say that they are more liable to behave in this way toward the domestics than toward their own brothers and sisters? "It may be so," you an- swer. And why? I ask. "Oh," you add, "one has not quite the same feeling for the servants in the house- hold; they do not have quite the same position as the others there." You admit, do you, that people may actually be tempted to be unkind or disagreeable or selfish to an- other person, just because that other person occupies a subordinate position? But is that right? I ask. "No," you admit, "surely not." "However," you point out, "the servants may be disagreeable, too." Yes, that may also happen. And would that justify you in doing something mean or being selfish and unkind to them? Do you think, for example, that those who do the hard work in the home, the domestics or servants, as they are sometimes called, have an easy time of it? "No?" And why not? "Oh, they have to work hard." True; but what if your father or mother had to 272 DUTIES IN THE HOME. work almost as hard as they do? Would the do- mestics be any worse off, then, than your parents? Sometimes even children have to toil almost as much as the servant in the household. "Yes," you add, "but the domestics are not mem- bers of the family ; they are away from home ; they do not have their friends with them, their brothers or sisters or parents." Do you think, then, it may be a little more try- ing for them, because they are perhaps all alone, or away from their family, while the rest of you may be in a home of your own. Is there not some con- sideration due to the feelings of those persons be- cause their position in this respect is a little harder than yours? For example, is there anything which you might do for them to make it a little' easier now and then ? "Oh yes, one might try occasionally to lessen the work they have to do." And is that all? How is it when you speak to them sometimes ? Do you think it ever happens that you use cross language in addressing them? "It may be," you confess. And what could one do in- stead? "One might be more considerate," you tell me, "and speak more kindly to them." Yes, indeed, you are right. There is such a thing as showing consideration for the feelings of the do- mestics in the household, who do the hard work there and who are not in their own homes, as we may be. Do you suppose that children ever actually tyr- annize over servants and make the life of the domes- tics very uncomfortable, because these latter per- sons cannot help themselves? "It might be," you continue, "but it would not be right." Yet such a state of affairs does exist now and DUTIES IN THE HOME. 273 then. Sometimes young people who are obliged to submit to the will of a father or mother, are very tyrannical toward the other members of the house- hold. To come back now for a moment to the relations between the actual members of the family and our dealings with one another there. You have said something about a respect for one another's rights. Is it possible, however, that there might be a kind of conduct which would not exactly interfere with the rights of others, and yet which would hurt their feelings? "Perhaps so," you admit. In what way? I ask. "Why, for instance, it could arise from the way we speak to one another, the language we use, the gentleness or harshness with which we act toward one another." Supppse young people call one another names in the home. Would that be an interference with the rights of others ? ' "Well," you reply, "if it is not an interference with the rights, at any rate it would not be very kind or considerate to speak in that way." Do you assume, also, that one person in the home could talk slightingly or contemptuously of another one's comrades or playmates or friends? "Yes, it could happen," you adrnit. Would that be interfering with rights? "Not exactly," you hesitate. What would it be, then? "Why, it would be unkind, it would be inconsiderate towards the feelings of others." You imply, do you, that we owe consideration for one another's feelings in the home, as well as for one another's rights? In what ways, then, could young people in the home be inconsiderate of one another's feelings, or how, on the other hand, could they take pains to show a respect for the feelings of one another? 274 DUTIES IN THE HOME. SOCemory &em. "Let justice flow down as the waters and righteousness as a mighty stream." Points of the Kessou. I. That even children have rights in the home, as well as duties and obligations. II. That the rights of children with reference to their parents are less pronounced than with reference to one another. III. That young people sometimes interfere with one another's rights in the home, by taking what belongs to another without asking for it, or using it carelessly, injuring it or breaking it. IV. That even where property is our own, if it is a gift, we ought to show a respect to the one who has presented it to us, by being careful with it, on the ground that in a sense the other has a certain right in it. V. That young people sometimes interfere with one an- other's rights by interrupting one another in their work or even in their play. VI. That even where rights are not involved, \ve ought to show consideration for the feelings of the others in the home. VII. That we should be especially considerate of the feelings of the domestic servants in the household, because of their peculiar position there, and the fact that they are away from their own homes. VIII. That in so far as rights are concerned, we have first to think of those of our parents, and then of those who may be sick in the home, and then in the third place, of those who must be busy at work, and lastly of those who may be enjoy- ing themselves at play. IX. That a consideration for the feelings of others, in trying not to hurt or give offense, may be as important as respecting the rights of the others in the home. Duties. /. We ought to he especially careful in the way we handle or use the property of other members of the home. II. We ought to try to avoid interfering with other members of the home, either in their play or their work. III. We ought to he considerate of one another's DUTIES IN THE HOME. 275 feelings in the home, trying not to give pain when it can be avoided. IV. We ought to respect the rights of one another in the home, even as we expect the others to respect our own rights there. V. We ought to he especially considerate of the feelings of any persons in the household who may be in a less happy position than ourselves. Poem. A little in the doorway sitting. The mother plied her busy knitting; And her cheek so softly smiled, You might be sure, although her gaze Was on the meshes of the lace. Yet her thoughts were with her child. But when the boy had heard her voice As o'er her work she did rejoice, His became silent altogether; And slyly creeping by the wall. He seized a single plume let fall By some wild bird of longest feather, And all a-tremble with his freak. He touched her lightly on the cheek. O what loveliness her eyes Gather in that one moment's space, While peeping round the post she spies Her darling's laughing face ! O mother's love is glorifying. On the cheek like sunset lying; In the eyes a moistened light, Softer than the moon at night." — Thomas Burhidge. rurthsr Sug'S'estions to tlie Teacber. Some of the points in this lesson have akeady been touched upon in previous chapters. But we take them up now in more detail. In fact,' a whole volume might be devoted to a consideration of this one subject. We may have time, however, only to allude to certain phases of it here and there. But the widest opportunity is offered in this connection 576 DUTIES IN THE HOME. for a discussion of many incidental features which go to make or mar the peace and happiness of the life in the home. If the teacher desires, he might ar- range a number of sub-topics and take them up one by one, as if they formed the headings for separate chapters. It is important that we should deal with the problem both from the side of feelings and of rights. A young person at times may be inclined to plead that he has not really interfered with the rights of another, although he has been very incon- siderate of another person's feelings. The teacher must also exercise his own judgment as to whether he will discuss the relations between the children and the domestic servants in the household. This problem is an exceedingly delicate one, and the opin- ions concerning it will be very diverse. Certain parents might prefer that their children should not debate this point at all. Under such circumstances, the young people might be allowed to read over the paragraphs dealing with it without any further analysis in this direction. But it has to be remem- bered that inconsiderate conduct in this domain of home life, not only may involve injustice toward those who are holding inferior positions within the household, but may react on the characters O'f the young people themselves. A child will perhaps be quite obedient or submissive to parents, and yet be arbitrary or thoughtless with regard to those hold- ing subordinate positions in the home. A big ethi- cal problem is involved here, which may cover a wide range of experiences. The whole future ca- reer of young people may be determined by the hab- its they form in dealing with people toi whom they are accustomed to issue commands, or over whom they may stand in a position of authority. It is some- thing more than a childhood problem. At any rate, we may accomplish something by laying down a few DUTIES IN THE HOME. ^TJ elementary principles with i;egard to it, even if we do not take it up in all its details. Much will also depend on the special environment to which the class members may belong. When we come to a dis- cussion of forms of conduct which may hurt the feel- ings of others, we should introduce a large number of possible cases and talk them over extensively. A long list of examples should be given, showing how, on the one hand, young people might exhibit a true consideration for the feelings of others, and how, on the other hand, they might be g^uilty of a viola- tion of this rule. They will be quick toi mention in- stances from their own experiences and others could be added by the teacher. We might discuss the sub- ject of nicknames. So, too, there is the careless habit on the part of young people of talking about one another, or of speaking slightingly of one's brothers or sisters to one's comrades on the outside. We must make it clear that each member of the home has the right to his own good name and that this right should not be interfered with by others of the household. At the same time, we ought to distinguish between what we call "pet" names, which may develop as the language of affection, and the objectionable form of nicknames. The whole topic of language to one another in the home might be connected with the theme of this chapter. It will be oibserved, however, that certain phases Oif our problem are introduced under special headings fur- ther on in the volume. The teacher will be aware of this and reserve certain points for discussion on future occasions. In dealing with the subject of this lesson, however, we shall find that the children will be much more inclined to talk about their own rights or to emphasize the injustice which is done to them personally, rather than to give examples of incon- siderate conduct on their part toward the others. 278 DUTIES IN THE HOME. It is human nature to be constantly insisting on one's own rights and pointing out how these have been invaded. Our aim must be, therefore, to draw our examples from the other side and persistently tO' ask the question : "In what ways can you show consideration for the feelings of others?" or: "At what times are you tempted to interfere with the rights of others in the home ?" Our Dialogue closes abruptly, as will be seen, — on the supposition that the teacher may extend it indefinitely further. We can only repeat that the field for discussion here is inexhaustible.. At the close of the subject, it might he well to say a little about the three solemn words. Rights, Justice, Duty, and to have them written out conspicuously on the blackboard, as illustrating some of the great principles which should control our relations to one another in the home. It will be seen at a glance that the teacher should have a large number of stories or anecdotes at his command in working out the points of this lesson. These will perhaps be of more service than pictures in this con- nection. CHAPTER XXI. WHAT EACH AND ALL MAY DO FOR THE WELFARfi OR HAPPINESS OF THE HOME. Proverbs or Verses. "Love and light cannot be hid." "Love alone begets love." "Love can neither be bought nor sold; its only price is love." "Love may come in at the window and go out at the door.'' "Love knows no measure." "Love lives in cottages as well as in courts." "Love makes labor light." "Love sought is good. But love given unsought is better." — Shakespeare. "Love will find out the way." "Where love is there is no labor, and if there be labor, the labor is loved." "Where we do not respect we soon cease to love." Dialogue. What if I were to ask you to tell me the one thing above all others, that each and all should do for the sake of one another in the home? "You don't quite know what I mean?" Sup- pose, then, we put the question in another way. What is it, for example, that all people wish for, especially? "Oh, good things tO' eat, nice clothes to wear, plenty of time for play and amusement, pleasant comrades, — all this and more." Quite so. And if you had all this, how do you think you would feel within yourselves? "As to that," you explain, "one would be happy, of course!" Yes, that is the point I have in mind. And do people like to be happy? "Yes, indeed!" Very much, you think? "Surely!" Happy every- where? "Yes," you continue. 280 PUTIES IN THE HOME. Now, then, can you answer my query ? What is it that people should do for one another, most of all, in order to have a perfect home ? "Try to make one another happy there." You have guessed it, — ^just the answer I was looking for. But does this come easy, do you fancy? "Not always?" And why not? "Because brothers and sisters often interfere with one another's happiness." What, then, is the main reason why the happy feelings do not always prevail in the home? "Oh, it may be because each person thinks more about his own happiness than about making every one in the home happy." Yes, I suspect that is true. Do you suppose that unpleasant feelings and dis- content may dominate in a household, even while tb.e members there may not be all the time selfishly thinking solely about getting happiness for them- selves individually? "How is that possible?" you ask. What if one of the children is just simply heedless or thoughtless? Did you ever hear of a heedless person? "Yes?" And how does he behave; how does he show this characteristic? "Why, he goes ahead without thinking, doing just what first comes into his head." And could such a habit give trouble in the home, would you say? "Surely!" In what way, for example? What could a brother or sister do in a heedless way to upset the peace or contentment of the home? Might he show this habit in reference to what he likes to eat, for instance? "Yes, he could be very exacting in what he wanted, always insisting on having what pleased himself." Still, I add, he might be perfectly willing that the others should do the same. "True," you reply, "but it would not be possible for each one tO' have his own way on such matters." This, then, would be DUTIES IN THE HOME. 281 thoughtless behavior, would it, rather than con- scious selfishness? And do you assume that acting in such a manner might interfere with the happiness of the home? "Very much so?" You would infer, would you, that always insisting on having one's own way, without thinking of the others, is liable to act unfa- vorably on the peace of the life in the home? "Yes, indeed!" But is this all? Might it happen that a brother or sister had a way of leaving the door open on de- parting from the house, or shutting it with a slam ? And would this affect the home life of the others? "Most certainly; it would bring discomfort to all the others in the household ; it might let in the cold air, or it might disturb all the others by the noise and bang of the shutting doors." But one does not do it with the idea of causing discomfort or disturbing the others? "No," you ad- mit. Is it not possible that he may be very fond of the people in the home and actually love them? "Well, if he does," you insist, "he shows it in a queer sort of a way." True. But still I insist on my question. "At any rate," you add, "if the feeling were of the unselfish kind, he would not only have an affec- tion for the others, but he would be thoughtful ; he would use judgment; he would not be heedless in this way." It strikes you, does it, that boys or girls might have a certain affection for the members of the home and not be especially exacting for themselves, and yet be very regardless of the comfort of the other members there? Do you suppose it ever occurs, for instance, that one child in the family is less neat than the others in his personal habits in the household? What if 282 DUTIES IN THE HOMfi. he leaves his clothes lying around, throws his hat down in one place and his overcoat in another ? "Yes," you own, "that may happen often enough." But it is not done intentionally, is it? "Not necessarily," you admit. Do' you think he might bring dirt into the house by being careless about cleaning his shoes before he entered ? Would that make any difference to the others? "Why," you tell me, "all the others would have to suffer for it; if they are neat in their habits or careful or orderly, perhaps all their care or neatness will be of no avail because of what this other one may be doing." Then is it possible that such a brother or sister might not be showing a true affection for the others in the home? May .1 ask : do you ever have a headache or feel disagreeable, and then show yourself cross or out of sorts in the home? "Yes?" you hesitate. And what are you cross about ? Why are you disagree- able at such times ? "Oh," you explain, "one feels uncomfortable and does not take pleasure in anything; one is just 'out of sorts,' as people say." And how would you like it if some of the others acted in that way? "It is not at all nice," you admit. And why not? "Because it upsets the whole household and makes everybody feel disagreeable, too." But you would not do this intentionally, would you; you do not intend-to disturb the others, or de- sire to make them feel out of sorts, too. "No, but it works in that way." I wonder if you have ever heard of any boys or girls who are not very careful about looking clean or keeping themselves clean, or having regard for the appearance of their hands and facet or of their DUTIES IN THE HOME. 283 clothes? "There are a good many of that kind," 3'Qu own. And does it matter very much? "Oh, it depends where they are." What do you mean by that? I ask. "Why, if they are out at play it is not of so much account. People cannot always be perfectly clean when they are at play or when they are at work." Under what circumstances, then, would it be disa- greeable or offensive? "It may be so inside the house or home," you confess. But why should it matter there ? We all see each other constantly in the home. Perhaps it would not be the first time we have ob- served the others in that condition. "No, but it may be disagreeable to the others," you say. You believe that if certain members of the family take care to keep themselves neat in appear- ance in reference to their hands and faces and clothes, it would be offensive to them for the others to be neglectful on this point? "Perhaps so^," you admit. But the neglect would not be intentional, I insist. "No," you add, but it may be inconsiderate." Yon actually assume, do you, that when one member of the home, for instance, looks in that way, it some- how makes the others feel as if the whole household were out of order or wanting in cleanliness; as if it were a kind of reflection on the family. "It might be so," you answer. Is it possible that one member of the home may not feel perfectly free to dress just as he pleases, or act just as he pleases or be neglectful of himself just as he pleases, if the others do not like it or if it is ofifensive to the others? "At any rate," you point out, "he ought at least to take the feelings of the others into consideration. 284 DUTIES IN THE HOME. It is not the same as if he were Hving all by him- self." How about the general care of the home on the part of the young people there? What if one had a way of leaving rubbish behind the lounge, or throw- ing pieces of paper in the corner out o-f sight? Suppose that a sister whoi is expected to look after the neatness or tidiness of a room, were toi sweep part of the dust oi- dirt into some obscure nook where it could not be noticed, and let it lie there for a time? Would this in any way interfere with the happiness of the home? "It would depend," you say, "on the feelings «f the others, how much they cared about order and cleanliness in the house." Do you really believe, however, that there could be such a thing as a perfectly happy home, where one or more of the young people acted in that way ? Would they not all the while be conscious of that dirt or rubbish hidden out of sight? What if, by chance, when a guest is present, some article of furniture were pushed aside and the sweepings were suddenly discovered there? How would the members of the family feel? "Oh, very much ashamed." If, then, they would feel ashamed to have it dis- covered by others, do you think it could be a happy or a beautiful home, where the young people, any or all of them, had habits of this kind? Would it not tend to give them a kind of make-believe character ? And what does all this imply or suggest with re- gard to the way one is to act or conduct one's self in the home, would you say? Would it leave one perfectly free to act about as one pleases? "No, just tO' the contrary," you assert, "it means that one must always be putting a check cjn one's self and be- ing on one's guard when in the house." DUTIES IN THE HOME. 285 And why should you do it? I ask. "For the sake of the others?" And why for the sake of the oth- ers? I urge. "Because," you add, "we should each and all try to help in fostering the happiness of the home." What, then, must be the basis of true home life, — what kind of feeling? I am thinking of a short word beginning with L, and a very important one; it has only four letters. Will one of you step to the blackboard, without speaking it, and write the word there for all of us to see. There it stands : LOVE. And that is the basis of home-life, is it? That is why we must be constantly putting a check upon ourselves, — for the sake of the others. Do you believe that a person could get into the habit of checking himself in this way, until it almost came easy for him to' do so, or until he forgot that he was really putting a check upon himself and there- fore found no great difficulty in it ? "Not at first?" Yes, but might it be so, by and by? "Perhaps," you answer, "if he had the right kind of feeling for his home." It all comes back, then, does it, to that last solemn word, Love. aieiuory Gem. "Love is as strong as death; many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it." Points of the Wesson. I. That we each and all must work for the happiness of the home. II. That we can interfere with the happiness of the home by being too exacting in our wants and desires just for our individual selves. III. That we can interfere with the happiness of the home by being heedless or thoughtless in the way we conduct our- selves, even when the conduct is not intentionally selfish. 286 DUTIES IN THE HOME. IV. That we can interfere with the happiness of the home by the lack of neatness or order in our personal habits. V. That we can interfere with the happiness of the home by bringing disrespect upon the family through our thought- lessness in the way we conduct ourselves. VI. That it is necessary to put a constant check upon our conduct in order to preserve the happiness of the home. VII. That the basis of the home is love, and that those who have this feeling may find it easy by and by to put such a check upon themselves, because they are domg it for the sake of the others. /. We ought to be always on our guard lest we interfere with the happiness of the home by acting on impulse or just for one's own pleasure. II. We ought to exercise care and thought with regard to our conduct in the home, in order to pre- serve the happiness there. III. We ought to- put a constant check upon our caprices and guard our personal habits for the sake of the happiness of the home. IV. We ought to find a pleasure in controlling our conduct for the sake of the home, because the basis of the home is love. Poem. Dark is the night, and fitful and drearily Rushes the wind like the waves of the sea ; Little care I, as here I sit cheerily. Wife at my side and my baby on knee. King, king, crown me the king : Home is the kingdom, and Love is the King! Flashes the firelight upon the dear faces, Dearer and dearer and onward we go. Forces the shadow behind us, and places •Brightness around us with warmth in the glow. King, king, crown me the king: Home is the kingdom, and Love is the King ! Flashes the lovelight, increasing the glory Beaming from bright eyes with warmth of the soul, Tellinsj of trust and content the sweet story, Lifting the shadows that over us roll. King, king, crown me the king: Home is the kingdom, and Love is the King! DUTIES IN THE HOME. 287 Richer than miser with perishing treasure, Served with a service no conquest could bring; Happy with fortune that words cannot measure, Lighthearted 1 on the hearthstone can sing. King, liing, crown me the king: Home is the kingdom, and Love is the King! — Rev. William Rankin Duryea. Puitlier Sugrgrestions to the Teacher. This and several of the ensuing lessons will be found to connect closely with the points of the pre- ceding- chapter. We have given here only a meager outline, with a few short suggestions concerning a number of important problems. The young people will become a little tired of the subject if we hammer too long on the forms of bad conduct which may be exhibited in the home. We must exercise a good deal of discretion here, and vary our method accord- ingly. It might be well to have some talk concern- ing the word happiness and what it means, asking the children what it is that gives happiness or in what it really consists. They may be glad to discuss this point and have some very positive opinions con- cerning it. The teacher may allow them consider- able freedom of judging in this matter, while at the same time now and then introducing thoughts which might arise from a wider experience. So, too, there might be a little further talk about the beautiful word love and some of its implications. We could speak of it in its various forms according as it prevails be- tween brother and sister, or brother and brother, or between sister and sister, or between the child and the parent, betvreen those in the home and those outside the home, between ourselves and our friends, or even between one's self and the stranger. But we can always come back to the point that the love within the home is the type which concerns us most of all in our relations to one another as human beings. Then we might revert to the prob- 288 DUTIES IN THE HOME. lem in what ways we could add to the love-tie be- tween the members of the household, and by what means we could increase the happiness there. It is very important in this whole connection that we should let the young people see how it is that a per^ son may actually add to his own happiness by the exercise of self-restraint. We cannot make it too plain for young and old that the privilege of doing exactly as one pleases, may in the long run cause more pain than pleasure. Without the restraints upon us through the life in the home, we could not have the happiness of home at all. We must per- suade the young people that the self-control we prac- tice there adds to the joys of others and also of our- selves. We should try to overthrow the impression that restraint in the home life is an irksome duty. Examples should be given showing how we may get pleasure from practicing this habit. It ■yvill be seen that the teacher might in connection with the sub- ject of this chapter, go back to the preceding volume and apply some of the discussions there tO' the ex- periences of the life in the home, — ^talking- again about important habits, such as "order," "cleanli- ness," "generosity," "self-denial," "conscieiitious- ness, etc. We may show how these personal hab- its react on the home life. The point we have made in the Dialogue that thoughtlessness or heedlessness may be a form of selfishness, is a very important one. Sometimes the most generous hearted people are also the most inconsiderate in their conduct. They would not intentionally give pain, but nevertheless cause a great amount of it because they will not ex- ercise judgment. The poem we have appended to the Dialogue is an exceptionally beautiful one. In this connection we ought to introduce a picture of a home scene where father and mother and child are assembled together in the household. CHAPTER XXII. SOME OF THE HOME EVENTS IN WHICH WE ARE ALL CONCERNED. FTOveiliq or Verses. Every cricket knows its own hearth." "He that has no house of his own is everywhere at home." "Home, dear home, small as thou art, to me thou art a palace." — Italian. "The fire burns brightest on one's own hearth." "I have been there and still would go ; 'Tis like a little heaven below." — Isaac Watts. Sialog'ue. We have talked a great deal in these lessons about the problems which arise in reference to the conduct between various members of the home. Name over, will you, some of the situations we have discussed. We mean by this, where two or more members of the family are concerned, — ^but not all of them at the same time or in the same way. "Those between parent and child?" Yes: "Those between children and parent?" Yes: "Those be- tween children themselves in the home?" Yes, that makes three. It is true, there are problems pertaining to each of these conditions which would not apply to every- body in the family. There are still others, however, you have not men- tioned. "Oh, yes," you add, "there is the conduct between the younger and older brother or sister." And was there not also one special tie we empha- sized more than all the rest ? We devoted a whole lesson to it. Do you remember what member of 289 290 DUTIES IN THE HOME. the family we mentioned as the one to whom we peculiarly owed reverence? "The mother?" "Surely." And did we have anything tO' say about the con- duct between members of the family at the different periods of their lives? Was it all with regard to the time when they were children, for instance? "No," you continue, "we considered the duties and obligations between brothers and sisters when they are grown up." "So, too," you add, "we talked about what we may owe to our fathers and mothers when we be- come adults." And is that all? Did we have noth- ing to say about fathers and mothers in their con- duct to one another? "Oh, yes, there was the rela- tionship between husband and wife in the home." This makes quite a long list, does it not, when we come to go over it? We had a good deal to say about one's conduct in each one of these relation- ships, if I remember, and what was due between one and the others according to the position they occupy in the family or according to the age at which they might have arrived. But now let us go a step further. Perhaps we have taken it already, in one or twO' previous lessons. Are there not other situations in the home life, which would apply to us altogether? May there not be events which affect us all at the same time? Could something happen in the home which would excite us all or in which we would all be concerned ? We may owe something to father and mothei^, that we do not owe to brothers and sisters. Is that not so? "Yes." We may owe something tO' broth- ers and sisters, which we do not owe to fathers and mothers? Is that not so? "True," you answer. "The problems and obliga- tions are different in each case and cannot be treated DUTIES IN THE HOME. Sgi alike. In one case we owe obedience; in another, deference; in a third, protection; in a fourth, self- sacrifice." But now can you mention any events or situa- tions which may apply to all of us together, whether we are father or mother, brother or sister, the younger or the older^ the weaker or the stronger ? When, for example, are we as a rule all assembled together in the home ? When do we all sit down to- gether, for instance? "At the family table?" True, we may meet in this way at breakfast, dinner or supper. Is there any other occasion when we all meet to- gether, or any other time? "Yes, it may be in the family room in the evening or Sunday afternoons, or when we may all go together as a family party on excursions." Think again. Could there be important events in the home life which would affect us all, whether we are child or parent, brother or sister? "Certainly." And what, for example? "Why, there is Christmas Day, for instance, or Thanksgiving Day. We are all interested or con- cerned when those days come around. The entire household is surely affected at such a time." And what do we call Christmas and Thanksgiving Day, in so far as they pertain to home life ? What term could we apply to them, or to any similar event in the life of the family? It is a word of three syllables beginning with capital F. "Festivals?" you suggest. And you assume, do you, that festivals are events in which every member of the home may be concerned ? But is there not also one day each year which is of especial importance to some one member of the family, and yet which should affect us all? "Oh, yes, there are the birthdays." 292 DUTIES IN THE HOME. True; this would make another important series of events in the life of the home as a whole. And whose birthday is one especially interested in? may I ask. "Why, one's own !" you exclaim. Yes, of course; but next to your own, I mean. "Oh, the birthdays of our sisters and brothers." Is that really so ? Are there no other birthdays to com- memorate, save those of your brothers and sisters ? "Surely, there are the birthdays of our parents." Yes, and perhaps after all, you may agree with me, that we ought to think even more about commem- orating the anniversary-birthday of our fathers or mothers than those of our brothers and sisters. But now, what other events may affect the life of the entire household? "No others occur to you?" Well, think a little further. The doctor's carriage may be seen at the door. Does that mean anything for a brother or sister, perhaps? "Sickness in the family," you suggest? True, that may be just what it implies. Somebody may be ill. Does it not concern everyone of us, when a single member of the home is sick in any way ? Does it not change the whole family life for a while? Must we not act differently during that time? That is an- other circumstance affecting the general life of the family. Is that all? Have we concluded the list? Is there nothing else which seems to alter our family life a little for a time? How is it when somebody comes to stay with us for a few days? "Oh, yes," you answer, "when we have a guest in the house." Does that not make a difference, too? Is the home life exactly the same when a guest is there ? Don't we have to do a little more for others, try a little harder to be of service, sacrifice ourselves a little more, all for the sake of our guest? "Yes, indeed !" If so, that means one other cir- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 293 cumstance which may affect us all at the same time in the home, — having a guest staying in the house with us. Now think again. What is it that would excite us most of all ? What would make us sad and per- haps bring tears to the eyes of every one in the home ? "Death?" Yes, solemn death in the family may be another occurrence And what usually accom- panies this? "Mourning?" True, sorrow and mourning affect us all together. These are some of the various phases of the family life that we shall want to talk over, each by itself. Hospitality to those calling upon us or dining with us, or to the guest in the house; sickness; festivals; sorrow and mourning; our conduct in the family room ; and our dealings with one another at the family table. You assume, perhaps, this ends the list ; but I am not sure of it. We are speaking of events which may affect every member of the home without ex- ception. What else, for instance, might occur be- sides sickness, sorrow, death, in order to upset the whole family? "Trouble of some kind?" yooi sug- gest. True, that is a very important circumstance to be considered. Few families can go on without oc- casionally having the experience of some great trouble of one kind or another in the home. It may happen to a single member or to them all. But if it is really of great importance, could it possibly affect only one person in the home? "Surely not," you say, "it would have to concern us all as members of the same family." And what about other events which bring great joy to one or more members of the household? You have not mentioned all of them, I am sure. 294 DUTIES IN THE HOME. What important occurrence might taken place, to which a numbei" of guests would perhaps be invited, and where there would be beautiful flowers in the home, and possibly music? "A wedding?" Yes, indeed, there might be a wedding in the home, either of a brother or of a sis- ter. "More often of a sister," you add. And why do you say that? I ask. "Oh," you tell me, "because daughters are more liable to be mar- ried at their own homes, and the wedding of a brother in that case would be at the home of the one whom he was to take for his wife." Yes, that is quite true. But if a wedding came, would it be of concern only to the two who are to be married ? "No, certain- ly not," you answer. And why not? again I urge. "Because it means a great change in the life of the whole family." In what way, for instance? "Why," you explain, "it may be that a brother or sister will leave the home and no longer be regularly at the family table." Then, it would be a kind of breaking up of the home, would it? "Yes," you hesitate. Would it then be wholly a joyous occasion, do you suppose, for every member of the family? "Perhaps not," you admit. Why so ? "Oh, it might be a little sad to the father and mother, because they would be thinking all the while that they would not have the son or daughter with them any more in the home as in former times." True. But we must add weddings as another most important event which may concern each and all of the members of a home and family. But there is another important occurrence in the experience of many homes, to which we have not alluded. It, too, should be one of rejoicing for all. How about the arrival of a new member to the DUtlES IN THE HOME. 295 family? Would that not be of great importance? "Oh, yes, surely K' you exclaim. And what would it imply for us all? "Why a new little brother or little sister for us to love and cherish." Yes, we should certainly include this as one of the great events in the life of the family, with which we are all deeply concerned. The coming of every new brother or sister should add to the joy and beauty of our home life. "True," you tell me, "but it also implies more care for us all." Yes, I add, and that is also a feature we should rejoice over.. It should give you pleas- ure to help your parents now and then in watching over a younger brother or sister. But in this way we can appreciate now how many important events or occurrences there may be in the life of the home, which should concern us all. It shows us how much experience there may be of joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure in what is included in the home. We have made out quite a long list. Suppose we look it over now and examine it a little. It shows you how much there is to the life of the home when one comes to study it or think about it. Memory Gem. "And he taught me, and said unto me: Let thine heart retain my words; keep my commandments and live. Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go; keep her, for she is thy life." Points of the Kesson. I. That in the home life some events concern us more especially as individuals and other events concern us all with- out distinction. II. That we are all interested and concerned in what goes on at the family table. III. That we are all interested and concerned in our ex- periences together in the living room. 296 DUTIES IN THE HOME. IV. That we are all interested and concerned in one an- other's birthdays. V. That we are all interested and concerned in the home festivals, such as Thanksgiving Day or Christmas. VI. That we are all interested and concerned when there may be a guest in the home. VII. That we are all interested and concerned when there is a birth in the home, the coming of a new brother or sister. VIII. That we are all interested and concerned when there is sickness or sorrow in the home. IX. That we are all interested and concerned whenever a wedding takes place in the home, or one of our brothers or sisters is about to be married. Duties. /. We ought to feel concerned in any event which affects the life of any member in the home. II. We ought to rejoice at any honest pleasure which may come to any member of the home. III. We ought to feel sympathy for any misfor- tune which may befall any member of the home. IV. We ought to feel concerned in whatever takes place in the home, just because it is home. Foem. What is the little one thinking about? Very wonderful things, no doubt; Unwritten history ! Unfathomed mystery! Yet he chuckles and crows and nods and winks, As if his head were full of kinks And curious riddles as any sphinx ! Warped by colic and wet by tears, Punctured by pins and tortured by fears, Our little nephew will lose two years; And he'll never know Where the summers go ; He need not laugh, for he'll find it so. Who can tell what a baby thinks? Who can follow the gossamer links By which the manikin feels his way. Out from the shore of the great unknown. Blind, and wailing, and alone. Into the light of day? DUTIES IN THE HOME. 29^ Out from the shore of the unknown sea, Tossing in pitiful agony; On the unknown sea that reels and rolls Specked with the barks of little souls — Barks that were launched on the other side, And slipped from heaven on an ebbing tide ! What does he think of his mother's eyes ? What does he think of his mother's hair? What of the cradle roof that flies Forward and backward through the air? What does he think when her quick embrace Presses his hand and buries his face Deep where the heart throbs sink and swell, With a tenderness she can never tell. Though she murmur the words Of all the birds- Words she has learned to murmur well. Now he thinks he'll go to sleep ! I can see the shadow creep Over his eyes in soft eclipse, Over his brow and over his lips. Out to his little finger-tips ! Softly sinking, down he goes ! Down he goes ! down he goes ! See ! he's hushed in sweet repose. — /. G. Holland. Furtber Sug'g'eBtions to the Teacher. It will be evident that this lesson is a mere out- line or skeleton suggestive of some of the future sub- jects we are to consider, — introduced, however, with a short review. The teacher might at any time work out a scheme of this kind, giving hints as to topics which are to be considered later on in the series of lessons. So, too, it would be of value every now and then to go back and touch on the subjects of preceding chapters, reviewing the points in the memory of the pupils. Review lessons are always very important, but they should be conducted in such a way as to avoid monotony. A few moments could be employed occasionally for this purpose, in connection with a discussion of the topic of any one of the chapters. The threads of the various lessons are more or less closely interwoven and cross one another in many ways. The more often we are 298 DUTIES IN THE HOMfi. able to bring out the various links without seeming to repeat ourselves, the better it will be for our purpose. With regard to the skeleton outline de- veloped in this lesson, the best method would be to allow the young people to suggest the topics, and then to have them written one by one on the black- board. We might perhaps in this connection speak of the wedding festival in the home with a little more detail, discussing it more fully if there is time or opportunity. With regard tO' the arrival of a new brother or sister in the household, something could be said about the significance of choosing a name for a child and what points are often con- sidered when this choice is made. In connection with the poem, a picture might be shown of a little child in the arms of the mother. CHAPTER XXIII. THE FAMILY TABLE. Proverbs or Verses. "We eat to live, not live to eat." "A man must eat, though every tree were a gallows." "As a man eats, so he works." "He that banquets every day never makes a good meal." "Who eats his dinner alone must saddle his horse alone." "Politeness is benevolence in small things." — Macaulay. "One never loseth anything by politeness." "Good manners are made up of petty sacrifices." "Meat is much, but manners are more." "He sups ill that eats up all at dinner." "More people are slain by suppers than by the sword." Sialogpie. What part of the house is it where people are supposed to take their meals ; what name do we give it? "The dining room?" True; persons who can afford to have a comfortable home, usually have one room set apart for that special purpose. And yet I may tell you, there are a good many happy families in the world, whose income is so small that they cannot have one apartment devoted exclusively tO' this end. When members of the home assemble in the din- ing room, how are they placed ? "Around the fam- ily table?" Yes, surely. By the way, is it not a little strange that people should eat regularly a certain number of times a day, and all sit down at the table together? Does it not seem rather foolish that we should be such creatures of habit? Is it not a mere form? Could we not improve on it by each one eating when he wanted to ? ago 300 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Would that not be pleasanter and more natural ? Should we not eat less, and care less about eating, if we just simply went to the pantry and took some- thing when we were hungry? Would you like' that? "Yes, perhaps that would be rather nice." Would you like to do it yourself ? Would you like to have others do it, too? Would you prefer to have it al- ways so? "No," you admit, "as a usual thing we might, after all, prefer to have the family table." But why so ? What possible reason can there be for this cus- tom of eating regularly all together at one table? "Oh, it is a little more human or refined to do it in this way." What do you mean by that word "re- fined ?" "Not being coarse or vulgar ?" you suggest. Do you dislike anything that is coarse ? You feel that it would be rather ">coarse" or vulgar, do you, to have people go at any or all times to the pantry and take food in their fingers whenever they are hungry ? Why should it be so ? "Because," you assert, "it would imply eating and nothing else, just swallow- ing food as animals do. And we don't want to be just like animals and eat for the sake of eating and nothing else." How do animals eat, by the way? Are they rather coarse in their manner of eating? How do they behave at such times? "Why, they put their faces into the food, eat fast, snatch from one another, show themselves untidy, and also act disagreeably to one another while eating." But why should eating in that way be so bad? People must eat, must they not? Why should it matter how they do it, as long as they get their food and fit themselves in that way for their v\/ork ? How is it with dogs ; don't we like them just the same, even if they are ravenous in their eating? Do DUTIES IN THE HOME. 30I they show any worse habits on that account ? "You think perhaps they do?" What is it that a dog does if you go near him when he has a bone in his mouth? "Growls?" Yes, he certainly growls. And why? "Because he wants that bone all for himself." True, that is just the point. What, then, would be the effect of eating just for the sake of eating, or eating at any time one likes or in any way one likes? "Oh, it could make one mean and selfish towards others; it encourages one to care so much for one's food that one might "snap" at others and show one's self selfish and disagree- able at such times, if not always." That is true; if you will watch people you will often see that they are sometimes very selfish when taking their food, even more so than under ordinary circumstances. Now do you see one reason why it is better to sit together at the family table, and eat regularly to- gether? "Yes," you explain, "it is better because it makes us less like animals in our eating. It makes us act less selfishly and disagreeably at such times." What does it do besides? "Oh, it seems to add a higher pleasure to the mere fact of eating." Does it take away from the pleasure of the food? "No," you insist, "but it gives us something more in addi- tion." What is the word that is often apphed to persons who care so much for their food ? What do we say of them? That they are, — what? "Greedy?" Yes, that is the word. Note to the Teacher : Discuss further the meaning of the word "greedj'." Explain how it applies first to food. Then show how, from caring so much about food, one can become greedy about all sorts of things. Point out how the habit starts in connection with the coarser kind of pleasures, such as eating and drinking, until one by and by may become greedy about averj^thing. 302 DUTIES IN THE HOME. You assume, then, t'hat eating like animals, when we are hungry, and not eating all together at one table, would make us greedy, do you ? Well, I think so, too. By the way, what about other kinds of people? You have heard of savages. Are they fond of food ? "Surely." And are they also' greedy? "Certainly they have that reputation," you answer. But don't they have a family table and sit together regularly, with knives and forks and napkins and table cloth? "Oh, no," you explain, "it is just the other way; they are a good deal like animals. They are not civilized." If that is the case, it is very important, is it not? Do you know that this is one of the greatest points of difference between what we call civilized and uncivilized people? It is shown by the contrast in the way they eat. Note to the Teacher : Make a great deal here of the study of table habits. A whole lesson might be given to this one phase of the subject, with anecdotes about savages and their system of gorging themselves. Describe the table habits and manners in Oriental countries, among half-civilized people, and then among the most civilized races. The facts might be gotten from encyclopedias and books on anthropology. It looks, after all, as if there was some good rea- son for our custom of taking our meals together at regular times in the day. And now, another question. What is the signifi- cance of table manners? Is there not something rather senseless in these rules and customs ? Would it not be better if we could be a little more natural at the table and act just as we pleased ? What do we mean by table manners ? I ask. Sug- gest some of them and decide whether they serve any real purpose. "All sitting down together, for instance?" Yes, DUTIES IN THE HOME. 303 that is one. "Waiting until some or all of the others have been served, before we begin to eat?" Yes, that is another. "Not being untidy and spilling the food on the table, or soiling the table-cloth?" Yes, that is still another. "Not making a noise while we are eating; having one's plate look as neat as possible?" Yes, that is important also. "Not talking while we have food in the mouth?" Yes, surely. "Eating with the fork and not with your knife?" Yes, that is also a good rule. "Using a napkin to keep the lips clean?" Yes. "Keeping one's mouth closed as much as possible while eating." True. "Not eating too fast?" Yes. "Waiting on the others and passing things to them if it is desired?" Surely. "When asking others to pass things to us, to do it in a quiet, ladylike or gentlemanly-like way?" Yes. "Not talking too loud or too much at the table?" Certainly. "Asking to be excused if we retire from the table before the others leave?" Yes. "Leaving one's plate and^ place at the table in as neat a condition as possible when we leave?" Yes, indeed. "Having hands and face thoroughly clean when we come to the table?" Yes. "Being neat in one's person and appearance at the table ?" By all means ! Note to the Teacher : These points are very important, al- though they have been passed over rapidly. An entire lesson could be devoted to them. The pupiLs might have a piece of paper and pencil in their hands, and write down each sugges- tion here as it is made or offered by any member of the class. Well, you have suggested a good deal about table manners. Now what are they for? What is the use of troubling- one's self with so much form and ceremony ? Is there anything necessarily coarse or vulgar or 304 DUTIES IN THE HOME. bad in taking food in itself? "No," you insist. Then if you see a person begin to eat before the others have been served, or not using a napkin, or soiHng the table-cloth, or swallowing his food as if he were devouring it, would you feel that it was all right, provided you are not guilty of it yourself? "No," you assert, "we should not." Well, but why? Is it not natural to act in just that way? "True, it may be natural to a degree." Why, then, should you care if other persons are behaving that way? "Oh," you answer, "it would perhaps spoil our own appetite; we should not take so much pleasure in eating, ourselves; it would be offensive to us." Yes, but why should it be offensive to you, if it is perfectly natural to take food? "Because somehow it would make us feel as if the person just cared for eating and nothing else. It would make us think of the animals and the way they eat. It would be vulgar." But stop a moment. What is the great difference between an animal and the human being ? "The hu- man being thinks," you suggest. Is that all? "Why," you continue, "he also has more control over himself, he has self-restraint." What then is the chief reason why persons with bad table manners would make you think of animals ? "Because," you add, "it would show that they had no self-restraint; that they could not control them- selves." But why should we care so much about self-re- straint in reference to food, more even than with re- gard to a great many other matters ? Are we not hu- man beings, and can we not always act just as we think we should like to act ? "No," you assert, "men ought not always tO' act as they think they would like to do." And why is DUTIES IN THE HOME. 30S that ? Is it because we have both an animal nature and a human or spiritual nature? "Yes, that may- be the reason." To which part of us does eating apply, — to the animal nature or the spiritual nature? "To the ani- mal nature?" True. And in what sphere do we especially need to show self-restraint, in order to acquire the habit of it ? "In our animal nature?" In what striking instance? "When taking food?" Yes, that is the time when we especially show whether we are like brutes or animals, or whether we are trying to cultivate our higher human nature. If we eat like animals, it will tend to make us be Hke animals in other ways. Now do you begin to see the reason for table man- ners? Have you ever noticed that refined people seem to care a great deal about these matters in con- nection with eating? "Yes, it is because when eating in a refined way, we show self-restraint, and prove that our higher human nature is in control ; whereas if we eat in the other way, thoughtlessly, greedily, we are giving way to our animal nature." What, then, would be the great value of table manners? "They help to make us refined?" Yes, that is true. "They help in giving us self-control?" That is also true. "They cultivate our higher nature?" Yes, surely. Ho'W does it affect you, for instance, when you ask another person to pass you a dish and he does it, while he goes on eating all the while in a coarse kind of a way ? "It is offensive," you say. But why? Oh,_ it makes one feel as if the person cared for nothing but food, and would like to do nothing but eat all the time," 306 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Why should you wait, for instance, until some of the others have been served or helped before you beg-in to eat? Is not that rather unnatural? Does not the food become a little cold? Would it not taste better if every one began at once as soon as he received his plate? "Yes, it would taste better, but it would look a little selfish." Why should that matter, if it is not really selfish? "Well," you continue, "we should not exactly like to have others do it, if we were the last persons to be served and all the others began eating before we could do so." But why? "Oh," you explain, "it would look just as if they did not care for anything but just to eat, or as if they had no regard for us at all." So, too, I ask ; Do you think it nicer for people at a dinner all to sit down and eat their meals straight through at once and not say anything; or does it seem better that they should talk together more or less during the time ? "It would be really better to eat one's whole meal, first?" you suggest. If so, when you have acted in that way, have swallowed your food in a hurry, and have eaten a great deal and are through, do you ever feel a little ashamed of yourself and rather wish you had not done it in that manner ? Would you feel as if you had been a great deal of an animal? "Yes," you admit, "sometimes one feels in that way." Why so ? You had tO' eat your dinner at any rate? "True," you answer, "but after we have once eaten it in that way, we begin to think that it would have been a little nicer if there had been some con- versation, and we had not just cared about food and nothing else." Would that have made the eating any less pleas- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 307 urable? "No," you confess, "only we should also have had the pleasure oi talking together, with the sense of companionship. The mind would have been active at the same time, and it would not have seemed as if we had been just like animals." By the way, what do you think about eating all you want, at a meal ? Would you do that, as a rule? "Yes ?" Do you ever eat more at one time than at another ? "Sometimes." When the dinner was better than usual? "Certainly," you assure me, "the better the dinner, the more one eats." And is that right? Do you think it nice to care so much for food that you would eat more at one time than another, if the hunger is the same ? If animals are so fond of food, should we not try to despise it and care nothing about it at all ? Would that not be nobler and more man-like, just to eat to live and nothing else ? Would you admire a person who really cared so much about other things that he did not care about his food at all? "Yes," you hesitate, "perhaps that would be the nobler type." I wonder if you really feel in that way. Stop to consider a moment. Animals like to drink water. Do you see any reason why we should not take pleasure in drinking water ? Animals like to play. Do you see any reason why we should not like to play? "No, you think that would be all right?" Well now, is not the taste of food and the pleasure we get in eating it, something natural to us? The danger comes from the degree to which we indulge it. After all, then, is it not right for a human be- ing, even of the noblest type, to take some pleasure in his food, and to Hke to eat one thing better than another ? 308 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Perhaps after all, we need not feel ashamed of eating more at a meal we liked than at a meal where the food was less appetizing. But we must never let the appetites of the body get control of us, as may often happen among beasts. But still, I ask, do you think it is right to eat all you want? "Yes," you assert, "it is natural." Do people ever eat very heartily at a dinner — in fact, eat so much that when they are through they wish they had eaten a little less, and so. feel a little bit ashamed of having "crammed" in that way? "Yes," you admit, "that might happen." Why did they feel in that way afterwards? "Oh," you explain, "they realized that they had been a little too much like animals; they had not shown any self- restraint." If that is so, would it not be worth while now and then to eat just a little less than we desired? We .say we wish tO' acquire the habit of self-restraint. Would it not be wise to cultivate this habit at the table, sometimes to take not quite so much as we want, so as tO' show that we can control our appe- tites ? How do people feel in their minds, I wonder, when they have eaten so much of one thing as to have made themselves sick? "One regrets it, of course !" But is one not a little bit ashamed of it, also? "Yes," and why? "Because one did not show self-restraint?" True; I think that is the reason. Now just one further point with regard to table manners. What did you say was the chief reason why it was better to eat together as a family? "Oh, for the sake of the pleasure of companionship." And what is the secret of this form of pleasure? If a person does not think anything about you or DUTIES IN THE HOME. 30g care anything about you when you are with him, do you get satisfaction out of his company? "Very httle," you confess. Would he get any pleasure out of your company if you were not think- ing about him at all? "No?" If, then, we paid no attention to table manners, and each man were just thinking about his food all the while, would that not tend to make each person think only about himself and nothing else? In that case, would there be any real pleasure from being together? "Perhaps not," you answer. If so, is it not well that we have table manners, which put self-restraint upon us, make us think less of ourselves and more about others, and so enable us to get the pleasure O'f companionship at the table, while having the satisfaction of eating all the same? Speaking of self-restraint at the table, it may be that what we have been saying will seem to be in contradiction to some of the lessons of your home. For instance, when you are at table with grown people, what is one of the restrictions often put upon you or other children there? What must be said to you nowi and then at such times? "To stop talking?" Yes, precisely. But is that fair to you? I ask. "Why," you continue, "it does not seem to agree with what we said about the value of conversation at the table." Tnte, but in making that point I was thinking mainly of the time when you would be older or grown up. Then, too, these rules must vary ac- cording to the number of the people at the table and the guests we have there. We have been discussing the general rules for a family table, you understand, in what we have said in this lesson. But can you see any good reason why you should be put under restrictions in the way you would like to talk at the table? "As to that," 3IO DUTIES IN THE HOME. you reply, "it may be that we should be interrupting the conversation of the older ones." Yes, that might happen. And why is that ob- jectionable? I ask. "Because children owe a certain respect to older persons ?" You are right ; that is a valuable point to be considered. You will appreci- ate it better when you are older. Would there be any other motive, however, for suppressing young people somewhat in their talk at the table, besides this one, lest they should interrupt the grown people there? "Perhaps they would talk too much?" And why is this liable to occur? "Oh," you explain, "children are more impulsive thkn grown people. If they once begin, one does not know when they will stop." Yes, that must also be taken into consideration. Young people may have to be suppressed because they are more impulsive. But does this require that they should pay no at- tention to anything save to what they have to eat? "Oh, no," you explain, "they may listen to the con- versation of others, or talk together with the others when their parents allow it." Memory Q-eiu. "The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowl- edge, but the mouth of fools feedeth on folly." Points of the Kesson. I. That the members of a family eat together regularly at the same time because it is a more refined way of living. II. That for people to eat at any or all times without re- gard to the others in the home would reduce us to a condition like that of animals. III. That eating and companionship may help us to keep from becoming greedy and also shows that we are more civilized. IV. That it is the uncivilized races who eat just when they feel like it or without any consideration for the others. V. That table manners imply consideration for one another when w« are eating together as members of a family. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 3^^ VI. That it is only by good table manners that we can show a proper self-restraint as human beings over our appe- tites. VII. That in taking food we are always in danger of giving way to the animal side in us and forgetting the more human or spiritual side. ' VIII. That table manners help to make us more refined, while they ofier just as much opportunity for enjoying the pleasures of the table. IX. That it is perfectly right for people to care for their food and to like to have good things to eat. X. That it is making one's self like a brute, to eat too much or to make one's self sick by eating. XL That conversation at the table should be encouraged in order that the mind may also be active at such a time and that people may not be given over completely just to their animal appetites. XII. That children, however, should do less talking at the table because they owe a respect to the adult people there. Butles. /. We ought to be especially on our guard in our habits of eating, lest we give way too completely to our animal nature. \ II. We ought to put some restraint on our ap- petite for food, so that the mind may have suprem- acy over the body. III. We ought to eat at regular times and with other members of the family, because it is a more civilised way of doing. IV. We ought to wait on one another and wait for one another when eating together at the family table. V. We ought never to eat or drink more than is good for our health. VI. We ought to eat like men, and not like beasts, to eat for the strength whidh the food may give us and not zuholly for the pleasure of eating. VII. We ought to be very careful about preserv- ing our self-respect and the dignity of our manhood or our womanhood in the zuav we eat or drink. 312 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Happy the man, whose wish and care A few paternal acres bound. Content to breathe his native air In his own ground. Whose herds with milk, whose fields with bread, Whose flocks supply him with attire ; Whose trees in summer yield him shade, In winter, fire. Blest, who can unconcernedly find Hours, days and years slide soft away In health of body, peace of mind. Quiet by day. Sound sleep by night, study and ease Together mixed, sweet recreation. And innocence, which most does please With meditation. Thus let me live, unseen, unknown; Thus unlamented, let me die; Steal from the world, and not a stone Tell where I lie. — Alexander Pope. Further Suifg'estious to the Teacher. It is to be remembered that in this chapter our theme is not table maners, but the ethics of such manners. In all such discussions it is important that we should keep in mind the distinction between what may be simply conventional and what is eter- nally right. Rules of etiquette may vary from time to time ; and some of them are to be followed solely because they have become for the time-being estab- lished customs. But behind every precept or rule of this kind is the problem as to the spirit which should actuate all etiquette. And this is the phase we should consider here. Our purpose in this chap- ter is to suggest the true spirit which should actuate every person in his conduct at the family table. At the same time we can only do^ this by encouraging the young people themselves to offer the examples DUTIES IN THE HOME. 313 and to suggest some of the practical rules to which they are accustomed. It is well to have the children understand that the habit of eating together on the part of the members of the family has a reason for it and is something more than a mere custom. If the teacher prefers, he could divide the lesson into two chapters, under the headings, "The Family Ta- ble," and "Table Manners." With regard to the adjectives we may use in emphasizing the repulsive features of bad manners at the table, the choice here must depend a great deal upon the special purpose we may have in view, or the class of young people we may be dealing with. Such terms as "vulgar," "coarse," "brutal," "animal-like," undei^ certain con- ditions may be too emphatic or be too suggestive. It is quite important, however, that we should arouse a prejudice against bad table manners, espe- cially in those cases where a consideration for the feelings of others is involved. Our point of view must also be determined a great deal by our knowl- edge of the homes from which the young people may come, and our precepts and examples must vary ac- cordingly. In this lesson we shall be obliged to ex^ ercise a great deal of discretion in order not to en- courage the children to be critical of the members of their own home or of their own parents. We must never allow them to give examples of bad or objectionable conduct from what they see in the behavior of their fathers or mothers. Over and over again the teacher may be called upon to make the as- sertion: "You must not judge your parents." We are to remind the young people repeatedly that they are to apply these lessons to themselves and not to others. While we may hesitate as to the special rules or precepts we shall introduce in this connec- tion, we should feel the utmost freedom in discussing the true motive for right table manners. So, too, 314 DUTIES IN THE HOME. even in those cases where the rules arc chiefly of a conventional type, we may discuss the question why a person should sometimes feel it his duty to obey them. It may be explained that sometimes we ought to do this out of regard for the wishes of other peo- ple, or in order not to make ourselves objectionable to others, even when there is no ethical principle involved. If, for example, etiquette requires nowa- days that we eat with a fork, we act in accordance with that precept, while we shall not think ill of our forefathers who may not have paid any attention to this rule or seen any reason for it. It will not do for us to allow children tO' feel that they may act in de- fiance of forms or customs, because there is no great principle involved, or because these customs may vary from time to time. All the while, there is the consideration for the wishes and feelings of others, which should influence our conduct. It may also happen that this lesson will be given to some chil- dren coming from humble homes, where there is no separate dining-room. If so, one or more of the points could be omitted or introduced in another way. But we cannot make too much of the princi- ple of self-restraint at the family table under any and all circumstances. We can make it plain that it is by their conduct at the dining table that young people first show whethei^ they will ever become real ladies and real gentlemen. In the discussion concern- ing the pleasure we take in eating, it is tO' be remem- bered that the points we introduce here do not bear directly on the subject of the chapter, and therefore should not be analyzed too far. This would take us into another series of lessons involving other prob- lems. But we allude to the subject because of its con- nection with the habits we may acquire in the home. The teacher should also exercise caution in applying the principle "It is natural," as an answer to some of DUTIES IN THE HOME. 315 the questions we might raise concerning human appetites. If, however, the point is rightly made and interpreted, it may have an important significance. If desired, there might also be a discussion as to the furniture suitable for a dining room, what pictures would be most appropriate there, why we should try to have flowers on the dining table. There is an ethi- cal element involved here, if we choose to introduce it. For picture material, show scenes of a family table, O'f a tasetful or prettily furnished dining room and of a family seated at the dining table. CHAPTER XXIV. SICKNESS OR SORROW IN THE HOME, Fxoverljs or Verses. "In time of sickness the soul collects itself anew." — Pliny. "It is better to be sick than care for the sick." "It is easy for a man in health to preach patience to the sick." "Sickness comes on horseback and departs on foot." "Sickness tells us what we are." "The chamber of sickness is the chapel of devotion." "The sick man is vexed with flies on the wall." "A day of sorrow is longer than a month of joy." "Two in distress Make sorrow less." "Light sorrows speak, great ones are dumb." "The best cure for sorrow is to pity somebody." Dialosne. Have you ever been sick in your life ? Can you recall just how it seemed? How did you feel? Did you lilce it ? "No/' you assert, "we disliked it, very much." Why? "Because you had to stay in the house?" Yes. "Because you could not eat when'you wanted to?" True. "Because you had a good deal of pain?" Yes. Was there nothing- else in the experience which would make you dislike to be ill in the home? "No," you answer, "that is all and enough; the pain we endured and the pleasures we had to give up." Wait now; do not be too sure. How about the others in the house? Did it affect their lives at all? "Oh yes, our brothers or sisters could not play or make as much noise or enjoy themselves as before; 316 DUTIES IN THE HOME. SI? perhaps they had to keep quiet and wait on us." That may be true. And were you glad of that ? Did you like to feel that you were interfering with their pleasures? "No, one would be sorry about that." Was that not something else to add to the disagreeable experi- ence? What about your parents ? Did it matter to your mother? Was .she able to go out just the same as before; to read; tO' be happy and enjoy hei'self ; or to give the same attention as usual to the others? "No," you confess, "mother has to give up many of her own pleasures and neglect the others on our account when we are sick." That suggests another reason why you do not like to have sickness in the home, does it not ? And do you think, after all, it may be for the sake of the others as well as for ourselves, that we should not want to be ill in the home ? How about your moods ? Were you cheerful and happy when you were sick ? Were you always very kind and grateful for what was done for you ? Did you always speak softly and gently? Is 'that the way people always behave at such times? "Noi," you confess, "one is liable to be cross and out of patience ; one is not happy at such a time ; one may not even feel very grateful to one's mother ; one may be peevish and irritable and 'out of sorts ;' one often makes the other people in the house unhappy by the way one talks or the cross mood one may be in." Does that often happen in sickness? "Surely." Are you much more liable tO' be cross and irritable then ? "Yes, indeed, much more so." "When one is sick," you add, "one is very much inclined to think just about one's self and to neglect the happiness of others." 3l8 DUTIES IN THE HOME. If this is so, could one not help it at all ? "No," you assert, "we cannot help it ; we are not to blame for it; it is because we are sick; we do not talk in that way or act in that way if we are well." Don't you think, after all, if we know beforehand that when we are sick, we are liable to be cross or selfish, we could restrain ourselves a little at such a time? "Yes, with a certain effort one might do this to some extent, at least," you tell me. Not only that, but could you not prevent yourself from saying cross and unpleasant things, if you knew in advance that this was the way that people usually behaved at such times ? We do not want, when we get well, to feel that we made everybody unhappy or out of sorts or uncom- fortable in the house, do we? "No," you confess, "we should prefer to know that they have been disturbed as little as possible." Would it not be worth while, then, when one is sick, to try to be careful about this, so as not to be peev- ish or irritable? How do people in the house act, sometimes, when they have a headache or are half-sick? Did you ever notice how a whole family can be made uncom- fortable just because some one is cross or out of sorts from this cause? "Yes," you admit, "that could happen." Is the person to blame for it, however? "No, perhaps not, if it is because he is half-sick," But how do you feel toward such a person when he speaks disagreeably to you ? Don't you feel a little put out by it ? "True," you acknowledge, "we don't quite like it." Should we not try very hard, then, to think about this, when we are ill, or when we have a head- ache or are half-sick ? DUTIES IN THE HOME. 3I9 Should we not do all in our power to avoid mak- ing ourselves disagreeable and disturbing the pleas- ure or comfort of the whole family at such times ? But, on the other hand, how is it when somebody else, not yourself, is ill in the house; how do you feel? "We don't like that either?" Why not? "Oh, one feels sorry for a brother or sister who is ill and has to suffer so much; that makes us unhappy." I certainly hope you feel that way. Is there anything else you do not like about it? "Yes," you add, "sometimes a person is not very pleasant tO' us when he is sick. He may not speak kindly or show gratitude for what we do for him; he may be sharp or cross to us." If that is so and he does act in that way, should we feel quite the same toward him or be hurt by it as much as if he did it when he was well? "No," you answer, "we can forgive it at least in part, just because he is ill." Should we not always feel in that way towards those who are sick in the house? Ought we not to make allowance for them and not get angry if they are not as kind and gentle as they usually are when they are well? But is there anything we could do for one whoi is ill in the house, a brother or sister, father or mother, besides not being offended if they are not SO' kind and gentle in their language toward us as at other times? "Yes," you add, "we might try very hard not to^ make their sickness worse, or not to give them pain by the way we act." Don't you think that when your father or mother is sick, you ought to try even harder than ever to be good and loving and obedient ? What would you say of the boy or girl who took 320 DUTIES IN THE HOME. advantage of the illness of his father or mother and did things they would not know about, because they were sick, but which he or she would not have dared to do if they were well ? , Wouldn't that be rather mean? "Yes?" Would it be any worse than to do that sort of a thing if one's parents were well? "Even worse," you con- fess. Why so? I ask. In either case it is disobedience, just the same? "True, but it would show even more selfishness to do such a thing when father or mother is sick; it would imply that we really did not love them. It would be even more selfish and hard- hearted." If, then, father or' mother were sick, we could do something for them even by trying to be more good and gentle and obedient and kind than at other times. But is there anything else we could do alsO', if a brother or sister were sick in the house? "Yes," you continue, "we could try to be quiet and not act in a way that would irritate them or make them feel their suffering more; we could speak in gentler tones ; we could make ourselves less obtrusive every- where ; we could be cautious in a great many ways." Is that all? That is not doing something. It would be only refraining from doing. Is there noth- ing that one could positively do for a brother or a sister at such a time? "Oh yes, at times we could take some of their work which they have to do, and do it for them." True. Anything else? "Perhaps we could do' little things for them, read to them for a while, bring them pic- tures to see, get flowers for them, do something to make the sick-room prettier or pleasaJiter, or wait on them in little ways." DUTIES IN THE HOME. 321 You say you would do all this for your brother or your sister or your parents. You would try to be gentle, make no noise, not hurt their feelings, do all sorts of little things to help them in order to lessen their suffering; also being considerate and allowing for their moods or what they say. But why would you do all this? Why should you take so much pains about a person who is sick ? "Because one may be sick some time one's self?" Is that the only reason, however ? "No," you re- ply, "it would be because we are fond of them and feel sorry to have them suffer so much ; we always want to help those whom we love or care for." True. I think you are right. I Could there be another motive, still? How is it with people who are not members of the family, or even strangers? If you went into a house where there was a sick person, would you act just in the same way as if the person were well? i "No," you tell me, "we should try to be a little different." If, for example, you were in a hospital where there were a great many sick people, would you make a noise and be careless as to the way the people felt? i "No', we should try to help them, if we could, or do something for them." Why is this? How does it happen that people seem to think so much about visiting the sick and being kind to the sick ? i "Perhaps," you point out, "it is because these per- sons at such times are weaker than ourselves and less able to help themselves?" Do you mean to say that, we owe special care and tenderness to those who are weaker than we are? i "Yes; if they are human beings and are in a con--.^ dition of weakness or are crippled in any way, we ought to do more for them than for others." True; that point has arisen before in these lessons. It is. 322 DUTIES IN THE HOME. noble to be tender and care for the sick, just because they are sick, whether they are members of our family or not. By the way, speaking of sickness, which may come to one and all some time in life, what may hap- pen to people under such circumstances, especially when they are very old? "They may die?" Yes, at one period or another in one's home life there will come such an experience. And in what sort of a mood would everybody in the house be at such a time? "A solemn mood?" True, but would anything else besides solemn feeling prevail, do you suppose? If the one who had passed away has been loved by those who are in the home, how will they feel over the parting? "Oh, there will be mourning and tears," you say. Yes, and that means sorrow in the home. I am glad to say that it is not liable to occur often and so break in on the joys of home life. But it may come, sometimes. When it does take place, who is the one most affected, the one most sad, the one to suffer the most? "Why, the one who loved the lost one most and was the nearest to him." Yes that is true. And when, for example, people are in sorrow in this way, sad in heart over the loss of some dear friend, do they like to hear people laughing all around them, do you believe? "No, quite the contrary; laughter or excitement of any kind would be most painful to them." Then how should we act, ourselves, toward one in sorrow? "Be careful and considerate, try not to shock them or give them pain?" Yes, surely. If you are ever to be regardful of the feelings of one another, try to be so for one who is in sorrow. Let me ask you, by the way, which class of per- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 323 sons usually feel sorrow most keenly, do you fancy, — children or grown up people? "The latter?" Yes, I suspect that is true, and it is quite natural. Young people do not fully understand the shock of that parting which brings sorrow. If so, then in trying to be considerate for people who are unhappy in this way, would this usually mean that children should be especially considerate for the feelings of other children? "No," you an- swer, "rather that they should be considerate or ten- der for the feelings of grown people." You are right. Whenever we go into a home where there is sorrow, we can do a great deal by trying to be gentle and considerate, especially toward the grown people there, who have lost some one near and dear to them. Young people do not quite know all the pain that comes from parting or separation. It is an experi- ence, however, from which grown people suffer very deeply. The one thought we should remember in this connection is, — when one comes where there is sorrow, we should take great pains to be gentle and considerate. In connection with this whole subject, I should like to ask you with regard to some of the proverbs we have introduced at the head of the chapter. Take, for example, the following: "Two in distress Make sorrow less." Toi what experience would these lines apply? "Oh," you answer, "to the one we have just been consid- ering, that of mourning in the home or family." Yes, but what is the point of it? What does it suggest as a rule of conduct for us? "Why," you tell me, "it conveys the old lesson of sympathy. It would make us appreciate that we can be of service 324 dtjTies in the home. to those in mourning by the attitude we take toward them." But does it imply that we are to make ourselves shed tears, put on a look of pain, act in a way we "do not feel, assume a manner of distress? "No, quite the contrary ; anything in the way of sham would be offensive at such times." How, then, would it indicate that we might act in order to be of service in this way as one of the "two in distress ?" "As to that," you point out, "the very reserve we display, the consideration we may show for the feelings of persons who are in sorrow, would help them and express our sympathy and so 'make sorrow less.' " Yes, you are right. We can show an appreciation for the suffering of others by the gentleness of our manners, without any "make-believe" on our part; and those who are in that position will understand us and be glad of our sympathy. Again what do you say to this other short sen- tence or proverb : • "The best cure for sorrow is to pity somebody." Does that suggest how we should try to be of help or service to those who are in mourning? "No," you explain, "it is rather a hint to those who are un- dergoing that experience." In what way? I ask. "Why, it tells us that if we are not a little careful, we may be selfish even in our sorrow." You mean, do you, that even if we were in mourn- ing for the loss of some one very dear to us, we ought not to think entirely of ourselves or of our own sufferings? "True, that is the point," you in- sist. And what does the proverb advise us to do under those circumstances? "Why, it implies that we should also think of other people who may be in DUTIES IN THE HOME, 325 mourning or suffering like ourselves; that we should pity them, feel for them and that in this waj- our own suffering will be made less because we shall be thinking less about ourselves." Yes, that is a good point to make. We shall all have an experience of sorrow and mourning at some time in our lives, and it is well for us to know in ad- vance that we should be on our guard lest we be too selfish at such times and regardless of the feelings of others. Once more, look at this terse sentence of six words : "Sickness tells us what we are." Is that true, do you believe? "Yes," you admit, "if it is rightly interpreted." But in what way could a person show his character when he is sick? "Oh," you explain, "he thinks less about appear- ances then, cares less how other people may judge him, and he may show himself selfish or regardless of the feelings of others." What you say is true. But we must be cautious about applying this carelessly to people who are suf- fering in this way. At the same time, we should remember it ourselves when we are sick, and be on our guard then lest we be inconsiderate and thought- less and show that we have been selfish at heart. But still further, what do you make of this proverb : "It is easy for a man in health to preach patience to the sick." "Oh, that is plain enough," you answer. It tells us how thoughtless we are sometimes, in dealing with people in that condition, by not making allow- ances for what they are undergoing." Yes, it is true. We who are in health are often unfair in our judgments and selfishly exacting 326 DUTIES IN THE HOME. toward the sick, possibly because we have never been in that situation ourselves, and we do not appreciate Avhat it means. So it is that some of those old sayings of former times tell us how human nature acts and give us suggestions, if we choose to take them to heart. Memory Gem. "Bear ye one another's burdens." Points of the I^esson. I. That sickness in the home Ufe tends to alter all the conditions there and to upset the home life. II. That when there is sickness in the home, the others there cannot have their usual pleasures. III. That when people are sick they do not have the same self-control and are liable to be more exacting. IV. That there are many v/ays by which young people can be of especial service to the father or mother when there is sickness in the home. V. That even when one is sick, one ought to try to remem- ber how natural it is to be selfish at such a time, and to try to be considerate of the feelings of others in the household. VI. That sorrow gives a tremendous shock to a family and especially to the grown people there. , VII. That the greatest care and consideration should be shown toward people who are in sorrow. Duties. /. We ought to be unusually careful about our conduct ivhcn there is sickness in the home. II. Wef ought to be exceptionally considerate of the feelings of a sick person in the household. III. We ought to try to be of every possible serv- ice to other members of the family at a time of sickness in the home. IV. We ought zvhen sick ourselves to try and be as self-forgetfid as possible under the circumstances. V. We ought to be most considerate of people who are in sorrozv and be most careful not to jar on the feelings of others at such a time. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 327 VI. We ought more than at any other time to show ifhe spirit of true gentleness, when there is sick- ness or sorrow in the home. Among the beautiful pictures That hang on Memory's wall Is^ne of a dim old forest. That seemeth best of all; Not for its gnarled oaks olden, Dark with the mistletoe; Not for the violets golden That sprinkle the vale below; Not for the milk-white lilies That lean from the fragrant ledge, Coquetting all day with the sunbeams. And stealing their golden edge ; Not for the vines on the upland, Where the bright red berries rest, Nor the pinks, nor the pale sweet cowslip. It seemeth to me the best. I once had a little brother. With eyes that were dark and deep ; In the lap of that old dim forest He lieth in peace asleep ; Light as the down of the thistle, Free as the winds that blow. We roved there the beautiful summers. The summers of long ago; But his feet on the hills grew weary. And, one of the autumn eves, I made for my little brother A bed of the yellow leaves. Sweetly his pale arras folded My neck in a meek embrace. As the light of immortal beauty Silently covered his face; And when the arrows of sunset Lodged in the tree-tops bright. He fell, in his saint-like beauty. Asleep by the gates of light. Therefore, of all the pictures That hang on Memory's wall The one of the dim old forest Seemeth the best of all. — Alice Cary. 328 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Further Snggaationa to the Teacher. This chapter would naturally fall under two head- ings, according as the problem may be that of Sick- ness or that of Mourning. But we have dealt with the points together, because it might be difficult to devote a separate lesson to the subject of Sorrow and Mourning. The theme in that case would be a dreary one and leave an unpleasant impression on the minds of the young people. We shall dO' better to introduce it, therefore, incidentally, touching on it as one phase of a larger subject. At the same time we ought not to overlook it altogether, because young people are quite sure to have some experience with it. They all come in contact with death directly or indirectly even before they have entered their 'teens. They have seen the dress of mourning and have observed the funeral procession. Hence, it is fitting that we should try to make them appreci- ate what would be the proper conduct on their part toward people who may be suffering in this way. It also involves the larger ethical lesson of pity. A consideration of this problem should have a refin- ing influence even on children, although the full sig- nificance of our lesson here could only be understood by those of riper years. The teacher, however, might omit all discussion of this part of the subject if he desires, simply allowing the pupils to read over the paragraphs touching upon it in the Dialogue. But under any circumstances, we should have a thor- ough analysis of the problems pertaining to sickness in the home. The points to be discussed in this connection are of the utmost importance. By the use of the right method, we may be able to lodge a few principles which shall stay fixed in the minds of these young people for a long period of time. They have all had experience with sickness in one DUTIES IN THE HOME, 329 form or another, and they know what it impHes. It will be much easier for them to appreciate the rules we may lay down concerning the conduct of others in the home at such times. But we shall find it no easy task to estabhsh rules for the sick person him- self to follow. It is a time when people usually feel themselves absolved from obedience to any rules. And yet even here a little might be accomplished if we make the effort. We do not wish to encourage the young people to pass judgment on their sick brother or sister who may be suffering in this way, but rather to give them some hints as to the way they might act when they themselves may be sick. Much of what'we tell them in this connection will naturally be forgotten entirely when the experience itself arrives ; and yet it is advisable to grapple with this problem and lay down a few precepts. People are often needlessly selfish and exacting under these circumstances. It must be kept in mind all the while that we are not simply endeavoring to influ- ence the conduct of young people for the time when they are children, but to give them a few hints which they may carry with them throughout their lives. We must not be discouraged if young persons seem to be less sympathetic when others are sick or in sorrow. We cannot expect that children should have the emotions of grown people. They may be considerate at one moment and thoughtless the next. At the same time, they have already begun to catch on to the meaning of duty and obligation; and we should introduce these principles and elaborate upon them. They may not enter fully into the fine dis- tinctions we have drawn in the Dialogue. Much will also depend on the type of home to which they are accustomed, the degree to which they are expected to wait on one another in the household, or 330 DUTIES IN THE HOME. the extent to which they have come in contact with sickness and sorrow there. For picture material, we might introduce a hospital scene, or that of a sick-room with some member of the family render- ing a service there. It would be better, perhaps not to show any pictures in connection with the subject of sorrow or mourning. CHAPTER XXV. IN THE LIVING OR FAMILY ROOM OF THE HOME. FToverbB or Terses. "A man's conversation is the mirror of his thoughts.'' "In conversation, avoid the extremes of forwardness and reserve." "Argument makes three enemies to one friend." "When either side grows warm with argument, the wisest man gives over first." "A man of sense talks little and listens much." "It is very seldom that a great talker has either discretion or good manners." "He that hears much and speaks not all Shall be welcome both in bower and hall." "People should talk not to please themselves, but those who hear them." "The eternal talker neither hears nor learns." "It's remarkable that they talk most who have le&St tD say." — Pope. ISlalog^e. What part of a house is it, would you say, where the members of the family are more often together, when they are not in the dining room? "Why," you suggest, "it would be the apartment where we may be assembled in the evenings, when not at our meals." Yes, and what is this room called? What name do we give to it? "As to that," you answer, "in some houses it may be the 'library ;' others speak of it as the 'living-room.' " True, and in old times, and now, perhaps, in some places it is called the "sitting- room." How about "parlor," by the way; does it ever have that name? "It might, in homes where the 331 33^ DUTIES IN THE HOME. people use their parlor as their living-room and do not have two apartments for the two purposes." Why should it have the name of "living-room," do you suppose? Or why should it ever have been termed the sitting-room? "Perhaps," you explain, "if is because the members of the family usually sit together there or use that apartment as the place for meeting together." Ift what way would it differ from other rooms in the house, such as one's sleeping-room or the kitchen or perhaps the parlor? "Oh, it is the room which is common to all." You mean by that, do you, that it belongs with- out discrimination to every member of the family? "Yes, although it ought more especially to be the liv- ing-room for father and mother." And why the latter point? "Because," you continue, "they have the first rights in the home." True. At what time in the day are the members of the family most often assemlDled in the living-room? "Oh, in the evening." And why so? "Because father may be out of the house during the day; mother may be busy elsewhere, while the children may be at school or outdoors at play." On what day of the week, however, is it possible that they may be in that room more or less together, in the daytime, also? "On Sundays?" And how would that happen? "Why, father may be at home on that day, and the children also." And what goes on usually in the living room when we are all there? Do the people usually sit silent and preoccupied ; is it perfectly still, would you say? "No, more often there is talk or conversation going on." Between whom ? I ask. "Why, between the children or between father and mother or between any of the persons there." You imply, dO' you, that it is the most usual place DUTIES IN THE HOME. 333 for talk or conversation in the home or family? "Yes ?" But has anyone a right to talk and carry on a conversation there, under all circumstances? "It would depend," you reply. On what, for instance? "Why, if their parents were absorbed in reading, perhaps, the children ought to keep quiet for a time." You believe that even in the living-room, we should put some restraint upon ourselves? "It looks that way," yoiu confess. In what part of the house should we be the most free to do just as we please; in our private rooms, or rather in the living-room where we are together? "As to that," you tell me, "it would probably be in one's private room." And why? I ask again. "Because in the living- room there may be a number of persons together, and they may not all want to do the same thing." But what if each one acted there as he felt inclined ; would it make any difference? "Why, they would interfere with one another; it is only one room and not large enough to make it possible for every one to have one's own way there, entirely." Then in what part of the house are people often inclined to show this more selfish conduct or be more disposed to interfere with one another's rights or feelings? "It would be when they are together in the same room ?" Yes, that is probably true. When we are assembled in the living-room, we have con- stantly to be on the lookout not to interfere with one another. What goes on among the children oftentimes in the living-room during the evening? "Oh, they may be playing together there, unless there is a sepa- rate room for that purpose in the house." Anything else besides play? What keeps young people busy often in the evenings, if they have been 334 DUTIES IN THE HOME. at school during the day? "Perhaps they may be getting their lessons?" Yes, that is true. But how can they get their lessons, if there should be talking going on between father and mother in the room? Do they not need to have it perfectly quiet while they are studying? "On the contrary," you say, "they ought to try to learn how to study even when conversation is going on, so as not to interfere with the privileges of others in the room." But if the young people are getting their lessons there during the evening', are they still free among themselves to do just as they please under those circumstances? "Why not," you ask me; "if they are busy with their books?" True, but suppose one brother or sister always takes the most comfortable seat or the most con- venient place for work. Would that be right? "No," you exclaim, "that would be selfish." And why? I ask. "Because the room belongs to every one in the house; it is the common room." You assume, do you, that no one has a right to act there just as if that room belonged only to one's self. In what way, then, could we show mutual for- bearance, or respect our mutual ownership in the room? "Why, the people could take turns in having the comfortable seats or the most convenient places for study. They might be considerate of one an- other." Yes. And what if it should happen that one of the members of the family did not feel quite well, were, perhaps, half-sick, and yet were with the oth- ers there? How ought that one person tO' be treated in the living-room ? "Why," you tell me, "that one ought surely tO' have the most comfortable seat or the nicest corner and be treated with more consid- eration than the others." DUTIES IN THE HOME. 335 But can you suggest further any ways by which one of the brothers or sisters might act selfishly in the use of the living-room ? Suppose, for example, one of them brought food into the room and scat- tered crumbs around the table or the floor; would that do any harm? ' "Surely, because it would be unpleasant for the others. The place for eating is in the dining-room, if there is a separate apartment for this purpose in the house." And what if a boy had a way of throwing his hat over on a chair in the living-room or being careless about soiling the rugs or carpet with muddy shoes? Would there be any objection to that? The room belongs to him as one member of the family. "Yes," you say, "but that would be acting just as if it were a private room belonging exclusively to him, and it would not be fair to the others." How would it be, too, in the matter of conversa- tion ? You have said it was the room where people talked together. Would it be possible, under the circumstances, for any one member of the family to be selfish on this point — or any two or three mem- bers of the family? "Oh yes, indeed !" you exclaim. In what way? "Why," you point out, "one might talk too loud, become very noisy or make one's self disagreeable to the others by talking too much." You are con- vinced, then, when people are conversing together, that one person might be selfish in the way he talked? "Yes, for the others may have a right to join in the conversation or have a share in the talk going on." "Perhaps," you continue, "on the other hand some of the others may be talking together ateut some special matter and ought not to be interrupted 336 DUTIES IN THE HOME. by too much noisy conversation on the part of the rest." And so it means, does it, that even in a room virhich we all own together, we must be on our guard and hold ourselves back and not feel perfectly free to talk or do as we please? You were saying that the living-room is some- times used for play on the part of the children. Is it also ever used for games by the grown people? "Oh yes," you reply. And might it be possible for the children and the grown people tO' have their games at the same time? "Perhaps so," you an- swer. Yet, if this were not possible, which ones ought to give way ? "Why, the children ought to give way to father and mother." How is it, for instance, in your play in the living- room, as contrasted with your play outdoors. Is it just as easy to amuse yourselves in the house, as chil- dren together? "Not always," you confess. And why not ? "Because there is more room outdoors ; we are not so crowded together there." How is it, then, in the play on the part of young people ? Are they more liable tO' be selfish or cross with one another outdoors where there is plenty of room, — or in the house in the living-room or library ? "There is more danger in the house," you admit. It implies, then, does it, that people have to be on their guard in the living-room, even more than out- doors, lest in their occupations or their play, or even in their talk together, they become selfish or angry or disagreeable? It is true, when we are close together in one room in the home we need to be always careful to put re- straint upon ourselves, lest we interfere with one another's pleasures or occupations there. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 337 aiemory Oem. "There is gold and abundance of rubies, but the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel." Folnta of tbe SeBSon. I. That the living-room is where the members of the family meet in their leisure hours. II. That the living-room belongs not to one, but to all the members of the family. III. That each person has to be cautious lest he becomes selfish in treating the living-room as if it were all his own. IV. That in the living-room the members of the family must be more or less crowded together and put themselves under restraint, lest they interfere with one another's privi- leges. V. That the father and mother have the first rights and privileges in the living-room. VI. That the living-room is especially a center for talk or conversation among the members of the home. VII. That in conversation with one another in the home we need to be careful lest we do more than our share of the talking or make ourselves offensive by the way we talk. VIII. That in the special privileges of the home, the easy chairs or the nice corners, we should take turns rather than be selfish and always be taking the best for ourselves. Duties. /. Whenever we are together in the home, zve ought to exercise self-restraint lest zve take more than our share of the privileges there. II. Whenever zve are together in the home, zve ought to be on our guard lest we interfere zmth the occupations or duties of others there. III. Whenever we are together in the home, zve ought never to act as if we ozvned the place just for ourselves. IV. Whenever we are together in the home, we ought to take pains not to make ourselves offensive or disagreeable to the others. Poem. Let others seek for empty joys. At ball or concert, rout or play; Whilst far from Fashion's idle noise. Her gilded domes and trappings gay, 338 DUTIES IN THE HOME. I while the wintry eve away, 'Twixt book and lute the hours divide, And marvel how I e'er could stray From thee — my own fireside ! My own fireside ! Those simple words Can bid the sweetest dreams arise; Awaken feeling's tenderest chords, And fill with tears of joy mine eyes. What is there my wild heart can prize. That doth not in thy sphere abide? Haunt of my home-bred sympathies, My own — my own fireside ! A gentle form is near me now; A small white hand is clasped in mine; I gaze upon her placid brow And ask, what joys can equal thine? A babe, whose beauty's half divine. In sleep his mother's eyes doth hide; Where may love seek a fitter shrine Than thou — my own fireside? What care I for the sullen war Of winds without, that ravage earth; It doth but bid me prize the more The shelter of thy hallowed hearth — To thoughts of quiet bliss give birth; Then let the churlish tempest chide. It cannot check the blameless mirth That glads my own fireside ! My refuge ever from the storm Of this world's passion, strife and care; Though thunder-clouds the skies deform, Their fury cannot reach me there ; There all is cheerful, calm and fair; Envy, wrath, malice, strife or pride. Hath never made its hated lair By thee — my own fireside ! Thy precincts are a charmed ring. Where no harsh feeling dares intrude; Where life's vexations lose their sting; Where even grief is half-subdued. And peace, the halcyon, loves to brood. Then let the world's proud fool deride; I'll pay my debt of gratitude To thee — my own fireside ! DUTIES IN THE HOME. 339 Shrine of my household deities; Bright scene of home's unsullied joys; To thee my burthened spirit flies. When Fortune frowns or Care annoys ! Thine is the bliss that, never cloys ; The smile whose truth hath oft been tried — -. What, then, are this world's tinsel toys To thee — my own fireside ! O may the yearnings, fond and sweet. That bid my thoughts be all of thee, Thus ever guide my wandering feet To thy heart-soothing sanctuary ! Whate'er my future years may be, Let joy or grief my fate betide. Be still an Eden bright to me, My own — my own fireside ! — Alaric A. IValls. Further Su^ETsstions to the Teacher. In this lesson we apply again some of the thoughts introduced in the chapter pertaining to the Family Table. There should be a great number of examples of possible cases suggested for discussion. Each time we should revert to the one principle involved, the true spirit which ought to actuate us when we are thrown together in mutual relations of work or play in the home. It might be Vv'ell to distinguish sharply betweai the line of conduct to be pursued in the liv- ing-rooan, according as we are occupied in games, or according as we may be at serious work there. We could revert to some of the points made in the chapter on "Play" in the previous series of "Lessons in the Study of Habits." But all the while we should keep to the dominant theme "Home and Home Life." The point must be repeatedly made, that when we are together in the household there must be a certain crowding. Hence it should be seen that in order to have the pleasures of compan- ionship at such times, we must make the sacrifices essential and be glad to make them. Even in this discussion, however, it is wise to be thinking about 340 DUTIES IN THE HOME. the future and laying down precepts for home life and home relations when these children have passed on to the age O'f adults. The restraints put upon individuals when they are together in the liv- ing-room, often make a severe test of character. The opportunity for "taking more than one's share" under such circumstances is very great. It may be equally difficult to lay down any definite rules which should preserve equality at all times between the young people in the living-room. But it is of impor- tance that we talk the subject over and dwell on the various phases as they arise in the discussion. It will be seen that the teacher might enlarge upon our theme and devote a series of chapters to other apart- ments in the house, discussing what would be the fitting conduct in the kitchen, the nursery, or the parlor, when members of the family happen to meet there. In the last case, however, we should have the further problem of the guest in the home ; and to this we shall devote a separate chapter. So, too, we have reserved a further lesson for a considera- tion of "One's private Room in the Home." We shall find a number of valuable hints for discussion in the proverbs at the beginning of the chapter. For picture material it would be well to show a number O'f bright scenes from the living-room ; as, for exam- ple, groups of children studying together^ in the evening, members of the family seated by the lamp at the table reading, or children at play together. Whatever we use in this connection should be of an attractive character, suggestive of the pleasures of comnanionship under these conditions. CHAPTER XXVI. GUESTS AND HOSPITALITY IN THE HOME. Proverbs or Verses. "Where there is room in the heart there is room in the house." "Welcome is the best dish on the table." "Small cheer and great welcome make a merry feast." — Shakespeare. "The ornament of a house is the friends who visit it." — Emerson. "The master of a house is the servant of the guest." "Something like Home that is not home is to be desired ; it is to be found in the home of a friend." — Sir William Temple. "It is a sin against hospitality to open your doors and shut up your countenance." "A constant guest is never welcome." "A guest sees more in an hour than a host in a year." "When the guest is in most favor he will do well to quit." Slalogfue. When a person comes to visit us in our homes, how do we speak of him; what term do we use? "Why," you say, "he is a guest m the house." How long do guests usually stay? "Oh," you smile, "that depends on who the guest may be, for ho'W long he has been invited to stay, or where he comes from, or how often he may come." What is the shortest time during which a person might be a guest in the house? "Perhaps just for a few minutes." And what do we call that kind of a guest? "A caller?" True, he may have run in to make a call. In what other way might a person be a guest in the house for a longer time than just a few minutes ? 341 342 DUTIES IN THE HOME. "Why, he might come to dine with us or to take a meal with us of some kind, at the family table." But what if he should stay longer? Do you think that might happen? "Yes, he might be a visitor in the home, stay over night or spend several days." I wonder if that ends the list. Do grown people ever invite quite a number of persons to come to the home at one time, although not in order to dine with them exactly, nor as if such persons were making a call? "Yes," you explain, "the family might have a 'reception' or 'give a party,' as we say." Do children ever have guests, like grown people? "Certainly, boys and girls may come to our home and be our guests." And what do they come for? "Oh, in order to play with one another perhaps." Note to the Teacher: We can extend this list as far as we please. It might be well to have a sheet of paper and put down the types of guest as they may be mentioned by the children. It does not matter in what order the list is made out. Does the home usually seem just the same when a guest is tliere? "Oh, no, everything is a little more formal." What do you mean by that? "Why," you con- tinue, "those in the house may not do just as they please, quite to th"e same extent as they would when there are no guests present." But why should it be so ? What difference should it make? "As to that, we may be a little anxious about what the guests shall think of us; we want to have their respect." In what way do people act, for instance, when they have guests at their house, — I mean, in what ways do you notice a change? "Oh, they may be more careful about their dress, about what they say, or how they look, about the appearance of the home." DUTIES IN THE HOME. 343 And what is all this for, would you say? "To begin with," you answer, "it may be in order to give pleasure to the guest, or toi show respect for his presence or company." You assume, do you, if one were to go right on in one's usual way when there were guests in the house, one would show one's self indilfferent to one's com^ pany? Yes, I agree with you. We owe it to a guest to put ourselves out a little for his sake, to take more pains when he is present. Can you see why we should do this? "For one reason," you tell me, "it may be because he is there only for a short time." "Besides," you insist, "one ought to do it just because he is a guest." Quite right. I like that reason ; it is a good one. One other question arises at this point. Does it not seem as if acting in this manner contrary to the way one would act under ordinary circumstances, were a kind of make-believe or dishonesty? Would it not look as if one were trying to show off, or making the guest believe that one always dressed in that way or talked in that way or kept one's house with just that degree of care? "Why," you point out, "it depends on how far one might go in the matter." What do you mean by that? I ask. "Oh," you explain, "it might depend on whether one were doing it in order to deceive the guests for the sake of display, or in order to please the guests." Yes, the motive has a good deal to do with it. Do you suppose it ever happens, for instance, that one may try at such a time to hide a lot of rubbish in a corner behind a screen, and so make a house look neat and tidy to the eye, when it is really very untidy indeed ? "That might occur," you admit. But would it be 344 DUTIES IN THE HOME. deception if practiced in that way in the presence of a guest? "Surely." Why so? I ask. • "Because," you tell me, "that is done in order to make the guest believe that one has one's house look- ing as neat and tidy as that all the while." You assume, do you, there is a difference between being a little formal when a guest is in the house, and on the other hand putting on a great deal of show or make-believe? But why is it right that we should be a little more formal, or take more pains about order and appear- ance when a guest is in the house, than when we are by ourselves ? "Because the guest may not be used tO' our home ways; or our usual home life might be a little unpleasant for him, although we should not look upon it exactly as disorder." "Then, too," you add, "while it is impossible to be always 'dressed up,' as we say, or to have the house always looking just right, we should like to do it when the guest is present because he may be there only for a short time." When, for example, there is a guest in the house, what person is really the most important individual there? "Why, it is th$ guest, of course." But what does it mean, to make him the most important person ? "As to that," you point out, "all the plans of the house are made with reference to him, in order to give him pleasure, or to make' him feel at home." Do you think that it would be selfish on his part to allow a family to treat him in that way? "Not necessarily ?" Why not ? I ask. "Because he is not in his own home; he cannot dO' as he pleases to the same extent. He is like a stranger in a strange place." By the way, what do we call the persons who DUTIES -IN THE HOME. 345 receive the guest; the ones, for instance, who are receiving the call or giving the dinner or having the guest stay in their house? "Why, they are host and hostess." Suppose, for instance, when a guest is staying at the house the host or hostess should put themselves forward, talk about themselves, consider their own pleasures first, rather than those of the guest, how would it strike you ? "Oh, that would be the worst kind of conduct." But why? It is one's own house. "True," you insist, "but in the presence of a guest in the home one should keep one's self in the background and put the guest in the foreground." You assume, do you, that if the members of a family give a reception, they are not to think of their own pleasure at the time or to think about looking after themselves? "Certainly not; they ought to center their whole thought on their guests in order to give those persons the greatest amount of pleasure." But is not that pretty hard, that they should not think about their own pleasure? "True," you answer, "but such persons at some other time will be guests at some other people's homes, and some other people will think then about giving than pleasure." What if an individual is staying in the home for a short time, and the host or hostess should all the time wear better clothes than the guest ? How would it make the latter feel ? "Why, it would make him feel uncomfortable, as though he were not dressed well enough. He would be made 'self-conscious,' as we say." What would it be doing on the part of the host and hostess; what would it imply? "As to that," you tell me, "it would be like putting themselves 346 DUTIES IN THE HOME. forward, making themselves more conspicuous than their guests." Suppose, for instance, a guest breaks a glass or knocks something over, some article of furniture, commits some unfortunate mistake, how does the host or hostess act in regard to the matter? "Why, they treat it as being of no consequence, make light of it, try to make the person feel as if it were not any matter at all." But should one do this tO' a greater degree 'than if the same thing happened elsewhere, in a position where there was no relationship of guest and host? "Yes, surely," you insist. And why so ? "Because a guest is a guest, and it is one's duty to make him as comfortable as possible while he is in one's house." What if boys or girls come to your house to play with you and they suggest one game and you sug- gest another, which one should give way? "Oh, that is plain enough. Those that come as the guests should have the choice." And why so? "Because they are the guests," you answer. You mean, do you, that they have more rights than you in your own home? That seems strange. "No, not rights, exactly," you say. What, then? I ask. "Why, they ought to have more privileges. As host or hostess we ought tO' keep ourselves in the background and think first about the pleasure of those staying with us as our guests." Another question occurs at this point. Would the length of time a person was a guest in the house, make any difference as to the degree you would dis- commode yourself on his account? "Oh, yes, perhaps the shorter the time he stays, the more we should put ourselves out on his account or the more we should put ourselves in the back- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 347 ground." Yes, I suspect that is a very good rule to follow, although it might have exceptions. What if you were asked, for instance, to give up your room' for the sake of a guest who was to come foT two or three days, making yourself uncomforta- ble on his account, would it seem right? "Why, yes, if there was no other way of providing for him." Would you like that? "It might come rather hard," you admit. But is a guest in the house always a guest of the whole family? That is quite an important point I ask you to consider. "No, he might be the guest of only one member of the family." Do you mean that, altogether? "No, not quite." What would you say, then? "Oh," you explain, "any person coming to see one member of the fam- ily and who does not belong to the home, is in a sense a guest of the whole household." Why so? I ask. "Because the home belongs to all of us." Do you think, then, you ought to put yourself out somewhat for one who' is a guest in the house, even if he has come mainly to see some other member of the family? "Yes," you say, "only, the one whom he has come to see should take more pains than the others." But now we must look at another side of the sub- ject. We have been talking of the relationship between guest and host as if all the responsibility or duty rested with the host? Is that true? What if you were a guest in a home and took up much more attention than was necessary, or allowed people to put themselves out for you much more than was required, — doing it on a theory that you were a guest and that the whole household ought to think about you ? How would such conduct look ? "Why," you tell me, "that would not be nice at all. It would be downright selfishness." What 348 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ought you to do, then, when all the members of the family are trying to entertain you? ' "As to that," you explain, "we ought to be con- siderate; we should talce care not to cause more trouble than necessary; although it would be right for us to cause some trouble, inasmuch as we should be the guest." You assume, do you, that a guest should be thoughtful or considerate about the trouble he makes in a household or home? You imply that he may allow a family tO' put him into the foreground for a short time, but that he should take care and be thoughtful about the interest of the others there ? How would it look, for instance, if as a guest in the house, you should talk about what you had tO' eat at the table, should find fault, or tell how much better things were in your own home? "Why, that would not be a true way of being considerate." Do you suppose it ever happens that a person may be a guest in a home where the people have done their best to entertain him; and then he has gone home and found fault afterward with the way he was treated, or laughed about what he saw there? "You hope that never happens?" Yes, but I am afraid it does happen sometimes, bad as it may seem to us all. That is a form of what we call "vulgarity." We should expect unrefined persons, people who had bad manners, to act in that way. We can often judge about the r(?finement of a person or about his character by the way he con- ducts himself either as a host or, on the other hand, as a guest. This applies not only tO' the time when the person is in the home of the host, but afterwards in the way he talks or in what he says about his experiences there. As a matter of fact, from the earliest times, the DUTIES IN THE HOME. 349 relationship between host and guest has always been looked upon as something peculiarly important. It has often been felt that when people had taken a meal together, it formed a certain tie between them which must never be overlooked and which lasted forever. Did you ever hear the phrase "breaking bread together ?" "Oh, yes !" Do you see what it implies ? "Why, it means taking a meal together." Yes, quite true. Sometimes, you know, people will say, "Let's break bread together," meaning by that, "Let's be friends." There is one quite long word that I should be glad to have you learn and remember in connection with this relationship between the host and the guest. There are many proverbs concerning it and the word is often used by all kinds of people. It begins with a capital H and has four syllables. Can you guess now what it is? "Hospitality?" Yes, that is the word. Suppose we write it down on the blackboard and let it stand there in large letters : HOSPITALITY. Do you think, by the way, that a person who is really selfish at heart would show such conduct to other people as guests in his home? "Probably not?" True; it requires, then, a generous spirit in order to deal in the right way toward a guest. On the other hand, do you believe that a man could be selfish and really sacrifice the interest of his own family in order to make a show of hospitality? Might that happen? "Oh, yes, but that would not be the same thing; it would be done, in that case, for the purpose of making a show, and not from a truly generous spirit of hospitality." 350 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Yes, I agree with you. Sometimes it does occur that the welfare of the members of the home is over- looked and neglected because people like to "show off" toward guests in the display they make. We must never forget the old adage: Charity begins at home. Memory Gem. "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unaivares." Points of t3ie Ikesson. I. That there are various types of guests according to the purpose or occasion for which they have been invited, and therefore that they are to be treated in different vsrays. II. That it is right to give especial attention to the appear- ance of the house and home when a guest is present there. Ill That when there is a guest in the house the members of the family should expect to sacrifice their own pleasures in part to the pleasures or comfort of the guest. IV. That putting on a great deal of show or make-believe in the way the members of the house dress, or in display, may be a sham rather than a true hospitality. V That a guest has certain rights or privileges, just be- cause he is a guest and not in his own home. VI. That a host must think of the pleasure of his guests and not of his own pleasure when he has invited them to his house VII. That a guest should try not to be selfish when in the home of other people. VIII. That a person should be very considerate of the way he talks afterward concerning the family with which he has been staying as a guest. IX. That there has always been a certain feeling of sacred- ness about "breaking bread together," or the laws of hos- pitality. Duties. /. We ought to treat the invited guest in oup home as our superior and consider his pleasures before our own. II. We ought as far as possible, to do all we cam, to make the guest feel perfectly free and at home with us in the family. III. We ought as guests in the house of others DUTIES IN THE HOME. 35 1 to try to make as little trouble as possible under the circumstances. IV. We ought to be ready to be of service in helping one another when any one member of the family may have a special friend as guest in the home. V. We ought to respect the laws of hospitality which have been made sacred by the customs and traditions of past times. Poem, There are loyal hearts, there are spirits brave. There are souls that are pure and true ; Then give to the world the best you have. And the best shall come back to you. Give love, and love to your heart will flow, A strength in your utmost need; Have faith and a score of hearts will show Their faith in your word and deed. For life is the mirror of king and slave, 'Tis just what you are and do ; Then give to the world the best you have. And the best will come back to you. — Madeline S. Bridges. Further SuersTestlons to the Teacher. The subject of this chapter should prove interest- ing to the young people and offer a great variety of topics for discussion. We might make out a whole catalogue of suggestions as to what could be done for the guest in the home. But for this pur- pose, the teacher will be obliged to draw largely on the experience of adults. We could dwell, for exam- ple, on the care one should take not to make unpleas- ant remarks or to start objectionable subjects for conversation at such times. We may not argue with the guest or dispute with him quite in the way we should do if we met him outside the home. We must make it plain that in a sense he is at a disad- vantage when in a strange house, so that it would be 352 DUTIES IN THE HOME. an act of chivalry tO' guard one's self from giving him offense in any way. Much could be said about the subject of hospitality and its historic significance. We might analyze a number of the proverbs on this point which have become classic in the world's litera- ture. So', too, we could discuss all the duties and obligations involved in the many relations between guest and host. This will offer opportunity indi- rectly for a consideration of habits of selfishness in the home. The most important point for us to treat, however, will be the distinction between what would be "make-believe" on our part as hosts on the one hand, in the way we dress or conduct ourselves, or in the way we arrange the house while a guest is present ; and on the other hand, what degree of for- mality would really be due from us to a guest at such a time. The ethical problems here are subtle and yet very important. All the while, as heretO'- fore, we shall be obliged to be on our guard not to seem to draw our examples from the homes of the pupils themselves. Possibly we may accomplish our purpose in this direction by discussing the rela- tions between guest and host among the children themselves. At the same time, our chief aim should be rather to lodge certain fundamental principles on the whole subject in the minds of the young people. Unfortunately, it will be impossible to make as much of the lesson on the duties toward the "stranger" as would have been customary in former times. We can explain how it is that the world has changed since those rules were first established. The precepts which would have had significance in the days of Homer, could not be followed literally at the pres- ent time. There are more people in the world now ; human relations are more complex; and we have now the "tramp" stranger. But in spite of these changes, we should hold aloft the beautiful signifi- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 353 cance of the old word hospitality. It will be observed that for the most part, we have laid our emphasis on the obligations on the part of the host to the guest. But we may also find it advisable to elaborate more from the other side. We should point out how a person may be tempted to take advantage of guest privileges and to display an unwarranted selfishness at such times. The whole subject might also be made more attractive by teUing of customs between host and guest in other parts of the world and how these vary in different countries. But our chief thought must center around the problem as to what should be the true or right spirit of hospitality. For the purpose of illustration in this lesson, stories or anecdotes would be more serviceable than pictures. At the same time thefe are a number of classic scenes which might be introduced if the teacher desires. CHAPTER XXVII. one's private room in the home. PioverTjB or Verses. "What you dislike for yourself do not like for me.'' "Such as are careless of themselves can hardly be mind- ful of others." "A man is not always known by his looks, nor is the sea measured by the bushel." Sialogrue. In the majority of homes thei^e are apartments which would not be regarded quite as hving rooms, and not be occupied by all the members of the family indiscriminately. "True," you say, "these would be the sleeping apartments for the members of the household." And how many people would be assigned to a room, do you think? "In a comfortable home, prob- ably not more than two persons, unless it happens to be a little child, who could sleep in a cradle or cot." Yes, and in large houses it is often so arranged that each person has a bedroom all tO' himself. In this respect what would be the contrast between a bedroom or sleeping-room, and the living rooms of the house? "Why, the bedroom is more private; it is like one's private room." In what other ways, for instance, is it one's pri- vate room, apart from the fact that as a rule it is not occiipied by other members of the family? "Oh, one iiiay keep special things there, belonging exclu- sively to one's self." What kind of things, for instance? "Why, pho- tographs, books, pictures, presents which one may have received, anything or everything of that kind, and one's clothing, most of all." 354 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 355 And how do these things differ from the objects in the living room of the house? "As to that," you explain, "they belong to us privately; they are our own property." , Yes, but is that all ? Are not some of the things belonging to you or other members of the family, kept in the reception room, the living-room or the dining-room of the house ? "That sometimes happens," you admit, "when such objects may be of interest to the others or of service to all." You imply, do you, that those articles which you keep in your own room are such things as you most particularly care for, or such as would not be used or required by the other members of the home? Do you think it is nice to have a private apart- ment all for one's self. Would you be glad to have such a room where you could sleep by yourself at night, where you could sometimes go and be alone by yourself, and where you could keep the things you especially own or care for ? "Oh, yes, indeed !" you exclaim. What difference would it make, whether you had such a private room all to yourself. "As to that," you point out, "under those conditions one could be more independent ; one could keep things there and follow one's ov/n likings, and not be constrained all the while by what some one else wanted or liked." Yes, that is true. But besides all this, what else do we have our bedroom for, what other purpose does it serve? "Why, it is where one sleeps, where one takes care of one's person." True; and that is another reason, I fancy, why one would be glad if it were possible, to have a private apartment to one's self. At this point, I should like to ask you an odd ques- tion : Do people always keep their bedrooms look- 356 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ing in the same neat and tidy way, as the reception or living-rooms are kept? "No," you admit, "quite the contrary." Do you suppose it might happen that a person would blush if he were suddenly told that somebody had entered his bedroom when he was not there? "Yes?" you hesitate. But why? What would it matter? "Oh," you tell me, "one might feel ashamed at the way the room looked, or at what might be seen there." But how does it happen that the same care has not been taken with our private apartments, as with the living room or reception room in the house ? "As to that," you point out, "one is liable to be more careless about one's own room." Yes, that is quite often true. And why ? "Because," you continue, "as a rule perhaps we know that friends or strangers will not see the con- dition there." And yet you told me, did you not, that a person would actually blush sometimes, if his room were seen by others just in the way he had left it. Do you mean by this, that he only cares to be neat in so far as other people's opinions are concerned, and not on his own account? "No, not exactly that," you say, "only somehow one may become care- less in spite of one's self about one's private room." Do you think it would make any difference in your opinion of a person, if by accident you came into his bedroom when he was not there, and found soiled clothes lying around on the floor or on the chairs, the bed not made up, articles of wearing apparel not put away? "Yes, somehow it would affect our feeling of respect for that person." But why? I keep asking; when you admit that sometimes it may happen s6 even in one's own room ? "Well," you confess, "somehow it strikes us as DUTIES IN THE HOME. 357 rather disgusting to feel that a certain person may be neat and look all right in the presence of others, but be slovenly, untidy, neglectful of neatness or cleanliness when all by himself." Suppose, for instance, you had by such an acci- dent seen a person's room in that condition, and felt a sense of disgust at the sight of it ; and then after- wards you were to meet that person. What, do you think, would first come to your mind on seeing him ? "Oh, that bedroom and the way it looked." And what sort of a feeling would come over you at that instant ; — a sense of disgust ? "Perhaps so," you acknowledge. On the other hand, what if, when in the company of others, you should suddenly happen to think of your own bedroom, and remember that it had been left in such a disgraceful condition, what kind of a feeling would you have about yourself? "A sense of self-contempt?" True; it is possible that one may come to have a sort of disgust for one's self at the thought of one's neglected bedroom or private apartment. But if one took pains, what could one do to make one's private room more attractive to one's self? "Have pretty pictures on the wall?" Yes, and what else could one have? "Some books of one's own on a shelf or on a table?" True. It may be one of the nicest ways of helping to furnish one's private room just to have a few nice books there, belonging wholly to one's self, books with one's own name in them? Would it not be a nice thing to begin to form a little library of one's own in that way? Suppose, however, it happens that two persons are obliged to occupy the same room, would it be just as easy to have one's own way there, always? "Not by any means," you assert. Why not ? "Oh, 358 DUTIES IN THE HOME. because one may want things one way, and the other may want things another way." In that case, which should have his own way and rule in the matter? "Neither one?" Why not? I ask. "Because it is the room belonging to both of them." What, then, must each one do ? "Give in to the other a little?" Yes, that is true. Certainly when twO' persons occupy the same room, neither one has a right to act as if he owned it all for himself. Do you know, by the way, what we should call such a person, who appropriates everything to him- self in that way ? It is a pretty long word. But you will hear it often when you grow older. We might speak of such a person as a "monopolist." Do you understand what that word means ? "Why it suggests taking things all to one's self, monopolizing something, as if it belonged exclu- sively to one's self." Yes; and I am sorry to say that when two persons occupy the same room in a house, one of them often acts very much like a monopolist, as if the room belonged to him and not to both of them. If, however, a person really did want to keep his room so that he should not be ashamed of it in case some one were to enter there when he was absent, what is the best thing for him to do ? "Why," you point out, "look after it and see that the room is kept in a right condition all the time." But one cannot be thinking about such trifling matters every minute of the day. At what time, especially, could one pay attention to one's room, in that manner? At the end of the day, for example, would you suggest? "No, perhaps better the first thing in the morning, just before leaving one's room." Yes, I believe you are right, although it may come rather hard, because one may be rather hungry for one's breakfast. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 359 But it would be very fortunate if one could form the habit before leaving one's room in the morning, of stopping to put things away, and then taking one last look before closing the door, — ^asking one's self whether one should feel ashamed if one's friend should accidentally be obliged to enter there a few minutes after. Do you think, by the way, that it is selfish for a person to want to have a pretty bedroom, an attrac- tive apartment all for one's self, with objects there belonging to one's self alone? "No," you answer, "not if one does not carry it toO' far." You assume that if a person insisted 'On having the best room in the house and taking things which belonged to the whole family just for his special room, such conduct would really be selfish? "Yes, if carried as far as that." You don't imply, do' you, if a certain member of the family took more pains with his room in order to have it pretty or to decorate it, and therefore had the prettiest apartment in the house, that this would be selfish on his part? "No," you say, "quite the contrary." Why not? "Because if he made his room so attractive in that way, it would not be taking anything from the other members of the family ; it would only come from the greater pains he took, himself." But is there not one other reason why a person should be careful about preserving the dignity of his private room? Which apartment somehow comes closest to us, — the reception room in the house, the dining room, the living room or the bedroom ? "Why, the last," you say. Yes, that is true; it is something like the underclothing which touches us, coming right in contact with our person. Hence one's self-respect is liable to sufifer more, I am inclined to think, from wearing soiled underclothing, 360 DUTIES IN THE HOME. than from having one's outer wearing apparel in a soiled condition. Just so it may be that one's self-respect may sufifer more by being neglectful about one's own bedroom, than even about the living rooms of the house. We can see this from the fact we have already admitted, that somehow we have a feeling of disgust or almost of contempt for a person if we happen by accident to see his bedroom and find it in a neglected, untidy or uncleanly condition. It strikes us in that case as if there were some- thing wanting in the dignity of such a person ; as if he did not quite respect himself. And so we, too, cannot have quite the same respect for him. Does it follow, then, that care of the home should begin with the private rooms or one's sleeping apart- ments? Memory Gem. "Bread of falsehood is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel." Points of the I>esBon. I. That one's private room is an apartment peculiarly con- nected with one's personality. II. That there are some people very neglectful of the appearance of such apartments, while very careful of the living-room or parlor in the house. III. That the discovery of such neglect in regard to another person may arouse a sense of disgust for him. IV. That a person neglectful in this way of his own private room is liable to lose his own self-respect. V. That when two persons occupy the same private room they must expect mutually to give in somewhat to each other. VI. That one may take special pains to decorate his private room with books or his own private belongings. VII. That -the way one cares for or is neglectful of his private room or his belongings there, often gives a very clear indication of one's character. Duties. /. We ought for the sake of our own self-respect to take special care of our private rooms in the home. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 361 //. We ought to be mutually considerate of the feelings of each other when occupying the same pri- vate room in the home. Poem. O that those lips had language ! Life has passed With me but roughly since I heard thee last. Those lips are thine — thy own sweet smile I see, The same that oft in childhood solaced me; Voice only fails, else how distinct they say, "Grieve not, my child, chase all thy fears away!" welcome guest, though unexpected here! Who bidst me honor with an artless song. Affectionate, a mother lost so long. 1 will obey — not willingly alone. But gladly, as the precept were her own; And, while that face renews my filial grief, Fancy shall weave a charm for my relief. Shall steep me in Elysian revery, A momentary dream that thou art she. My mother! when I learned that thou wast dead. Say, wast thou conscious of the tears I shed? Hovered thy spirit o'er thy sorrowing son — Wretch even then, life's journey just begun? Perhaps thou gavest me, though unfelt, a kiss; Perhaps a tear, if souls can weep in bliss — Ah, that maternal smile ! it answers — -Yes. I heard the bell tolled on thy burial day; I saw the hearse that bore thee slow away; And, turning from my nursery window, drew A long, long sigh, and wept a last adieu ! Thus many a sad tomorrow came and went. Till, all my stock of infant sorrows spent, I learnt at last submission to my lot; But though I less deplored thee, ne'er forgot. Where once we dwelt our name is heard no more; Children not thine have trod my nursery floor; Short-lived possession ! but the record fair. That memory keeps of all thy kindness there. Still outlives many a storm that has effaced A thousand other themes, less deeply traced; .Thy nightly visits to my chamber made. That thou mightst know me safe and warmly laid; Thy morning bounties ere I left my home — The biscuit or confectionery plum; The fragrant waters on my cheeks bestowed By thy own hand, till fresh they shone and glowed — All this, and, more endearing still than all. Thy constant flow of love, that knew no fall — 362 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Ne'er roughened by those cataracts and breaks That humor interposed too often makes; All this, still legible in memory's page, And still to be so to my latest age. Adds joy to duty, makes me glad to pay Such honors to thee as my numbers may. Could these few pleasant days again appear, Might one wish bring them, would I wish them here? I would not trust my heart — ^the dear delight Seems so to be desired, perhaps I might. And now, farewell ! Time, unrevoked, has run His wonted course; yet what I wished is done. By contemplation's help, not sought in vain, I seem to have lived my childhood o'er agam — To have renewed the joys that once were mine. Without the sin of violating thine ; And, while the wings of fancy still are free, And I can view this mimic show of thee. Time has but half succeeded in his theft — Thyself removed, thy power to soothe me left. — William Cowper. TvaWnsr Sug'g'estions to the Teacher. We shall be dealing once more in this lesson with some of the points touched upon in the chapter on "Eye-Service in the Home." It may not prove a very interesting or attractive subject to the young people and yet it should not be overlooked. The method of treatment here must depend a great deal on the type of pupils in the class, and their spe- cial family environment. We cannot draw quite the same distinctions or emphasize the same principles where children are much crowded together in the household. The normal situation would be, per- haps, that each person after leaving childhood should have his own private room. This may be unusual, however, in the average household in our large cities. But whatever the circumstances, we should do something to make the boy or girl under- stand to what degree one's self-respect is connected with the way one conducts one's self in one's private room, or in the care one takes of that apartment. On the other hand, we cannot quite make the same DUTIES IN THE HOME. 363 points in this connection for boys and girls alike. It would be better on the whole, therefore, if the members of the class could be separated into two groups when we come to this special chapter. The problems will be somewhat different and the sug- gestions we have to offer will vary. Girls will nat- urally care more about the special rooms they occupy, partly for the reason that they go to them more often or are in those apartments a greater length of time in the course of twenty-four hours. To the boy, it is moTe often just a sleeping room and no more. But in his case it is equally important that we lay down a few emphatic rules or precepts. While he may value the privilege of having such a room for himself less than the girl would do, he is to understand that his self-respect will also depend on the way that special apartment looks and the pains he takes in having everything in order there. The decorative features may appeal to him less ; but the proprieties should hold ior him just the same. We might go back once more to the chapter on "Neatness and Order" in the previous volume, "Les- sons on the Habits." Something could be said about the importance of ventilation for one's sleeping room. We should deal with this not merely as a problem of health, but as having significance even for one's character. We might illustrate by the habit which people are said to have in certain parts of the world of burning pastilles in order to change the unpleasant odors of the room, instead of open- ing the windows and letting in fresh air when people come into the apartment and find the atmos- phere close or oppressive. The problems which arise concerning the way people should deal with one another in case more than one occupies the same sleeping apartment, are also very important. We might touch upon the proprieties to be observed in 3^4 DUTIES IN THE HOME. the care of one's person in the presence of others, or the extent to which this should be considered among those occupying the same room together. We could allude to the old proverb about "familiar- ity breeding contempt," and ask whether this may apply to these circumstances, and whether it would not be well for one toi try toi exercise a certain privacy even when an apartment is used by more than one member of the family. There are ethical elements of great significance to be developed along this line. It is a character study and not merely a health problem we are concerned with in this chap- ter. We should do everything in our power to make the subject interesting and attractive. In discussing it more especially with girls, we might have a great deal tO' say with regard to decorative features for the bedroom. We could point out the custom which people often have, of keeping what we call souvenirs there, — objects associated with past pleasures and experiences, treasures which may have nO' actual money value and yet be O'f great personal value to one's self. We might first deal with the negatives, the "do' not's," in connection with the care of one's private room and one's conduct there, pointing out what would be objectionable and what should never be done. We should give graphic descriptions of such apartments when they are left in neglect. This negative aspect might be emphasized in talking with the boys. Then in the second place, we should con- sider the positive features, what each and every one might do for his or her private apartments, how to make them more attractive, what decorations would be most fitting there. Young people will naturally assert that we cannot possibly always maintain the same neatness and order in such a room that one might preserve in a parlor. This qualification must be accepted a^ a matter of course. But while the DUTIES tN THE HOME. 365 distinction is recognized on our part, we should not for a moment tolerate the thought that on this account the order there is of less importance. Many- additional features could be touched upon, which are not alluded to in the Dialoigue. We should go into the subject in much detail. For the young people this is expressly a lesson in personal dignity and self-respect. Before concluding the discussion something might be said concerning the Poem by William Cowper, especially as it has become a classic in English literature. We have inserted it only in part because of its length. But the teacher could easily secure a copy of this poet's works and read all the lines aloud, if he desires. We should men- tion the title, "My Mother's Picture," and possibly offer the suggestion that throughout one's whole life one might always have photographs of one's parents in one's private room, for the sake of the associations connected with them, and also as a trib- ute of respect and affection to one's father and mother. Picture material would be of great value for this chapter if rightly introduced. We might have a scene of a pretty bedroom neatly and taste- fully arranged, simple in design but well cared for. Then by contrast we could display another picture of a room untidy in appearance, showing the habit of neglect on the part of the occupant there. We are not for a moment to hint that any such bad habits prevail in the homes of these young people them- selves. Our illustrations should seem to come from an outside world. CHAPTER XXVIII. FAMILY PRIDE AND FAMILY HONOR. Froveibs ox Terses. "A great man will not trample on a worm nor sneak to an emperor." "A man is not a lord because he feeds off fine dishes." "A man may love his house and yet not ride on the ridge." "Every man is not born with a silver spoon in his mouth." "Every man is the sum of his own works." "Man carries his superiority inside, animals theirs outside." "High birth is a poor dish at table." "It is better to be the best of a low family than the worst of a noble one." "It is a worthier thing to deserve honor than to possess it." Slalosrne. Have you ever talked about the subject of pride or heard other people talk about it? I suppose you have heard of "proud people," have you not? "Oh, yes." And how do we usually feel in regard to this feel- ing ? Do we admire it when we come in contact with it in other people? "On the contrary, it is usually looked upon as something bad." If it happens to be family pride, what would you say to a feeling of that kind ? "It depends on what is meant by the term," you answer. Suppose yoii tell me what you mean by it. Give me an instance of a person who might take pride in his family. "Well, for example, one might show that feeling because one's family was rich or had a great deal of money." But why should a person be proud on that account? What reason would there be for it? "No special reason; only it so happens that some people do have that feeling and show it." 366 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 367 Now on the other hand, what if a son of a certain family should do something brave, show great cour- age ; and then the father and mother and other chil- dren should feel glad over that bravery or take pride in it because one of their family has shown such courage, — what would you say as to that ? Do you think it would be a bad feeling, or one that they ought to be ashamed of ? "No," you assert, "quite the contrary." But what would be the difference between this and the pride of belonging to a rich family? "Why," you explain, "in the one case it is pride in mere money, — and there may be nothing grand or noble in the mere ability to make money or in the simple fact of pos- sessing it." And how about that other case where the mem- bers of the family were proud about the brave con- duct of one of their number? "That is another matter," you continue; "it is perfectly natural and right that we should rejoice over noble conduct on the part of some one belonging to our family." But why, for instance, should I take pride in such conduct if it happens to have been by one of my family? It is not anything that I have done, my- self. "Yes, but it was something done by a brother or sister." Does that prove that you might do such a thing yourself, or that you might show that same sort of a brave and noble spirit under the same circum- stances? "Not necessarily," you confess. How then should it affect you? "As to that," you insist, "it was something done by some one from our home, and anything affecting the life of one in the home affects the life of us all." You mean, do you, that you have some right to claim a share in the good conduct of others in your home? "Yes, certainly." But could you offer this 368 DUTIES IN THE HOME. as an excuse for bad conduct on your part? "No, not quite that." Would you not say it was selfish on your part to take pride in anything that had been done- by another person, even if it be a member of your fam- ily? "Well, it may depend on the way one shows the feeling." What do you mean by that? I ask. "Why, if one acts as if one has done that deed, one's self, or as if one should be admired by other people on that account ; or if, for instance, one 'puts on airs,' as we say, and talks a great deal about his family because of what it had done, then," you assert, "it shows a selfish feeling." But in what way could pride in one's family exist and not be selfish? "As to that," you point out, "in so far as it is a pleasure in thinking of the con- duct of another member of our family or in the honor which had come to all of us because of such conduct, it might be the right sort of a feeling." You assume, do you, that family pride in this respect might be right and not like a, self-esteem, of which one should be ashamed? You imply that it may be a worthy feeling because it is something you all share together in the home? Yes, I agree with you; family pride in a certain sense is a right and noble sort of feeling if shown in the right way, and if it is for what is truly noble and fine. You see, you have distinguished between the pride in what one may just happen to possess, from pride in conduct. But can you suggest any other kind of family pride besides that for wealth or for some fine and noble conduct on the part of a member of the fam- ily ? "Yes," you add, "there is pride in one's ances- tors." DUTIES IN THE HOME. 369 And what do you mean by family pride of that kind? "Oh, it may refer to the pleasure a person feels in great or important deeds on the part of his ancestors, just as he may rejoice in the conduct on the part of some member of the family now alive." But do you believe that a family pride might exist, even if one's ancestors had not done anything very brave or vei-y important? How would it he if one could trace back one's ancestors for several genera- tions and found that they had been an earnest or worthy class of people? Would that lead to family pride, do you suppose? "Probably so?" What do you think about this feehng of pleasure or pride in one's ancestors, or in having good "ances- try," as we say? Do you admire it? "You don't see much sense in it?" Why not? I ask. "Oh," you exclaim, "what difference does it make as far as we are concerned ? We are the same persons, whatever our ancestors may have been !" But if this is true, how do you account for the fact that so many people have taken pride in their ances- tors? "Well, for instance, it may be just vanity, because one feels one's self more important, by talk- ing about one's ancestors." Yes, I suspect that has something to do with pride in one's aricestors. It is a way of making one's self important. Do you suppose it happens often, or that there are many persons who show this feeling? "It may depend on what part oi the world we are speaking of," you add. What do you imply by that? I ask. "Why," you tell me, "we know that in Europe people care a great deal about ancestry, that 'family' counts for a great deal more there than it' does in America." Yes, that is true. In many large houses or man- sions in Europe, you will find portrait galleries of 370 DUTIES IN THE HOME. pictures of the ancestors of those special families for many past generations. But what harm do you suppose might come from family pride in one's ancestors, or in the great wealth of a family? "As to that," you continue, "one might be inclined to think too well of one's self on that account." What do you mean by that? "Why," you add, "one might be a very ordinary person and yet think one's self something quite unusual, solely because of such family pride." You imply, do you, that it might encourage a foolish vanity for something one does not have in one's self? But what harm would that vanity do? "As to that," you suggest, "it might lead a person to put too high an estimate on his abilities, or it might keep him from trying to improve himself; it might make him indolent, leading him to feel that it was not important for him to exert himself or to accomplish anything." Yes, you are right on that point. A mistaken family pride has made many boys or girls, young men or women, careless about improving themselves or exerting themselves; leading them to think too highly of themselves so that they really never amounted to anything at all. Do you know, for instance, in regard to great inventors, that this class of men usually, — though not always — are what we call "self-made men," who have known little about their ancestors and who have had no family pride? Somehow when we study history, it would seem as if pride in family tended to make people live on the respect for their ancestors rather than by any- thing they might do for themselves. But now I ask you to consider carefully and tell me whether a certain pleasure in thinking of one's DUTIES IN THE HOME. 37I ancestors may not be a right sort of a feeling, and whether the evil v/hich has resulted from family pride may not have come from a wrong idea as to what such pride should be? Don't you believe, for instance, it would be all right for one to take pride in one's father if he had been a fine, noble man, earnest and worthy in every respect? "Oh, yes; but that is when it is one's father." And still, might it not happen that such pride could lead to vanity just the same and be an injury to the children, if it were indulged in the wrong way? You see, it makes a great difference whether we set up claims for ourselves, as if we were ourselves any better just because of our ancestors ; or whether on the other hand, it is a' simple feeling of pleasure in the conduct or character of one's family as a family. Might it not be a right or harmless sort of feeling, if one does not make too many claims for one's self on account of it? May it not be that there is a fam- ily pride that is just vanity, and on the other hand, a worthy pride in the regard or respect one has for one's home and all that pertains to one's home or family ? You have spoken about the evils which have come from family pride. I wonder if you can suggest anything good that might come from a feeling of that kind, among all the members of the family ? Suppose something should happen to threaten the good name or honor of the home. Perhaps under those circumstances by a right kind of effort on the part of all the members of the family, they might save their good name or preserve the honor of the family. What if in such a home there were no feeling of 372 BUTIES IN THE HOME. family pride at all; and suppose the danger to the good name of the home was coming from the con- duct of one member of it only, what would the other members do ? Would they try very hard to save the family honor? "No," you answer, "they would not care, if they had no family pride. They would let the dishonor fall on the one who would be guilty, and make no special effort to save the good name of the home itself." But if it so happened that there was real, family pride; if the members of that household had been accustomed to take pleasure in knowing that many of their ancestors had been earnest and worthy peo- ple and that the family had had a good name for many generations; how would they be inclined to act under the circumstances I am speaking of ? "Why," you suggest, "they would undertake, every one of them, tO' do all they could to avert the evil and to save the family honor, so that the good name of the family would continue." So you think, that pride of the right kind would be of real value to a home? It has happened, for instance, sometimes, that the father of a household dies in debt. If he had lived he would have paid those debts; but his end came before he could do so. Then the children, having a feeling of family honor, have worked for years in order to pay off those debts of their father, so as to save his good name and preserve the good name and honor of the family. Then again, I could give you another illustration where a member oif a home shows a true sense of family pride. Suppose the case that he comes undei- a severe temptation and is at the point of commit- ting an act which would disgrace him for life. Would he have any other reason or any other mO'- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 373 tive helping to keep him from yielding to the temp- tation, besides the disgrace itself? "Oh yes, there would be the family honor or the family good name." True; you are right on that point. Many a man or woman has been saved from yielding tO' temptation, because of such pride, in fear of bringmg disgrace upon the honor of their family. Speaking, on the other hand, about the vanity one may feel in knowing the names of one's ancestors, did it ever cross your mind how many ancestors one may have had, if we look back a few hundred years ? It would startle you if you were to see the figures when you get into the great-great-great- great-great-grandfathers and grandmothers. I might read you something, by the way, which has come down to us from the wise philosopher, Socrates, whose name you will hear many times in the course of your life. He was talking about how much more important it was that one should think about one's own conduct and one's own self-im- provement than about the names or conduct of one's ancestors ; and of such a wise person he went on to say: "When he hears of large landed properties of ten thousand acres or more, he thinks of the whole earth ; or if he is told of the antiquity of a family, he remembers that every one has had myriads of progenitors, rich and poor, Greeks and barbarians, kings and slaves. And he who boasts of his descent from Amphitryon in the twenty-fifth generation may, if he pleases, add as many more and double that again, and our philosopher only laughs at his inability to do a larger sum." And so you see by what we have been saying at this time, that there are two sides to family pride, a good and a bad side. It may on the one hand be an empty feeling of vanity; or on the other hand, it may be a regard for family honor and a sense of 374 DUTIES IN THE HOME. loyalty to one's home, or to the family to which one belongs. Slemoxy Gem. "When pride cometh, then cometh shame, but with the lowly is wisdom." Points of the Iieaaon. I. That there may be both a good as well as a bad kind of family pride. II. That we are justified in feeling pleasure over the good or brave conduct of any member of our family. III. That the bad kind of family pride fosters self-conceit and is made a substitute for self-exertion. IV. That we are entitled to feel an interest or pride in the conduct of our ancestors, provided we do not claim it as something we could have done ourselves. V. That family honor may be a valuable motive in up- holding people under very' severe temptation. VI. That those who have achieved the most for the world, great inventors or discoverers or reformers, have usually been men who were not boastful of their ancestry. Duties. /. We ought to show a pleasure in the worthy conduct of one another in the family. II. We ought not to be offensive to others by a boastful family pride. III. We ought in all our conduct to feel a mu- tual responsibility for the honor of the family to which" we belong. IV. We ought, above everything else, to respect a man for what he is in himself, irrespective even of the home or family of which 'he has been a mem~ ber. Foem. Is there, when the winds are singing In the happy summer time — When the raptured air is ringing With Earth's music heavenward springing. Forest chirp, and village chime — Is there, of the sounds that float, Unsighingly, a single note Half so sweet, and clear, and wild, As the laughter of a child ? fiUTiES In the home. 375 Listen ! and be now delighted : Morn hath touched her golden strings; Earth and sky their vows have plighted; Life and Light are reunited Amid countless carollings; Yet, delicious as they are. There's a sound that's sweeter far — One that makes the heart rejoice More than all — the human voice ! Organ finer, deeper, clearer, Though it be a stranger's tone — Than the winds or waters dearer, More enchanting to the hearer, For it answereth to his own. But, of all its witching words. Those are sweetest, bubbling wild Through the laughter of a child. Harmonies from time-touched towers. Haunted strains from rivulets, Hum of bees among the flowers, Rustling leaves, and silver showers — These, ere long, the ear forgets; But in mine there is a sound Ringing on the whole year round — Heart-deep laughter that I heard Ere my child could speak a word. Ah ! 'twas heard by ear far purer, Fondlier formed to catch the strain — Ear of one whose love is surer — Hers, the mother, the endurer Of the deepest share of pain; Hers the deepest bliss to treasure Memories of that cry of pleasure ; Hers to hoard, a lifetime after. Echoes of that infant laughter. 'Tis a mother's large affection Hears with a mysterious sense Breathings that evade detection, Whisper faint, and fine inflection, Thrill in her with power intense. Childhood's hoHeyed words untaught Liveth she in loving thought — Tones that never thence depart; For she listens — with her heart. ■Laman Blanchard. 37^ DUTIES IN THE HOME. Farther Sug'g'estions to the Teacher. If the teacher should find any difficulty in develop- ing this special lesson, he might simply ask the young people to read over the Dialogue for them- selves. We ought not to ignore the subject alto- gether for it has a certain lasting significance. It would not be well for us to suggest that any person is hopelessly dishonored for life by any bad conduct on the part of another member of the home. We must still hold to the principle that each person must shape his own career and has his destiny in his own hands. At the same time, there is an element of mutual responsibility for one another's conduct in the home. We cannot escape from this fact. Our effort, however, should be to center the thought on one's own life in this connection. We are to ask ourselves what harm we individually might do to the family honor, rather than to consider what harm might be done in this way by the others. On the other hand, we shall accomplish something by draw- ing the right distinctions between true and false family pride. A great deal of unfortunate cojifusion prevails nowadays on this subject. Hence it is, that one class of persons despise such a feeling and speak of it with contempt, while others exaggerate its im- portance. If we undertake to slight it or treat it as of no account, we shall simply be proceeding in defiance of feelings which have become almost instinctive in human nature. It will be far better for us to discuss the problem, point out some of the mistakes along this line, while recognizing that there is a certain legitimate field for true family pride. We may even allow that there is such a thing as a family self-respect, just as there is a personal self- respect for the individual. In this case, it rests with each person to do what he can to preserve this feeling and uphold it. But we may distinguish DUTIES IN THE HOME. 377 between this wholesome attitude on the one side, and, on the other, the weak vanity which might be dis- played in name or ancestry. We should admit frankly that there may be an honest pride among all the individuals of the family, in honest achievement by any member of our home, although this should be distinguished from pride in money or wealth as such. In place of picture material for this lesson, one could introduce stories or biographies illustrat- ing some of the points we have made. We might draw on literature for this purpose, by this means pointing out various examples of true and false Pride in Family. CHAPTER XXIX. THANKSGIVING DAY AS A FAMILY FESTIVAL. Proverbs or Verses. "Old thanks pay not for a new debt " "Gratefulness is the poor man's payment." "There is not a more pleasant exercise of the mind than gratitude." — Addison. "You may believe anything that is good of a grateful man." "A satiated mouth soon forgets the benefactor." "A thankless man never does a thankful deed." "An ungrateful man is a tub full of holes." "Ingratitude is the daughter of pride." — Don Quixote. "Gratitude is a fruit of great cultivation ; you don't find jt among gross people." — Samuel Johnson. Bialog'ue. In one lesson we alluded to^ festivals in the home. What does that term mean? What does it suggest to you? "Why, it is a time of rejoicing, when everybody is supposed to be happy, or to be in a 'festive' mood." Merely joyous or happy, and no more, do you im- ply? If a person stayed by himself on such occa- sions, went on in his work quietly as before, but merely felt a little more joyous at heart, would he be keeping a festival? "Not in the usual way, at any rate," you assert. And why not? I ask. "Because on such occasions people usually come together in groups for the pur- pose of having pleasure in common, while meet- ing one another and getting the additional satisfac- tion of one another's company." Yes, that is true. It is not easy to think of one individual keeping a festival all by himself. At 378 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 379 such times we get together almost instinctively, either as members of a family or as comrades or as fellow-citizens. In some way it seems to involve the element of good fellowship, of mutual pleasure in one another's company. But besides this, what is the other feature we usually associate with festivals? How can people assemble in groups to enjoy themselves if the work they are accustomed to do must go on as before? "As to that," you point out, "usually people have a holiday and stop working at festival times." Yes, that is true for the most part, although not always. Then, too', often on the most important festival days some people must work, simply in order that others may enjoy themselves. What are some of the important festivals in the year, for example, when work usually stops for most persons? "The Fourth of July?" Yes. That is a national festival. And is it a holiday for everybody? "No, not quite," you admit. Why not? I insist. The facto- ries are usually closed on that day, the shops or stores are not open, men do not go to their offices or to their banks, business seems to be at a standstill at such times. "Quite true," you say, "but what about railway trains, the street cars and the men employed in that line of work ?" Why should they not also have a holiday ; why is it necessary that the street cars should run? I ask. "Oh well," you add, "if this were not done, people could not travel about in order to meet one another, and they could not hold a real festival." If so, it implies, does it not, that the pleasures of a great many people must be sacrificed on such occasions in order that other people may have their pleasures? When we are rejoicing on festival days, other 380 DUTIES IN THE HOME. individuals may be working very hard indeed. Per- haps we ought to think of this and appreciate such sacrifices on the part of others. Is this trye also of our home life? When chil- dren are at play in the household, are the other members of the family always at leisure and free to enjoy themselves? "No," you admit, "they may be obliged to work, simply in order that we may be able to play or amuse ourselves." . Yes, it is true of the home as of the big world outside. We cannot all play at the same time, and some must sacrifice themselves for others, in order that people may come together and rejoice on festival days. But now let me ask you what other important day in the year do we keep in this way ? Usually it comes in the fall time, in November. "Oh, it is Thanks- giving Day," you exclaim. Yes, and in what way is this unlike the Fourth of July, as a holiday? "As to that," you explain, "it is also a religious festival." True; you are right. At that time many people assemble for wor- ship in the churches. And why should they do this? I ask. "Because," you point out, "it is Thanksgiving Day." And what does that imply? "It means," you tell me, "that we are expected especially at that time to feel gratitude for all the good things of life, or show thankfulness for any good fortune which may have befallen us in the course of the preceding year." Yes, that is the point. It is looked upon in part as a religious festival, because on that day it is assumed that we shall be in a grateful mood and in some way manifest our sense of gratitude to the Father-over-all for the blessings we have received. It is first and foremost a day of thanksgiving. "True," you add, "but some people may have had DUTIES IN THE HOME. 381 misfortune rather than good fortune during the pre- ceding year, and they may not be in a mood to rejoice." But, I ask, would that be true for every- body? "No, surely not!" And do you mean to say that we can only rejoice or be thankful over good fortune which may have befallen ourselves personally? That would seem a little selfish, it strikes me. "No," you admit, "peo- ple could at least be thankful for the blessings which had befallen others, and keep the thanksgiving fes- tival in that spirit." Yes, I am glad you suggest that other feature. We are to be thankful not simply for what may have happened to ourselves, but for what may have hap- pened in the way of good fortune to everybody anywhere. We rejoice together on that day in a common spirit and not as single individuals. But besides this, what other feature do we usually associate with this November festival, especially in connection with our home life? "As to that," you point out, "it is quite customary for people on that day to come together as families, to assemble at a common table and meet one another there." True, it is a fact that persons will often travel long distances at that time in order to be together in the home. Can you suggest how it is that Thanksgiving Day should have become peculiarly a family festival, besides being a festival of thanks- giving to the Father-over-all? It may not be easy for you at first to understand this. But you will appreciate the point if you know a little more about the history of this festival. At what time in the year does it usually come, did we say? "In the fall?" Yes. And in what month ? "November ?" True. But why does it not come in the spring- time? I ask. "You do not know?" Suppose now 382 DUTIES IN THE HOME. we connect it with people who live by agriculture. At what time would they be most inclined to come together in the spirit of thanksgiving? Would it be at the beginning of their season's work, or rather at the close of it? "Oh, at the close, of course," you assure me. But why so? "Well, for one reason," you point out, "perhaps they would be much too busy at any other time or too much preoccupied with their work." Yes; but is that all? Even if they had the time for it, do you think they would hold such a festival in the springtime? "No," you answer, "they would wait until harvest was over and they could look back with gratitude on the outcome of their work." Yes, that is the point. I fancy that Thanks- giving is something of a harvest festival. And why, I ask, should people feel in a grateful mood at that period of the year? "It would be," you say, "be- cause they could look back and realize what bless- ings they had received as the fruit of their labors." Yes, I suspect you are right. Thanksgiving Day was probably in its earliest form an old agricultural festival, celebrated by people who tilled the soil. They had to work very hard and were glad when the arduous labors of the season were over, and they could rest a little and be grateful. By why should this have made it peculiarly a home festival? I ask. "As to that," you explain, "it might be because at the close of the season when the hard work had come to an end, people would like to get together and meet one another." True. When we feel the common spirit of grati- tude, it is natural for us to^ wish to come together and rejoice. But if so, why is it that they should especially draw together as families? "It is nat- ural," you answer; "they would like first to meet with those with whom they have been most inti- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 383 mately associated in focmer times; with the ones who have been nearest and dearest to them." Yes, that is the point. I think this explains why Thanksgiving Day is pecuUarly a family festival. When our work is over for a time, we are inclined to seek out those who have been the dearest to us and enter once more for a little while into closer fellowship with them. And yet is Thanksgiving Day, as we understand it, commemorated all over the world? "You do' not know?" Well, I can answer that question. In the form in which we keep that day, it is peculiar to the United States of America. Who selects the day, for example; who appoints it for this country, doi you know? "The Presi- dent?" Yes, although the governors of the vari- ous states usually issue a proclamation at the same time, calling upon the people to unite in thanksgiv- ing. And do the governors and the President always fix on the same day ? "Usually so, at any rate," you answer. Yes, though not quite always, I can tell you. In the latter case, what would happen? "Why," you explain, "there would be two Thanksgiving Days for the people of that special state ; and some persons might choose tO' keep the one, and others choose to celebrate the other." Do you know, by the way, what is the origin of this festival in the United States ? Has it been cus- tomary for the President to appoint such a day once a year ever since our government was organized? "Yoti do not know ?" Well, I can tell you. It has become a regular custom only since the time of the great Civil War. After the proclamation by Abrahami Lincoln, appointing Thanksgiving Day in 1863, the Presi- 384 DUTIES IN THE HOME. dent has fixed a day in November each year for this special purpose. Do you know, I wonder, what was the first Thanksgiving Day appointed by any President of the United States? "No," you hesi- tate. But let me ask you, what was the great event leading to the organization of our government, and the founding of this Union? "The Revolutionary War," you suggest. No. The United States of America did not exist as a nation immediately after the Declaration of Independence in 1776. I am thinking rather of the adoption of our Con- stitution. It will interest you to know, therefore, that the first Thanksgiving Day proclamation was issued by Washington when he called upon the peo- ple to express their gratitude for the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, and the day he set apart for that purpose was Thursday, Novem- ber 26th, 1789. Occasionally after that time a President would appoint a special day in November for the purpose. But it did not become a fixed custom until the time of Lincoln. Some of the states, however, celebrated Thanksgiving Days when no such appointment had been made by the President. "It looks, then," you add, "as if this festival had been established- gradually rather than all at once." Yes, you are right, — although now it is a fixed insti- tution with lis and will probably be an important festival in the life of this people every year in all future times. Are you aware, by the way, in what part of the country the custom arose? "No," you hesitate. Well, I can tell you that it began in New England a long while ago, and from there it gradually spread all over the United States. What, may I ask you, was the first Thanksgiving DUTIES IN THE HOME. 385 Day ever appointed in this country? "The one by Washington," you suggest. No^, it was long before that time; and it is connected with the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the year 1620. You remember what a severe experience those people had during that winter. They had arrived in the cold, snowy period of December. During the next few months nearly half of their number died of cold Or starvation. A part of them survived, however, planted seed in the soil next spring and were able to gather a small harvest before the end of the year. Then about that time a new ship arrived with more people. The ones who had been there for upwards of a year and gone through such terrible experiences, were so rejoiced over this event and so glad and relieved that they had come through alive, that they appointed a Thanksgiving Day and had a ■great festival. "If all that is true," you add, "why do we connect Thanksgiving Day with the original 'harvest festi- val' for all the world ?" I appreciate your question, but must remind you that we said it was peculiar to America only in the special form in which we cele- brate it. Do you suppose that the human race would have been in existence for thousands of years, and never have felt gratitude for the blessings received and never had festivals of thanksgiving? "That does not seem possible," you admit. You are quite right. A festival of this kind in one form or another has been customary among other races in other parts of the world and in for- mer times. By what other name, do you think, it would per- haps have been described in early days ? With what special event did we say that it has been associated? 386 DUTIES IN THE HOME. "The harvest or harvest-time?" Yes; as a harvest festival, it may have been celebrated thousands of years ago." In Palestine, for example, in the old days there was what they called the "Feast of the Taberna- cles." People would go out from their homes and build little houses or huts, making them of the branches of trees and calling them tabernacles. And they would live in these huts for several .days, rejoic- ing together, having games perhaps, and feeling thankful for the blessings they had received during the previous year. There was a similar festival held in Greece known as the "Feast of Demeter," because Demeter was the goddess of corn or grain and of the harvest. The people of that country at that time also proba- bly had games and made themselves merry, just as others were doing over in Palestine. So, too, you may have heard of the festival called the "Cerelia," kept by the people of Roine. It was connected with the name of Ceres, whoi, as you remember, was looked upon as the goddess of the harvest. You may have seen pictures of the statue of Ceres as the figure of a beautiful woman with her arms full of sheaves of wheat. In modern times also every now and then in Eu- rope, they have special Thanksgiving Days, not con- nected with the harvest time, but appointed in order to express gratitude over a great good fortune Avhich may have befallen the people. But, on the whole, I think we shall all agree that our way of celebrating Thanksgiving Day is most pleasing and the most beautiful. With us, it is becoming more and more the great Family Festival. But all the while we must never forget the fact that it is a day for thanksgiving; and it should be DUTIES IN THE HOME. 387 the spirit of gratitude wliich brings us together on that day. We meet together in our homes and sit down at a common table on a Thursday in November, rejoic- ing in thankfulness for the blessings we have received, and most of all, perhaps, for the blessing of Home and Family. Memory Qem. "There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing; there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great wealth." Points of the Wesson. I. That a festival day implies a time of rest and rejoicing. II. That we only commemorate it truly by coming together in some way in a spirit of fellowship. III. That in this country, in contrast with the Fourth of July, as the great national festival, we have in November a Thanksgiving Day, which is also in part a religious festival. IV. That Thanksgiving Day has become for the people of this country the great home or family festival of the year. V. That as an institution it has developed gradually in this country and only become a fixed institution since the time of Abraham Lincoln. VI. That the first Thanksgiving Day on this continent was appointed in the year 1621 in Massachusetts, by those of the "Pilgrims" who had survived the terrible experiences of suflFering of the preceding season. VII. That Thanksgiving Day may have had its origin in earlier times as a harvest festival, and in this form has ex- isted 'to a greater or less extent for thousands of years. VIII. That Thanksgiving Days are appointed occasionally by other countries in connection with special events, but that as a fixed institution in the form in which we know it, we are to look upon it as peculiarly a festival of the people of the United States of America. Duties. I. We ought to feel grateful to the Father-over- all for the blessings we receive. II. We ought to rejoice with others over bless- ings which may have befallen them, even when our ovm experiences for a time may have been for the most part of a painful kind. 388 DUTIES IN THE HOME. ///. We ought to show our gratitude in the spirit of good fellowship, and by drawing nearer together in mutual sympathy, as we keep the festival of Thanksgiving Day. Though we must wait while others sow, Let us be glad for sowing, For fields that ripened row on row, ' And for all good things growing. Though others reap where we must glean, We know the hidden meaning Of scattered grain' the rows between. Be thankful for the gleaning. Though we be mute when others sing, Let us be glad for singing. We know the silent chords that cling, A helpful impulse bringing; For hushed songs within the heart That still the restless riot Against that which gives us no part. Be thankful for the quiet. Though others smile when we must sigh. Let us be glad for smiling, For laughter's promised by-and-by Our hearts and hopes beguiling. For this day's blows but coax to form A glorious tomorrow — Show dawn rays in the night of storm. Be thankful for our sorrow. While others wake 'tis ours to dream — Let us be glad for dreaming, For present cloud and coming gleam. For shadow and for seeming. For dreaming of the pleasant ways With joy to lend or borrow— . Be glad for cherished yesterdays, Be thankful for to-morrow. —W. D. Nesbit. Further Siig'g'estions to the Teacher. It would be advisable tO' introduce this lesson dur- ing the week preceding Thanksgiving Day. The teacher might enlarge further upon the religious as- DUTIES IN THE HOME. 389 pects, at his discretion. So, too, there is great op- portunity for dealing with the historic features of the subject. This will add a charm to the discus- sion and give a much broader aspect to the theme. We might describe further the details of the "Feast of Tabernacles" in the early days of life in Palestine, also telling more about the "Cerelia Festival" in Rome and the "Feast of Demeter" among the Greeks. We could show a picture of Ceres and De- meter from statues which have been preserved since those early times. It would be possible also to men- tion various Thanksgiving Days which have been appointed by European nations in connection with important events. But it would be of special signi- ' ficance to go further intO' detail with regard tO' the history of this institution in our own country. The leading encyclopaedias will all contain suggestive accounts of the rise of Thanksgiving Day. We should, however, emphasize the home features of the institution, explaining why it has become peculiarly such a home or family festival. It is important that we should not allow the pupils to overlook the dis- tinctive characteristic conveyed in the name of the festival. Young people ought to look upon it as something rfiore than a mere holiday. We should discuss the subject of gratitude and make it very plain why we ought tO' have this feeling, and why we set apart one day in connection with it. We might point out the danger O'f making Thanksgiving Day a mere festival O'f eating and drinking ; while at the same time we explain the appropriateness of the reunion of the members of the home on such an oc- casion at the family table It is right and fitting that "good cheer' should be especially associated with this festival in the minds o'f young and old alike. CHAPTER XXX. COMMEMORATION OF BIRTHDAYS IN THE HOME. FroverliB or Verses. "In the short life of man no lost time can be afforded." "Life is not to be bought with heaps of gold." — Homer. "Nor life, nor death they deem the happier state ; But life that's glorious, or death that's great." — Greek. "Nor love thy life, nor hate, but what thou liv'st. Live well, how long or short permit to heaven." —Milton. Dialog'ue. We have talked about Thanksgiving Day and connected it with the home hfe, while explaining what other elements were also involved in it. But is there any festival which is peculiar to home life or tO' each one's own personal life ? There is one day in the year which is of special significance for each individual, and yet it may not come on the same date for all the members in the family. "Oh, yes," you exclaim, "it is one's birth- day." True, each of us may celebrate the anniversary of his birthday, once in the year. But do you see any meaning or significance in commemorating an event of this kind ? It is plain enough why we should have a national festival, or a Thanksgiving Day. But why a festival in connection with one's own personal career ? Does it not look as if in this way each, individual were making himself rather important, putting the anniversary of his birth forward as of so much sig- 3C0 DUTIES IN THE HOME. 391 nificance for himself and the other members of the family? "As to that," you point out, "the birthday for each individual may be commemorated by others as well as by himself." You imply, dO' you, that it is not exactly a personal festival? "On the contrary," you tell me, "it should be a day of rejoicing for all the members of the family. It ought to be in every instance a home festival." You mean tO' say that the birthday of each person should have special significance for every member of the home to which he belongs? "Yes, indeed!" Why SO'? I ask. "Because," you explain, "they are all glad that he or she is a member of their home. They rejoice over the presence of that person as one of their number." By the way, did you ever see a birthday-cake? "Yes," you smile. Is it a universal custom? I ask. "Perhaps not," you answer; "but it is usual in a (great many homes." And what significance does it have ? « Is it mere play, would you assume ? Do you see any serious point to it? What is done with the cake, by the way ? Does the person whose birthday is being commemorated at that time, eat it all by himself? "No," you answer, "all the members of the family partake of it." And why so? I ask. "Because," you explain, "they express in this way their common pleasure in the anniversary of the birthday of one of their num- ber." This implies, then, does it, that it is not pe- culiarly a festival for the individual whose birth is being cojnmemorated ? "No," you answer, "it is a day of rejoicing for everybody. The anniversary of each person's birth- day, is a home festival for all the members of the family." Yes, surely! 392 DUTIES IN THE HOME. If soi, we can begin to recognize the serious feat- ures of some of the beautiful 'customs connected with birthdays. It is not a selfish joy in one's own life that erne may feel at such a time ; but a mutual spirit of rejoicing on the part of everybody in the home. It is an expression of our love fo'r one another. What solemn significance, then, may be connected with "the eating of a birthday-cake? "Why," you explain, "it is a symbol; by this means we express our sense of fellowship in the household." Yes, you are right. There has alv/ays been a peculiar feeling con- nected with the act of partaldng of food together. We alluded to this circumstance when discussing the subject of hospitality. It came out again in connec- tion with the Thanksgiving Day festival. We see it once more in the birthday-cake or in the family celebration of the birthdays of the members of the home. Why, for example, should your parents take pains to' commemorate this special day in your lives ? Is it merely, do you think, in order tO' give you pleasure? "No," you add, "it may be also an ex- pression of their own rejoicing." Yes, surely. By this means, they also show how glad they are that you were born, that you are members of the home, and that they have you as their children. By the way, whose birthday should be looked upon as the most important in the family? Yours, for example? "No," you answer. Whose, then? I ask. "Why, that of our parents," you exclaim. True. We agreed upon that, in a previous discus- sion. Young people should think first of all about com- memorating the anniversary of the birthdays of their DUTIES IN THE HOME. 3^S fathers and mothers. And what might they do, for instance, on such occasions? "Oh," you point out, "they could try in various ways to give additional pleasure to their parents at such a time ; think less at that moment of their own amusements and more about what they can do to give joy to those parents. What other feeling would be expressed on your part by this means? "Affection or love?" Yes, and what else? "Gratitude?" Quite so; that is what I am thinking of just now. There are times when we ought not only to feel thankful, but to show it by our acts in what we say or do. It is also well perhaps that we select special occasions for this purpose, anniversaries in the lives of others. Suppose, by the way, when you are grown up, you are no longer living with your father or mother. What might you do to give them joy in connec- tion with their birthdays? "As to that," you tell me, "we might go personally to see them in their home, take a meal with them, if possible, sit down at the table with them, make them see that we always remember 'the time of their birthdays." Xrue, I add; but you may not be living in the same town or city with them. You may be far away in some other part of the world. "In that case," you tell me, "we could at least write to them at such a time, send them little gifts, and in some way let them know that we are thinking of them." Yes, I like that suggestion and it is a very impor- tant one. We should always take pains through- out onr lives to remember the anniversary of the birthdays of our parents, and to let them know that we do think of them at such a time. Is it fitting, by the way, for us to allow people to commemorate our birthdays in the home? Is it 394 DUTIES IN THE HOME. right that we should treat such an event as of so much importance? "Yes," you insist, "because it is not merely celebrating an event by ourselves in connection with our own lives; we all do this to- gether." I catch your point; it means that at such a time when your birthday is being commemorated, you may show your good feeling for the others while others are showing their good feeling for you. It is the mutual element in it which makes it so sig- nificant. How about the birthdays of your brothers or sis- ters? "These also are important," you answer, "and should not be overlooked." And what, I ask, could we do for one another at such times? "Why," you point out, "we can take a little extra pains to give pleasure tO' the one whose birthday is being celebrated." By gifts, do' you mean? "Yes, or by other little favors we may do for them." But suppose you can- not do anything in the way of favors or make any special gifts? "In that case," you answer, "one could at least say something nice to the other, ex- press words of good feeling or love at such a time." How will it be likewise when as brothers and sis- ters you are grown up and separated ? Will it mat- ter, then, whether you think about one another's birthdays? "Yes," you insist, "if we have been members of the same home we could remember one another at such times by making calls, writing a let- ter, doing something tO' show our mutual affection." Yes, I am glad that you feel in this way. It is a beautiful old custom for members of the family to commemorate one another's birthdays, and espe- cially to think of one another and to communicate with one another at such times. What other purpose may this serve, I ask, besides DUTIES IN THE HOME. 395 giving pleasure to one another? "Oh, it may hold the members of the family together, preserving the home ties." Yes, that is a good suggestion. There can never be too much love in the world or too much affection. It is well that we should do all that we can to keep these feelings warm in our hearts. But now, most of all, what is it that we commem- orate in connection with the birthday of another? I will answer the question myself. It is the solemn fact of life or of human existence. When we cele- brate that day with another, we express our joy in the fact that he or she is alive. It is a rejoicing in the very fact of life itself, and especially in the life or lives of others. Your pa- rents are glad at heart for your existence, both for their own account and on your account. You are glad over the existence of your parents for your sakes and for their sakes, and as brothers and sisters you rejoice in the existence of one another for one another's sakes. It is a glorious thing to have life. It is right that we should rejoice in it for ourselves, and it is a glo- rious thing to rejoice and be glad in the life of oth- ers. But now again, let me ask you : is it possible that the anniversary of one's birthday could have a peculiar significance as a festival just for one's self? It is plain enough why we should rejoice in con- nection with such an event in the Hfe of others in the home. But why should we make anything of our own birthdays ? Suppose you are alone somewhere in the world, away from all your friends, would there be any meaning in commemorating that anniversary in con- nection with your own life? "Perhaps not," you answer. And why so? I ask. "Because others would not be there tO' rejoice with us." 396 DUTIES IN THE HOME. But think now a little further. We have said that the commemoration of a birthday is connected with our regard for life itself. It may be that your father and mother rejoice over these anniversaries in your lives because of the gift which they received when you were born. "Is life a gift?" you ask. Yes, I answer, it must be so; it came to you. You have not made your- selves. One might say to one's self: Life, beauti- ful life, is a gift to me, and the more satisfaction I get out of it the more beautiful is the gift. If so, I ask, may it not be fitting once in the year that we should somehow .commemorate the anni- versary of that gift, as it were, and the day when we received the gift of life? You remember we talked about the word "trust," and how something may be "entrusted" to us. Your father, for example, might put something in your charge and tell you to be very careful of it, not to injure it in any way, but to preserve it until he asks for it again. This would be something "en- trusted" to your care. May it be, I ask, that this life of yours is some- thing which has been "entrusted" to you? If so, when your birthday comes around you may com- memorate that trust which you have received. When your parents celebrate the anniversary of your birthday, they do more than merely express their rejoicing that they have you as their child. It is also' on their part an acknowledgment of the feel- mg that you and your Hfe has been entrusted to them and toi their care; that you, as a child, are a trust in their charge. If one of your parents were to put something in your care for awhile, and you were neglectful of it or injured it in any way, would you not then feel ashamed and wish that you had acted otherwise? DUTIES IN THE HOME. 397 Is it possible,,! ask, that people who have received life as a trust, may be neglectful of such a trust? Think of the man who wastes his life, who does not try to improve himself or to do anything for other people, the man who cares only for eating and drinking and selfish pleasures all his days, — perhaps eating too much or drinking too much and becoming a glutton or a drunkard. He has been careless with the something "en- trusted" to him. He has neglected or wasted the life which came to him as a gift or a charge. You see, when commemorating the anniversary of the birthday of others we make it a festival of joy, as a day of gladness ; but when we celebrate our own birthday somehow it sets us to thinking. And it will do this more and more, I assure you, as you grow older. To children a birthday usually means only a day of excitement and pleasure. But to grown people, it often has a very solemn signifi- cance. At such times they are inclined tO' look back over their lives and to ask themselves whether they have been living in just the right way, making the most of life, or whether they have been wasting the gift they received. For them, it is often a day for thinking over the past and perhaps making resolutions for the future. Many a man has changed the whole course of his life, when his birthday came around and he was led to think how he had been wasting the precious gift he had received. Well, this will perhaps seem a little far away to you and not mean a great deal. But you may recall at a future time when you are grown up, what we have been saying now, and it may mean a great deal to you then. Birthdays in the way we celebrate them for 398 DUTIES IN THE HOME. Others, are periods of rejoicing, good fellowship and the expression of good will. They link us together as members of the same home and the same family. But for ourselves as we grow older, they are periods for thinking or reflection and continue to have an ever deeper significance. Memory G-em. "He that covereth his transgressions shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall obtain mercy." Points of the Iiesson. I. That the commemoration of birthdays constitutes a peculiar feature of home and family life. II. That it is right and fitting that we should celebrate one another's birthdays in the home. III. That most of all we should take pains to commemorate the birthdays of our parents. IV. That we should continue to recognize the birthdays of those of OUT family all their life. V. That the commemoration of one another's birthdays helps to preserve the tie of affection among members of the same household. VI. That the commemoration of any one's birthday in the home is not necessarily selfish on the part of the one whose birthday is commemorated. VII. That the commemoration of a birthday by any indi- vidual may have a peculiarly solemn significance for the person himself, because it may lead him to think more upon the gift of life and the duty of making the most of that gift. VIII. That life in a sense is a trust committed to our care, and that in the commemoration of a birthday we are reminded of the importance of this trust. Duties. /. We ought in some way to commemorate the birthdays of the members of our home and family. II. We ought especially to remember our parents and show them some special attention on their birth- days. III. Members of a home ought to commemorate one another's birthdays throughout life, in order to preserve more completely the tie of family affection. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 399 IV. We ought to look upon life as a trust com- mitted to our charge, and in celebrating the anni- versaries of our birthdays we ought always to ask ourselves whether we are being true to the trust. Poem. I have got a new-born sister; I was nigh the first that kissed her, When the nprsing woman brought her To papa, his infant daughter, How papa's eyes did glisten; She will shortly be to christen, And papa has made the offer, I shall have the naming of her. Now I wonder what would please her — Charlotte, Julia, or Louisa? Ann and Mary, they're too common-; Joan's too formal for a woman ; Jane's a prettier name beside; But we had a Jane that died. They would say if 'twas Rebecca That she was a little Quaker. Edith's pretty, but that looks Better in old English books. Ellen's left off long ago ; Blanche is out of fashion now. None that I have named as yet Are as good as Margaret. Emily is neat and fine ; What do you think of Caroline? How I'm puzzled and perplexed What to choose or think of next ! I am in a little fever Lest the name that I should give her Should disgrace her or defame her — I will leave papa to name her. — Mary Lamb. VaxMhwi Sag-g-eiitlozis to the Teaclier. The point we introduce at the close of the lesson may seem beyond the reach or grasp of the young people in the class. If so, it could be ignored entirely. It has, however, an important significance if we can find a way of lodging it as a sentiment in the young mind. The teacher, however, must exer- 400 DUTIES IN THE HOME. cise his own discretion in this matter. We have often introduced thoughts in this way on the sup- position that they can be developed further, or on the other hand, be passed over in silence. At times it may be sufficient to let the pupils read the para- graphs over by themselves without comment. If possible and there is opportunity, we could say something about the history of the birthday-cake, as a custom in certain parts of the world in connection with the birthday festival. The children will be interested in the candle feature and in the number which is supposed to correspond with the age of the person whose birthday is being celebrated. We shall accomplish a good deal if we can attach a little more serious significance to this subject of birthday festi- vals. The whole theme is a beautiful one for dis- cussion if it is rightly treated and interpreted. We ought not to make toO' much of the gift feature in connection with it ; but we should have a good deal to say about the little favors or acts of kindness we could do for others on such occasions. A list of examples should be suggested in this connection. Furthermore, the subject ofifers opportunity to touch on the great problem as to the preservation of fam- ily affection after the young people^ have passed on into adult life. Over and over again we emphasize this latter point because of its great importance. CHAPTER XXXI. THE HUMAN RACE AS ONE FAMILY. Proverbs or Verses. "Man carries his superiority inside; animals theirs outside." "Anything that happens to a human being is of concern to me." — Terence. "I prefer ray family to myself, my country to my family, and the human race to my country." — Fenelon. "The narrow minded ask, Is this one of our tribe or is he a stranger? But to those who are of a noble disposition the whole world is but one family." — Hindu Hitopadessa. "We are by nature made to love mankind." — Cicero. Dlalogne. I wonder if you have ever known of persons who never liked to do- anything for anybody else unless they were paid for it. Do you suppose people of that kind have ever lived ? "Yes," you say, "there are such persons." But why do' you hesitate, as if it seemed rather strange to you? Why should people not expect to be paid for what they do? How else could they earn their living ? "Of course," you answer, "they must expect to be paid for their work part of the time ; that is under- stood : — ^but, then, surely not always." Why not always f Work is work? You have heard the saying: "The laborer is worthy of his hire." Why, then, should not a man always expect to be paid back again in some way, for everything he does? "Because," you assert, "a man who always did that, would be a selfish sort of a person/' 401 402 DUTIES IN THE HOME. You inean, do you, that you would not admire a man who invariably expected to be paid for his work ? But what if he only required a fair pay and no more; why should he not ask for it? "As to that," you explain, "sometimes a person would not be able to pay anything ; an individual might be very much reduced in circumstances, or very poor, and not able toi make a return for what has been done for him." You assume that sometimes one should actually do work for another without expecting pay for it? But now when a man does that, when he really per- forms some work for another without looking for any return, what do we call it? "Being kind?" Yes. But is there another word for it ? Can you think of any other term ? "Being unselfish?" Yes, it is also unselfish. But that is not the answei^ I am looking for. Think again. Under what circumstances is it that people have to do' the most of this work for others without pay? Is it, for example, in business affairs? "No," you tell me, "people are usually paid for their work in the business world." Well, where, then? "Oh, in the home, in the family." Now we are coming to the point I have in mind. And so it is in the home, where we are often expected to do work without being paid for it. And between what mem- bers of the family, especially? "Why," you continue, "fathers and mothers have to work in that way for the children." Yes, we have talked about that before. But among the younger members of the family — how is it there? When one brother asks for some help from another brother, does the latter usually insist on being paid for it ? "Sometimes?" Paid how I ask, — in money? "No, not exactly in that way, but by a return of favors." DUTIES IN THE HOME. 403 Yes, but ,would one not be supposed to do the service, one brother for another, even if there were to be no return of favors? "Surely, even then." It is between brothers especially, you think, that such services are rendered or such sacrifices made? Can you tell me, then, how you would describe the spirit actuating- that kind of work which is per- formed without the expectation of definite pay? Suppose we call it "being brotherly." Ho'W then, would you define brotherliness, after what we have said ? "Why," you explain, "it implies being ready to do something for others without ask- ing to be paid for it." And SO' "brotherliness" also suggests the spirit in which we are to deal toward one another as brothers and sisters. It is a beautiful term, and I wish you would write it down and make careful note of it. In regard tO' brotherliness, you say, do you, that it applies only to brothers and sisters ? Would there be no sense in the words if some one should talk about two men acting in a "brotherly way" toward each other, in case they were not really brothers ? You believe, do you, that people never use such language? "On the contrary," you answer, "some- times they speak in just that way." But how is that possible? Have we any other brothers besides those in our own family? "No, not exactly," you reply. Then what sense would there be in speaking of brotherliness or a brotherly spirit being shown among men who are not broth- ers? "Why," you explain, "sometimes people do things for one another when they are not brothers, and without expecting to be paid for it, in that way act- ing just as if they were of the same family, and so one calls it brotherliness." How far doi you think this relationship should 404 DUTIES IN THE HOME. extend? What other persons, for instance, should we treat sometimes in this way, just as if they were brother's? "One's personal friends, for example?" You mean, do you, that you would never do any- thing for others than your personal friends, without expecting tO' be paid for it? "Oh, yes," you add, "sometimes." Well, what other persons? "Why, one's fellow-citizens, perhaps." In what way may we show a feeling of brotherli- ness toward our fellow-citizens whom we do not know? "Oh," you answer, "when we do anything for the good of our city, or for the good of our coun- try, we may be doing it from a brotherly feeling, with a desire to be of service to our fellow-citizens." You feel, do you, that in a certain sense, the word brotherliness not only applies to members in the same family, or to personal friends, but to all the people in the same country who are our fellow- citizens ? It strikes me, then, that we belong to a pretty large family and that we all have a good many brothers and sisters. But is that the end of it? Is there nobody else to whom we are to act some- times as if they were brothers? If people in other countries need any favors, we should always expect to be paid for them, should we not? "Yes, cer- tainly." You mean that if in some other country thousands of people were starving to death because they had no money to pay for food, we should not be disposed to do anything towards helping them, because they would not have anything to pay us back with ? You think that would be all right, inasmuch as they are not our brothers? "No," you answer, "that would not be all right; it would be decidedly wrong." What ought we to do under such circumstances, do you suppose? DUTIES IN THE HOME. 405 "Why, that is plain enough ; we ought to try to help them." And without pay, do you mean? "Yes, without pay, surely." But in that case I must remind you that we should be dealing with them as if they were brothers, in not asking to be paid back again. Who else, therefore, do you include in the family of your brothers and sisters? People in Europe? "Yes," you admit, "those, too." Any more than that? "Oh, yes," you add, "people everywhere." You assume, dO' you, that there are times when we ought to treat every human being as a brother or sister? If that is so, it looks as if we belonged toi an enormous family. What does it mean when you hear persons speak to you about a Common Human Brotherhood ? Did you ever hear those words? I think we have used them once before. "Yes ?" Suppose you write them down, because they are very important. Now what is implied when we speak of human brotherhood? Does it just mean that members of the same family are all human beings? Is that the sense of it? "No, more than that." What else, then ? "Oh, it must indicate that all persons who are human beings, in a certain sense are brothers?" But in what sense? I ask. They surely are not children of the same father and mother; that would be impossible. "No, but they are all related to one another." In what way ? "Oh, they all belong to the same human race." And what do they have in common? "Why, they all have human speech; they have minds, they have common feelings, they all have souls of some kind." And so it turns out, does it, that besides being allied with individuals in a certain family, somehow 4o6 DUTIES IN THE HOME. wc are brothers and sisters to everybody, to every human being? What if, in this connection, I mention some forms of speech in frequent use. Did you ever hear the command, "Be not angry with thy brother?" Do you think that apphes only to the brothers and sis- ters in your own family? If you heard this charge read aloud, is that the way you would interpret it? "Not necessarily?" Then what persons would be included ? What other people besides those in your own family? "Oh, everybody; it means," you say, "that one should not get angry with people." Do you assume that everywhere people always act as if they were all brothers, and in a brotherly spirit? I see that you are smiling at the question. "On the contrary," you answer, "they act often- times as if they were anything but brothers." In what way? I ask. "Oh, they try to cheat one another; not only do they ask to be paid for their work for others, but to be paid more than they deserve." Anything else? How is it between nations ? Do they always act as if the citizens of the two coun- tries were brothers? "Alas, no!" you exclaim; look at the wars, at the way people try to kill one another !" Yes, I fear you are right. Though we ought to act as if we were all brothers, men do not act in that way always. But do you suppose that people have always believed in our human brotherhood ? Has it always been understood that we were to deal with every- body or the whole human race in a sense as if they were members of one family ? "Why not?" you ask. Well, that is a mistake. You know the human race has been in existence 3i DUTIES IN THE HOME. 407 long while, and people have only come little by little to have the feeling that there is a sort of brother- hood among all human beings. What is it that emphasizes this truth, or would make us believe in it and act upon it ; the' teaching of what, — do you know ? I am thinking of a beau- tiful word beginning with "R," a capital "R." Can you guess what it is ? "Religion?" Yes, that is the word. It is religion which has taught that in a sense all people are brothers and sisters, and that they should all try to help one another without always expecting to be paid for their services. It turns out, then, does it, that there are two kinds of families? "True," you explain, "there is the family where we are brothers and sisters of the same father and mother." Yes, and who' make up the other kind? "Why, everybody; that is the other family; it means all human beings." There are two kinds of brothers and sisters, then, are there not? "Yes, there are the brothers and sis- ters of the same parents." And who constitute the other kind? "All living people?" Yes, all living people. But which do you think would be the happier world; — where human beings merely went on the old theory that the family was only of one kind, just father and mother and their own children, so that people only dealt kindly or did favors to members of their own family, and always expected pay from other people : Or the other kind of a world where human beings somehow felt as if there was another family includ- ing everybody, so that a part oi the work we do for other men should be done without pay, just for the sake of being kind or through a kindly feeling for one another? 4o8 DUTIES IN THE HOME. "Oh, there can be no question about that," you tell me, "surely the second would be the happier world." But why? I ask. In the other condition you would get more pay, you would not be doing part of your work all for nothing. "True," you answer, "but there is another kind of pay besides that in money, or besides the direct returns we may receive from another for work we have done." What sort of pay is it that you are speaking of? You mean to say that there is a pay which never can be rendered in money, or a return which may come while we are not thinking anything about it? "Yes," you say, "it is the satisfaction of having friends, the feeling that other people are friendly to us, as well as the attachment we cherish for other people." You think, then, do you, that that sort of feeling between everybody is something better than money ? Yes, I certainly agree with you. There is nothing much nicer in the world than the liking which people have for one another. It is a pay much superior to money. Those people who show brotherly feelings for one another are often happier, and get more happiness out of life, even if they are paid less money for their work, than those who will never work or do any- thing without being paid for it in some way. Memory Crem. "Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." Points of the Kesson. I. That in the home usually we are to work for one another without expecting to be paid for it. II. That performing service for others without pay is in a sense what we should call being brotherly. III. That we owe some service without pay to other people not of the home — ^to everybody. DUTIES IN THE HOME. 409 IV. That in another sense all men are brothers and that therefore we owe a certain brotherly feeling to everybody. V. That being brotherly toward all human beings has been the great teaching of religion. VI. That there are the two kinds of families — the one where we are born of the same father and mother, and the other the family of the whole Human Race. Poem. Whatever binds our hearts in one I herald as divine — The common light, the genial sun. And stars that watch when days are done, With social impulse shine. What all may love and all may share Hath touch of brotherhood; Our humblest joys of daily fare As well as grace of earth and air, Proclaim a common good. This old, old earth that holds the dead Is half akin to me; It seems to warm beneath my tread, As if its kindly silence said — Thy world is one with thee. Thy world is one from star to soul Where little children call. Or where the mighty planets roll One spirit animates the whole And men are brothers all. — A. E. Cross. Duties. 7. We ought in a certain sense to think of the whole human race as one human family. II. We ought to have a brotherly spirit for the whole human family. III. We ought to he ready to do some brotherly service for all mankind. IV. We ought always to keep in mind the fact of our Common Human Brotherhood. 4IO DUTIES IN THE HOME. Furtlier sog-erestions to tlie Teacber. The theme of this lesson is abstract and calls for a special method of treatment. We might introduce the Dialogue by means of a story or biography, giving an account of some person who has devoted a great deal of his life to the good of the human race. We then could ask the question : what indi- viduals constitute the "family" for such a man, or how large is this family? We cannot expect that the young people should appreciate the full signifi- cance of the point we are making. They will nat- urally be more interested in the persons of their own immediate circle. Yet it may be possible to give them a suggestion of a larger family. We can touch on the blood-tie of kinship. On the other hand, we may also point out the kinship which comes from the characteristics which all human beings possess in contrast with other living creatures. In this way, we can make it plain that there is a bond of union for all mankind on the spiritual side. We belong to one family or one brotherhood because we are all men and women. The younger pupils may be a lit- tle perplexed from the fact that we do not speak about sisters or sisterhood. We must make it plain here as in previous lessons how it is that the terms, "brother," "brotherhood," or "man," have come to be used as applying indiscriminately to sisters and brothers, women and men all alike when we wish to speak of them together. But the girls should be made to see that sisterhood is involved here and would mean the same thing. However abstract the points of the lesson may be, we should do our best to develop them for the sake of the leading thought we wish to impart. It will be easy for the teacher to find stories, poems or biographies which will be of great assistance in developing the main theme. For picture material, in the first place show scenea of DUTIES IN THE HOME. 41 1 brothers and sisters sitting together by the fireside or at work doing something together, or in some manner assisting one another in the spirit of sisterH- ness or brotherUness. Then by contrast introduce other scenes illustrating the larger sense of brother- hood, showing men and women rendering service to one another all over the world. If possible, use por- traits of great and unselfish reformers who may have displayed the spirit of brotherliness even to the point of sacrificing their lives for their fellow-men. We close our series of lessons with the final thought or conception of a World Home, or a World Family. :tlJ