The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-30
LOVE OF CHILDREN.
London Saturday RepietO.


to construct moral saccharometer for mea-
suring the degree of inherent sweetness in
mans nature, we should probably discover
that il varied almost directly as the sympathy
which he felt for very young infants. Human
beings have-fortunstely or unfortunately, as
the case may be-developed no popularity
more decisively as civilization advances than
O power of concealing their feelings. Bitter
experience has taught them to be scrupulously
reticent in the matter of infants.
Were it not for that circumstance,
we might obtain very fair estimate
of the amiable propensities existing
in various persons by presenting to them
baby under six months old, and observing
how they were affected by it. The most SEN
sitive would have their benevolent affections
raised to boiling-point, whilst the more stolid
would sink far below zero. And yet, admit
ting this as q fact of experience, we may
perhaps ask without offense whether there is
any justification for the sentiment on grounds
of pure reason. Why should we be called
upon to love small lump of fat and gristle
with an infinitesimal infusion of soul rather
than fully developed human being Some
people might answer that child is more
innocent than a grown-up man. In
one sense of the word this is undoubtedly
true, but it is the sense in which innocence
ceases to be recommendation. We do not
any theories destructive of all genuine reli-
gion, or even a rich man because he has not
shown any marked propensity to steal. Inno-
cence is good in so far as it implies resolute
resistance to temptation; but if the innocent
person is altogether beyond the reach of any
temptation, he so far ceases to be inte-
resting A baby has not shown marked
propensity for spirituous liquors; but then
it has been reduced to a Hobson's choice
in regard to its consumption of
food; it has not displayed homicidal tenden-
cies, but it has abstsined from committing
murder for the best of all possible reasons.
TO love any one for pure negative, for not
being malevolent when he or she is equally
free from benevolence, seems to imply pal
pably erroneous inference. And therefore,
80 far as the sentiment is to be estimated by
its accordance with reason, the baby-hater
would seem to have just as good a justifca-
tion as the baby-lover, and the only sensible
frame of mind would appear to be complete
Indifference to these rough draughts of hu-
manity. We should wait till the features
become more pronounced, and till we can tell
whether the soft mass of breathing and NOV
ing flesh and blood is more likely to develop
into q Nero or st. Paul.
Another form of the argument is, that we
ought to be more affected by the sight of
infant suffering. That we are in fact more
easily moved is undeniable; the sight of
starving child, or even of a child afflicted by
some purely triaing sorrow, is undoubtedly
more affecting than that of grown-up man
suffering far more serious calamity. And
yet again we must ask whether this sentiment
can be justified in cold blood? A child, it is
said, has done nothing to deserve the ago.
MES Of hunger under which it
is suffering But who can say whether
grown-up man deserves the pain bit more
fully? Take an unlucky pRuper, gradually
sinking under ill-treatment till he becomes
the subject of sensation paragraph in the
newspapers. Why should we care for him
less than for one of the wretched infants who
are gradually put out of the way in baby
may be said; but how? Was he ever brought
up to understand the duty he owes to man
kind? Was he ever brought up to be indus
trious, or prudent, or independent? So far
as we can tell, he is the victim of external
circumstance Just as much as the
helpless infant which perishes before
it has had the opportunities of learning which
have never come to its elders. Why should
we be less moved when the tragedy has been
protracted over SIXTY years, instead of being
acted within tenth part of the same num-
ber of months? If anything, our sympathies
should be due rather to the victim of defective
social arrangements who has suffered long
est and been most fully conscious of his
misery. Yet, as a fact, most people would
feel far more deeply moved, and we should
generally admit that they ought to
be more deeply moved, by the story
of tortures inflicted upon helpless in
fants than by that of much greater tortures
inflicted upon adults who in all but name
are equally helpless for all practical pur-
poses If it is amiable to feel more strongly
~, 70 ba danraa in xuhinh q emf
ferer is incapable of sharing our thoughts
and responsibilities, why should we draw the
line at infants? The range which we give to
our sympathies seems to- be strangely capri
cious. Sensible people are fond of q child as
soon as it begins to talk intelligibly, but do
not care much for children who are below or
much above that limit. A boy of ten or
eleven is a noxious being in the eyes of many
who are profoundly affected by the sight OF
child Just able to totter about on uncertain
limbs. More amiable people go little fur
ther, and are fond even of an infant in arms;
but then, for the most part, they draw hard
and fast line between children and monkeys.
Why, if we are profoundly touched by the
attempts of a child to initiate grown u p
people, by the
Fragments Of his dream of human life,
Shaped by himself with newy-learned art,
should we be simply disguised when our poor
relations try to do the same thing? A monkey,
with q grotesque appearance of being little
lower than a negro, fills many benevolent
people with intense repugnance; the infant,
who has yet developed scarcely any faculties
that it does not possess in common with the
lower animals, affects them to tears by similar
indications of nascent intellect Sympathy
does not seem to increase in any ineligible
ratio to the resemblance of its object to
ourselves. We are delighted with baby be-