The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1874-10-23
Patriotism and Parentage.

Patriotism and Parentage.
It has not always been regarded as a
thing creditable to woman that she was
the mother of the human race. On the
contrary, the fact was often mentioned,
in the middle ages, as q distinct proof OF
inferiority. The question was,liscusseti
in the medieval Council of Mason, and
the position taken that woman was no
more entitled to rank as human, because
she brought forth men, than the garden
earth could take rank with the fruit and
flowers it bore. The same view was re-
vived by a Latin writer of 1885, on the
thesis " lulieres non homines eSse," q
French translation of which was printed
under the title of 4" PdrQdOre sur les
feHnnles," in l766. Napoleon Bonaparte
used the same image, carrying it almost
as far:
"Woman is given to man that she
may bear children. Woman is our
property we are not hers; because she
produces children for us; we do not yield
any to her she is therefore our posses
sion, as the fruit tree is that of the gar
dener."
Even the fact of parentage, therefore,
has been adroitly converted into a
ground of inferiority for women; and
this is Ostensibly the reason why lineage
has been reckoned, almost everywhere,
through the male line only, ignoring the
female; just as i'll tracing the seed OF
some rare fruit, the gardener takes no
genealogical account Ofthe garden where
it grew.
The view is now seldom expressed in
full force; the remnant of il is to be found
in the lingering expression that, at any
rate, woman who is not a mother is OF
no account; as worthless as q fruitless
garden or a barren fruit tree. Created
only for a certain object, she is of course
valueless unless that object be fulfilled.
But the race must have fathers as well
as mothers, and if we look for the evil
dence of public service in great men, il
certainly does not always lie in leaving
children ito the republic. On the con-
trary, the rule has rather seemed to be,
that the most eminent men have left
their bequest of service in any form
rather than in that of a great family.
Recent inquiries into the matter have
brought out some remarkable facts in
this regard.
As a rule there exists no living de-
scendants in the male line from the
great authors, artists, statesmen, sol
diers of England. There is not one such
descendant of Chaucer, Shakespeare,
Spenser, Butler, Dryden, Pope, Cowper,
Goldsmith, Scott, Byron or Moore; not
one of Drake, Cromwell, Monk, Alarl-
borough, Peterborough, or Nelson not
one of Strafiord, OrmOnd, or Clarendon;
not one of Addison, Swift or johnson;
not one of Walpole, Boliugbroke, Chat
ham, Pitt, Fox, Burke, Grattan or Can
ming not one of Bacon, Locke, New
ton or Davy; not one of Hume, Gibbou
or Maucaulay not one of Hogarth OF
Reynolds not one of Garrick, John
Kemble or Edmund Kean. IL would be
easy to make "a similar American list
beginning with Washington, of whom
il was said that providence made him
childless that his country might call
him Father"
Now, however we may regret thai
these great men have left no posterity
or posterity by the female line alone, n
does not occur to any one as aflordinI
any serious drawback upon their service
to their country. Certainly it does moi
occur to US that they would have been
more useful had they left children to thC
world, but rendered il no other service
| Lord Bacon says that "he that hath wifi,
and children hath given hostages TO for
tune; for they are impediments to greaI
| euleTDTlstst tlNlltI VI hlAlht ol lllStuiGi
! Certainly the best works, and Of great
est merit to the public, have proceeded
| from unmarried or childless men; which
| both i'm affection and means, have mar
ried and endowed the public.n And thi!
is the view generally accepted; that the
public is in such cases rather the gainel
than the loser, and has no right to com
plain.
Since, therefore, every child mus
have a father and mother both, anC
neither alone suffice, why should w
| thus heap gratitude on men who, from
preference or from necessity, have re
mained childless, and yet habituallN
treat women as if they could render M
service to their country except by giving
IL children? If it be folly and shame
as think, to belittle and decry the dig
nifty and worth of motherhood, as som,
are said TO do it, is no less folly, ant
shame quite as great, to deny the grant
and patriotic service OF many womel
who have died and left no childrel
among their mourners.-W W'omdn's Jour
nal.