“Open your heart and your arms wide for your daughters,” he says, “and keep them wide open; don’t leave all that to their mothers.  An intimacy will grow with the years which will fit them for another man’s arms and heart when they exchange yours for his.  Make a chum of your boy,—­hail-fellow-well-met, a comrade.  Get down to the level of his boyhood, and bring him gradually up to the level of your manhood.  Don’t look at him from the second story window of your fatherly superiority and example.  Go into the front yard and play ball with him.  When he gets into scrapes, don’t thrash him as your father did you.  Put your arm around his neck, and say you know it is pretty bad, but that he can count on you to help him out, and that you will, every single time, and that if he had let you know earlier, it would have been all the easier.”

Again, the child has a right to more justice in his discipline than we are generally wise and patient enough to give him.  He is by and by to come in contact with a world where cause and effect follow each other inexorably.  He has a right to be taught, and to be governed by the laws under which he must afterwards live; but in too many cases parents interfere so mischievously and unnecessarily between causes and effects that the child’s mind does not, cannot, perceive the logic of things as it should.  We might write a pathetic remonstrance against the Decline and Fall of Domestic Authority.  There is food for thought, and perhaps for fear, in the subject; but the facts are obvious, and their inevitableness must strike any thoughtful observer of the times.  “The old educational regime was akin to the social systems with which it was contemporaneous; and similarly, in the reverse of these characteristics, our modern modes of culture correspond to our more liberal religious and political institutions.”

It is the age of independent criticism.  The child problem is merely one phase of the universal problem that confronts society.  It seems likely that the rod of reason will have to replace the rod of birch.  Parental authority never used to be called into question; neither was the catechism, nor the Bible, nor the minister.  How should parents hope to escape the universal interrogation point leveled at everything else?  In these days of free speech it is hopeless to suppose that even infants can be muzzled.  We revel in our republican virtues; let us accept the vices of those virtues as philosophically as possible.

A lady has been advertising in a New York paper for a German governess “to mind a little girl three years old.”  The lady’s English is doubtless defective, but the fate of the governess is thereby indicated with much greater candor than is usual.

The mother who is most apt to infringe on the rights of her child (of course with the best intentions) is the “firm” person, afflicted with the “lust of dominion.”  There is no elasticity in her firmness to prevent it from degenerating into obstinacy.  It is not the firmness of the tree that bends without breaking, but the firmness of a certain long-eared animal whose force of character has impressed itself on the common mind and become proverbial.