Deaths of Little Children
A Grecian philosopher being asked why he wept for the death of his son, since the sorrow was in vain, replied, "I weep on that account." And his answer became his wisdom. It is only for sophists to contend that we, whose eyes contain the fountains of tears, need never give way to them. It would be unwise not to do so on some occasions. Sorrow unlocks them in her balmy moods. The first bursts may be bitter and overwhelming; but the soil on which they pour would be worse without them. They refresh the fever of the soul — the dry misery which parches the countenance into furrows, and renders us liable to our most terrible "flesh quakes."
There are sorrows, it is true, so great that to give them some of the ordinary vents, is to run a hazard of being overthrown. These we must rather strengthen ourselves to resist, or bow quietly and dryly down, in order to let them pass over us, as the traveler does the wind of the desert. But where we feel that tears would relieve us, it is false philosophy to deny ourselves at least that first refreshment; and it is always false consolation to tell people that because they cannot help a thing — they are not to mind it. The true way is to let them grapple with the unavoidable sorrow, and try to win it into gentleness, is by a reasonable yielding to sorrow. There are griefs so gentle in their very nature, that it would be worse than false heroism, to refuse them a tear.
Of this kind, are the deaths of infants. Particular circumstances may render it more or less advisable to indulge in grief for the loss of a little child; but, in general, parents should be no more advised to repress their first tears on such an occasion, than to repress their smiles towards a child surviving, or to indulge in any other sympathy. It is an appeal to the same gentle tenderness: and such appeals are never made in vain. The end of them is an acquittal from the harsher bonds of affliction — from the tying down of the spirit to one melancholy idea.
It is the nature of tears of this kind, however strongly they may gush forth, to run into quiet waters at last. We cannot easily, for the whole course of our lives, think with pain of any good and kind person whom we have lost. It is the kind nature of their qualities to conquer pain and death itself: to turn the memory of them into pleasure; to survive with a placid aspect in our imaginations.
We are writing at this moment just opposite a spot which contains the grave of one inexpressibly dear to us. We see from our window the trees around it, and the church spire. The green fields lie around. The clouds are traveling overhead, alternately taking away the sunshine, and restoring it. The spring winds, foretelling of the flowery summer-time, are nevertheless calling to mind the far distant and dangerous ocean, which the heart that lies in that grave had many reasons to think of. And yet the sight of this spot does not give us pain. So far from it, it is the existence of that grave which doubles every charm of the spot; which links the pleasures of our childhood and manhood together; which puts a hushing tenderness in the winds, and a patient joy upon the landscape; which seems to unite Heaven and earth, mortality and immortality, the grass of the tomb and the grass of the green field: and gives a more benevolent aspect to the whole kindness of nature. It does not hinder gaiety itself. Happiness was what its tenant, through all her troubles, would have diffused. To diffuse happiness, and to enjoy it, is not only carrying on her wishes, but realizing her hopes; and gaiety, freed from its only pollutions, malignity and lack of sympathy, is but a child playing about the knees of its mother.
The remembered endearments of a child stand us in the stead of virtues that have died older. Children have not exercised the voluntary offices of friendship; they have not chosen to be kind and good to us, nor stood by us from conscious will in the hour of adversity. But they have shared their pleasures and pains with us as well as they could; the interchange of good offices between us has of necessity been less mingled with the troubles of the world; the sorrow arising from their death is the only one which we can associate with their memories. These are happy thoughts that cannot die. Our loss may always render them pensive; but they will not always be painful. It is a part of the benignity of Nature, that pain does not survive like pleasure, at any time, much less where the cause of it is loving child. The smile will remain reflected by memory, as the moon reflects the light upon us when the sun has gone into Heaven.
When writers like ourselves quarrel with earthly pain (we mean writers of the same intentions, without implying, of course, anything about abilities or otherwise), they are misunderstood, if they are supposed to quarrel with pains of every sort. This would be idle and effeminate. They do not pretend, indeed, that humanity might not wish, if it could, to be entirely free from pain: for it endeavors, at all times, to turn pain into pleasure, or at least to set off the one with the other, to make the former a zest, and the latter a refreshment. The most unaffected dignity of suffering does this, and if wise acknowledges it. The greatest benevolence towards others, the most unselfish relish of their pleasures, even at its own expense, does but look to increasing the general stock of happiness, though content, if it could, to have its identity swallowed up in that splendid contemplation.
We are far from meaning that this is to be called selfishness. We are far, indeed, from thinking so, or of so confounding words. But neither is it to be called pain when most unselfish, if unselfishness is truly understood. The pain that is in it softens into pleasure, as the darker hue of the rainbow melts into the brighter. Yet even if a harsher line is to be drawn between the pain and pleasure of the most unselfish mind (and ill health, for instance, may draw it), we should not quarrel with it if it contributed to the general mass of comfort, and were of a nature which general kindliness could not avoid. Made as we are, there are certain pains, without which it would be difficult to conceive certain great and overbalancing pleasures. We may conceive it possible for beings to be made entirely happy; but in our composition something of pain seems to be a necessary ingredient, in order that the materials may turn to as fine account as possible, though our clay, in the course of ages and experience, may be refined more and more. We may get rid of the worst earth, though not of earth itself.
Now the liability to the loss of children — or rather what renders us sensible of it, the occasional loss itself — seems to be one of these necessary bitters thrown into the cup of humanity. We do not mean that everyone must lose one of his children in order to enjoy the rest; or that every individual loss afflicts us in the same proportion. We allude to the deaths of infants in general.
These might be as few as we could render them. But if none at all ever took place, we would regard every little child as a man or woman secured; and it will easily be conceived what a world of endearing cares and hopes this security would endanger. The very idea of infancy would lose its continuity with us. Girls and boys would be future men and women, not present children. They would have attained their full growth in our imaginations, and might as well have been men and women at once.
On the other hand, those who have lost an infant are never, as it were, without an infant child. They are the only people who, in one sense, retain it always, and they furnish their neighbors with the same idea. The other children grow up to manhood and womanhood, and suffer all the changes of mortality. This one alone, is rendered an immortal child. Death has arrested it with his kindly harshness, and blessed it into an eternal image of youth and pleasure.
Of such as these are the pleasantest shapes that visit our imagine and hopes. They are the ever-smiling emblems of joy; the prettiest pages that wait upon imagination.