The Superstition of DivorceChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Religion
The Superstition of Divorce
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Divorce
Indeed, there is something in the family that might loosely be called
anarchist; and more correctly called amateur. As there seems something
almost vague about its voluntary origin, so there seems something vague
about its voluntary organisation. The most vital function it performs,
perhaps the most vital function that anything can perform, is that of
education; but its type of early education is far too essential to be
mistaken for instruction. In a thousand things it works rather by rule
of thumb than rule of theory. To take a commonplace and even comic
example, I doubt if any text-book or code of rules has ever contained
any directions about standing a child in a corner. Doubtless when the
modern process is complete, and the coercive principle of the state has
entirely extinguished the voluntary element of the family, there will be
some exact regulation or restriction about the matter. Possibly it will
say that the corner must be an angle of at least ninety-five degrees.
Possibly it will say that the converging line of any ordinary corner
tends to make a child squint. In fact I am certain that if I said
casually, at a sufficient number of tea-tables, that corners made
children squint, it would rapidly become a universally received dogma of
popular science. For the modern world will accept no dogmas upon any
authority; but it will accept any dogmas upon no authority. Say that a
thing is so, according to the Pope or the Bible, and it will be
dismissed as a superstition without examination. But preface your remark
merely with “they say” or “don’t you know that?” or try (and fail) to
remember the name of some professor mentioned in some newspaper; and the
keen rationalism of the modern mind will accept every word you say. This
parenthesis is not so irrelevant as it may appear, for it will be well
to remember that when a rigid officialism breaks in upon the voluntary
compromises of the home, that officialism itself will be only rigid in
its action and will be exceedingly limp in its thought. Intellectually
it will be at least as vague as the amateur arrangements of the home,
and the only difference is that the domestic arrangements are in the
only real sense practical; that is, they are founded on experiences that
have been suffered. The others are what is now generally called
scientific; that is, they are founded on experiments that have not yet
been made. As a matter of fact, instead of invading the family with the
blundering bureaucracy that mismanages the public services, it would be
far more philosophical to work the reform the other way round. It would
be really quite as reasonable to alter the laws of the nation so as to
resemble the laws of the nursery. The punishments would be far less
horrible, far more humorous, and far more really calculated to make men
feel they had made fools of themselves. It would be a pleasant change if
a judge, instead of putting on the black cap, had to put on the dunce’s
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account