Now, however we may regret that these great men have left little or no posterity, it does not occur to any one as affording any serious drawback upon their service to their nation.  Certainly it does not occur to us that they would have been more useful had they left children to the world, but rendered it no other service.  Lord Bacon says that “he that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief.  Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men; which, both in affection and means, have married and endowed the public.”  And this is the view generally accepted,—­that the public is in such cases rather the gainer than the loser, and has no right to complain.

Since, therefore, every child must have a father and a mother both, and neither will alone suffice, why should we thus heap gratitude on men who from preference or from necessity have remained childless, and yet habitually treat women as if they could render no service to their country except by giving it children?  If it be folly and shame, as I think, to belittle and decry the dignity and worth of motherhood, as some are said to do, it is no less folly, and shame quite as great, to deny the grand and patriotic service of many women who have died and left no children among their mourners.  Plato puts into the mouth of a woman,—­the eloquent Diotima, in the “Banquet,”—­that, after all, we are more grateful to Homer and Hesiod for the children of their brain than if they had left human offspring.

THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO MOTHERS

From the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals we have now advanced to a similar society for the benefit of children.  When shall we have a movement for the prevention of cruelty to mothers?

A Rhode Island lady, who had never taken any interest in the woman-suffrage movement, came to me in great indignation the other day, asking if it was true that under Rhode Island laws a husband might, by his last will, bequeath his child away from its mother, so that she might, if the guardian chose, never see it again.  I said that it was undoubtedly true, and that such were still the laws in many States of the Union.

“But,” she said, “it is an outrage.  The husband may have been one of the weakest or worst men in the world; he may have persecuted his wife and children; he may have made the will in a moment of anger, and have neglected to alter it.  At any rate, he is dead, and the mother is living.  The guardian whom he appoints may turn out a very malicious man, and may take pleasure in torturing the mother; or he may bring up the children in a way their mother thinks ruinous for them.  Why do not all the mothers cry out against such a law?”

“I wish they would,” I said.  “I have been trying a good many years to make them understand what the law is; but they do not.  People who do not vote pay no attention to the laws until they suffer from them.”