FATHERS AND SONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 70, 23 March 1935, Page 1 (Supplement)

FATHERS AND SONS.

SIMILARITY AND DIVERGENCE SOME NOTABLE EXAMPUES. (By CYRANO.) Our oversea news in the last week or so lias furnished, two examples of sons of famous men coming into the limelight; in one case the son has followed in the father's footsieps, in the other he has taken the opposite direction. Mr. Randolph Churcliill is one of the lieutenants in the insurgent Conservative movement against the India Bill, which his father regards as disastrous. Winston's father, Randolph, after whom the son is called, was a brilliant figure in the politics of the 'seventies and 'eighties, and became Chancellor of the Exchequer, to resign on the issue of increased military expenditure. Hβ thought the step would bring the Government to its knees, but he "forgot Goschen." That very capable financier took his place-, and Randolph never took office again and died young. The other instance in our news is the John Strachey who has incurred the displeasure of the American authorities. He is the son of the bland and moderate gentleman who edited the "Spectator" for so many years—Mr. St. Loe Strachey. A very conscientious and high-minded man, St. Loe Strachey had a streak of self-complacency and moral superiority which irritated many of his readers —especially Liberals. He was fond of that question-begging phrase, "every right-thinking person." It was A. G. Gardiner, I think—editor of the Liberal "Daily News"— who said of somebody that he had incurred the subtlest of all rebukes, praise from the "Spectator"; and another writer referred to the "toothless ferocity" of Strachcy's style. Strachey objected to Socialism strongly and wrote a series of letters to a wage earner exposing what he regarded-as its fallacies. His son John is a militant Socialist, who thinks society has to choose between Fascism and Socialism. If St. Loe Strachey revisited the world, Mr. Stanley Baldwin would comfort him; for his eon, too, has revolted from Conservatism and become a Socialist. One imagines that of the two Mr. Baldwin would take this defection the more philosophically. Great Families. There have been few great men with great sons. The most conspicuous example in British history probably is Chatham and William Pitt, and one to the contrary is Oliver and Richard Cromwell. Ad£ even the Pitt family

can be cited to show how capricious are the workings of heredity, for the second Earl of Chatham, brother of Pitt the younger, was a mediocrity. The Churchill family shows a sudden breaking out of greatness of remarkable capacity after a long period. John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, was one of the greatest of Englishmen, but no member of the family seems to have been particularly notable until Randolph appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century, and then Winston. The 1 Cecils show an even mord remarkable period of fallowness. From Elizabethan times until the rise of Robert Cecil, Foreign Minister and Prime Minister under Victoria, the family produced no one of note. Of the long family of this Cecil, several members have shown at least more than average ability, and two—Robert (ths present Lord Cecil) and Hugh—are distinguished

men. Young Randolph Churchill seems to belong to the type of young man that models himself on his father. It may be doubted whether, had he not been Winston's son, he would have found himself a'candidate for Parliament at the age of 23. Sir AusteD Chamberlain is another example of careful filial modelling on parental example, but it is not to depreciate at all the services of this capable gentleman to say that the only respects in which he represents his father are his eyeglass and hie buttonhole orchid. Joseph Chamberlain was pugnacious, swift and ruthless in fight, a man with a hawk's eye and a touch of genius. Austen is an amiabie person who would never set any Thames on fire. Austen Chamberlain would probably not have reached Cabinet rank but for the push-off that his family gave him.

The Rebel Child. On the other hand, great or distin- , guished fathers create difficulties for their children, against which there is sometimes rebellion. A father with remarkable gifts overshadows his children and deliberately or unconsciously may try to mould them to his own shape: Sometimes the world expects more of the children than is reasonable; they go out into life feeling that they have to live up to the family reputation, and this cramps and depresses them. The clash of opinion has been dealt with in biography and fiction. Samuel Butler revenged himself on his father by describing the family life in "The Way of All Flesh." Edmund Gosse, treating a similar subject much more sympathetically, showed, in "Father and Son," how a younger generation felt compelled to break away from an older in thought and habit. One judges that such separation has been commoner in the last hundred years or so than at any time in the world's history, In

thousands of homes to-day the impact of new ideas is bringing bewilderment and consternation to parents. The younger generation, however, is better situated than its fathers and grandfathers, for.the bonds of family life are looser, and much more seldom does one hear' the admonition not to talk about "things you don't understand." It is a wise parent who allows full play of ideas in the home. But when all is said and done, the reaction of children remains a mystery. Some will cling resolutely and even passionately—perhaps all their lives—to the doctrines they received from their parents. Others are rebels from an astonishingly early age. Their own intellectual and emotional equipment, or some outside influence, or the two combined, sets them on the opposite path. Action and reaction are equal and opposite.

Success and Failure. That geniuses do not pass on their extraordinary gifts seems true enough, and it is also plainly to be seen that capable men and women have mediocre children, and that great talent and genius sometimes flower in the most unpromising soil. Yet it could be shown, I think, that large numbers of men and women who contribute to society the ability and integrity that keeps it moving on a more or less even keel, come from homes where these qualities are potent. The Scottish manse and the English vicarage are recognised as nurseries of capacity and character. If it is said that successful men often havt failures for sons, it may be asked what exactly is meant by successful. In the very nature of the father's "success" may lie, the explanation of the son's "failure." A man may gain the whole world and lose his own family. As to the very human wish that son may be like father, it may proceed largely from unconscious vanity. There may be no real occasion for worry; the son is going to be different, and therefore possibly a better man. At any rate he is going to strike out for himself.