Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

Every now and then the critic of
modern social amenities puts a lance
in rest and tilts at the boorishness and
lack of politeness which ho declares,
characterise modern society. But tho
difficulty lies in the definition or
description of the essentials. What
constitutes politeness, aitd liow are we
to distinguish it from that combination
of good tasto and common sense which
a - c designate tact, and which is often
feund in people who fail to satisfy the
varying standard of manners? Dr
Johnson declared that politeness is a
species of facetious benevolence. Jlat
thew Arnold was equally certain that
go ml manners aooount for three parts
of life. Chesterfield insisted that
good breeding and the charm of polite
ness are to be sot higher than intellec
tual attainment; but the sum of his
worldly philosophy was the careful cul
tivation of all three. “Politeness,”
tiio Earl of Chatham considered, “con
sists in honevolenco in trifles, the pre
ference of others to ourselves in little
daily, hourly occurrences 'in the com
merce of life. Ceremonial, formal and
stiff civilities, have nothing in common
with tsuo jjolitenoss, winch, an itself,
is natural, unstudied, manly, noble. '
It seems reasonably clear, therefoie,
that jiolitouess is not a tiling which
can be stamped with a hall mark, as
we stamp metal; its interpretation can
never bo narrowed within the limits of
a definition, and wo might certainly do
uorso than accept tlio old-fashioned
view- expressed by Fielding that the be
ginning and end of politeness is to be
have unto ail men as you would ciicy
should behavo unto you. Armed with
chose broad views, we are 'the bettor
able to examine the complaint of tlio
critic against the alleged decadence of
modern manners. One such has said
with the confidence of liis cult, that
“good manners are disappearing, as evi
lienced by the disappearance of street
salutation.” Gentlemen of tlio old
school, meeting in the highway, in the
days when lie was young, “took off
Uicir lists and bo,veil 10 each sither.’
jailer, tliy stately how gave place m
■ lie more touch of tile bat-brim; and
mis, in turn, lias been succeeded by the
jerk of tlio thin. To all this wo
should he disposed to answer that the
world grows busier as it grows older;
that the abundant leisure of
a former day has been suc
cetled by the strenuous life ill
wh-oh the jerk of tlio diiin may
slid docs ■ express much moro genuine
[iolitcnoss than an elaborate salaam. In
a word, it is the manner and not tho
method which counts, the regard for
others’ foclings rather than any ex
ternal form of salutation. Were it
otherwise, how would tho Occident com
pare with the Orient whore the low
salaam and prostration, linked with an
extravagance of eulogy, is the accepted
method? Yet, tho man' of the Orient is
least to be trusted when he is most
obsequiously polite; and the Chinese
judge will indulge the extreme of polite
ness in condemning the prospective vic
tim to horrible torture. It is on re
cord, too, that a famous Lord Chief Jus
tice of England indulged a similar weak
ness. “I knew that old Jock Campbell
meant to hang him,” remarked counsel
for the prisoner after the trial; “he was
so polite!”
There is no fear of mistaking for
malities for politeness, or mere convcn
tionnlity for good manners, if we bear
in mind their essential features. And
social position has little to .do with tho
matter either way. A Spanish, beggar
can ask a nobleman of Spain for a light
for his .cigarette, »nd be sure of a polito
reply. At. a Itoyal drawingroom. in
London groat ladies tear each others’
robes in their resolve to get to the front.
Nor must civility be confused with ser
vility, or a rough coarseness of manner
with honesty of purpose. Thoro are
men in Parliament,: in Australia as else
where, to whom a soft courtesy of man
nar appears no better than a contemptiblo
weakness. Hazlitt remarks of a friend
of his that "when he read the abuse
poured out in certain Tory predications,
he used to congratulate himself upon it as
a favorable sign of the times, and of the
progressive improvement of manners."
And wc may even find men of soft Heart
and emotional nature seeking the good
of their fellows at great personal sacri
fice, and yet doing so with an absence
or manners which at times is singularly
disconcerting. "Virtue itself," says
tlie cynic,” is not, prepossessing when
eating peas with a knife and wiping its
lips with its coat-sleeves;” and yet wo
find people who, .commit these solecisms
often possessed of the quintessence of
that politeness which is especially care
ful of the feelings of others. We meet
people, who belie the comfortable belief
that the apparel proclaims the man, but
in whom thero is that charm of manner
which always evinces a desire to please
ar.d a dignified deference that is born,
not of servility, but of a sense of what
is duo from one man to another.
We must always distinguish, too,
between true politeness and the mere
veneer of good manners so characteris
tic of an earlier day, and even now to
be met with on occasion. Henry
Greville tells us that it was customary
in his circle when a brother and sister
met at the breakfast-table to hear a
salutation such as this:—“How is your
Ladyship this morning?” To whicti
the answer was, “I am quite woll. I
am obliged to your Grace.” That is
not necessarily politeness; it may lie
the merest coxcombry, and be uttered
iu a tone that freezes the company
Nor can wc confuse the vagaries of
“that deformed thief Fashion” with
manners. None of these things : s of
the essence of politeness, though no
well-bred man would be anxious to in
fringe the accepted custom of liis day.
and the person whose “eccentricity”
leads him to do so is either an object
of ridicule, or is shunned as a positive
nuisance. That paragon of fashion,
beau Brummel, was asked by his host
ess if ho would “take tea.” He re
plied, “You ‘take’ exercise; you ‘take’
physic; you ‘take’ nothing else.” It
was an impertinence on the pait of
the super-eminently polito man, and it
deserved the spirited retort which it
.received: “Sir, I beg your pardon;
you also ‘take’ a liberty.” Judged by
any standard of taste, the complaint
of the modern decadence of manners
will not after all bear investigation,
and we have no reason to l*ar com
parison with the past. There never
was a time when women wore admitted
to anything like so much equality with
men; and if the latter have abandoned
some of the language of flattery, they
have certainly conceded to women a
fuller share of social and political rights.
And in every other direction, indivi
dual and communal, there is tho same
marked tendency towards a 'greater
kindliness - in dealing with others—- - ii
itself the root principle of courtesy and
politeness. Wo may lack something in
external polish and grace; but society
lias gained in true courtesy and refine
ment; and when that is so, wo may
conveniently disregard tho elaborated
fancies and strained interpretations of
tho critic who beats a Parthian retreat,
shooting poisoned arrows behind him.
$