DOMESTIC MANNERS



CHAPTER XV.

DOMESTIC MANNERS.

Good manners are the expressions of benevolence in personal intercourse,
by which we endeavor to promote the comfort and enjoyment of others,
and to avoid all that gives needless uneasiness. It is the exterior
exhibition of the divine precept, which requires us to do to others
as we would that they should do to us. It is saying, by our deportment,
to all around, that we consider their feelings, tastes, and
conveniences, as equal in value to our own.

Good manners lead us to avoid all practices which offend the taste of
others; all unnecessary violations of the conventional rules of
propriety; all rude and disrespectful language and deportment; and all
remarks which would tend to wound the feelings of others.

There is a serious defect in the manners of the American people,
especially among the descendants of the Puritan settlers of New England,
which can never be efficiently remedied, except in the domestic circle,
and during early life. It is a deficiency in the free expression of
kindly feelings and sympathetic emotions, and a want of courtesy in
deportment. The causes which have led to this result may easily be
traced.

The forefathers of this nation, to a wide extent, were men who were
driven from their native land by laws and customs which they believed
to be opposed both to civil and religious freedom. The sufferings they
were called to endure, the subduing of those gentler feelings which
bind us to country, kindred, and home; and the constant subordination
of the passions to stern principle, induced characters of great firmness
and self-control. They gave up the comforts and refinements of a
civilized country, and came as pilgrims to a hard soil, a cold clime,
and a heathen shore. They were continually forced to encounter danger,
privations, sickness, loneliness, and death; and all these their
religion taught them to meet with calmness, fortitude, and submission.
And thus it became the custom and habit of the whole mass, to repress
rather than to encourage the expression of feeling.

Persons who are called to constant and protracted suffering and
privation are forced to subdue and conceal emotion; for the free
expression of it would double their own suffering, and increase the
sufferings of others. Those, only, who are free from care and anxiety,
and whose minds are mainly occupied by cheerful emotions, are at full
liberty to unveil their feelings.

It was under such stern and rigorous discipline that the first children
in New England were reared; and the manners and habits of parents are
usually, to a great extent, transmitted to children. Thus it comes to
pass, that the descendants of the Puritans, now scattered over every
part of the nation, are predisposed to conceal the gentler emotions,
while their manners are calm, decided, and cold, rather than free and
impulsive. Of course, there are very many exceptions to these
predominating characteristics.

Other causes to which we may attribute a general want of courtesy in
manners are certain incidental results of our domestic institutions.
Our ancestors and their descendants have constantly been combating the
aristocratic principle which would exalt one class of men at the expense
of another. They have had to contend with this principle, not only in
civil but in social life. Almost every American, in his own person as
well as in behalf of his class, has had to assume and defend the main
principle of democracy--that every man's feelings and interests are
equal in value to those of every other man. But, in doing this, there
has been some want of clear discrimination. Because claims based on
distinctions of mere birth, fortune, or position, were found to be
injurious, many have gone to the extreme of inferring that all
distinctions, involving subordinations, are useless. Such would
wrongfully regard children as equals to parents, pupils to teachers,
domestics to their employers, and subjects to magistrates--and that,
too, in all respects.

The fact that certain grades of superiority and subordination are
needful, both for individual and public benefit, has not been clearly
discerned; and there has been a gradual tendency to an extreme of the
opposite view which has sensibly affected our manners. All the
proprieties and courtesies which depend on the recognition of the
relative duties of superior and subordinate have been warred upon; and
thus we see, to an increasing extent, disrespectful treatment of
parents, by children; of teachers, by pupils; of employers, by
domestics; and of the aged, by the young. In all classes and circles,
there is a gradual decay in courtesy of address.

In cases, too, where kindness is rendered, it is often accompanied
with a cold, unsympathizing manner, which greatly lessens its value;
while kindness or politeness is received in a similar style of coolness,
as if it were but the payment of a just due.

It is owing to these causes that the American people, especially the
descendants of the Puritans, do not do themselves justice. For, while
those who are near enough to learn their real character and feelings
can discern the most generous impulses, and the most kindly sympathies,
they are often so veiled behind a composed and indifferent demeanor,
as to be almost entirely concealed from strangers.

These defects in our national manners it especially falls to the care
of mothers, and all who have charge of the young, to rectify; and if
they seriously undertake the matter, and wisely adapt means to ends,
these defects will be remedied. With reference to this object, the
following ideas are suggested.

The law of Christianity and of democracy, which teaches that all men
are born equal in rights, and that their interests and feelings should
be regarded as of equal value, seems to be adopted in aristocratic
circles, with exclusive reference to the class in which the individual
moves. The courtly gentleman addresses all of his own class with
politeness and respect; and in all his actions, seems to allow that
the feelings and convenience of these others are to be regarded the
same as his own. But his demeanor to those of inferior station is not
based on the same rule.

Among those who make up aristocratic circles, such as are above them
are deemed of superior, and such as are below of inferior, value. Thus,
if a young, ignorant, and vicious coxcomb happens to have been born
a lord, the aged, the virtuous, the learned, and the well-bred of
another class must give his convenience the precedence, and must address
him in terms of respect. So sometimes, when a man of "noble birth" is
thrown among the lower classes, he demeans himself in a style which,
to persons of his own class, would be deemed the height of assumption
and rudeness.

Now, the principles of democracy require that the same courtesy which
we accord to our own circle shall be extended to every class and
condition; and that distinctions of superiority and subordination shall
depend, not on accidents of birth, fortune, or occupation, but solely
on those mutual relations which the good of all classes equally require.
The distinctions demanded in a democratic state are simply those which
result from relations that are common to every class, and are for the
benefit of all.

It is for the benefit of every class that children be subordinate to
parents, pupils to teachers, the employed to their employers, and
subjects to magistrates. In addition to this, it is for the general
well-being that the comfort or convenience of the delicate and feeble
should be preferred to that of the strong and healthy, who would suffer
less by any deprivation; that precedence should be given to their
elders by the young; and that reverence should be given to the hoary
head.

The rules of good-breeding, in a democratic state, must be founded on
these principles. It is indeed assumed that the value of the happiness
of each individual is the same as that of every other; but as there
must be occasions where there are advantages which all can not enjoy,
there must be general rules for regulating a selection. Otherwise,
there would be constant scrambling among those of equal claims, and
brute force must be the final resort; in which case, the strongest
would have the best of every thing. The democratic rule, then, is,
that superiors in age, station, or office have precedence of
subordinates; age and feebleness, of youth and strength; and the feebler
sex, of more vigorous man. [Footnote: The universal practice of this
nation, in thus giving precedence to woman has been severely commented
on by foreigners, and by some who would transfer all the business of
the other sex to women, and then have them treated like men. But we
hope this evidence of our superior civilization and Christianity may
increase rather than diminish.]

There is, also, a style of deportment and address which is appropriate
to these different relations. It is suitable for a superior to secure
compliance with his wishes from those subordinate to him by commands;
but a subordinate must secure compliance with his wishes from a superior
by requests. (Although the kind and considerate manner to subordinates
will always be found the most effective as well as the pleasantest,
by those in superior station.) It is suitable for a parent, teacher,
or employer to admonish for neglect of duty; but not for an inferior
to adopt such a course toward a superior. It is suitable for a superior
to take precedence of a subordinate, without any remark; but not for
an inferior, without previously asking leave, or offering an apology.
It is proper for a superior to use language and manners of freedom and
familiarity, which would be improper from a subordinate to a superior.

The want of due regard to these proprieties occasions a great defect
in American manners. It is very common to hear children talk to their
parents in a style proper only between companions and equals; so, also,
the young address their elders; those employed, their employers; and
domestics, the members of the family and their visitors, in a style
which is inappropriate to their relative positions. But courteous
address is required not merely toward superiors; every person desires
to be thus treated, and therefore the law of benevolence demands such
demeanor toward all whom we meet in the social intercourse of life.
"Be ye courteous," is the direction of the apostle in reference to our
treatment of _all_.

Good manners can be successfully cultivated only in early life and in
the domestic circle. There is nothing which depends so much upon
_habit_ as the constantly recurring proprieties of good breeding;
and if a child grows up without forming such habits, it is very rarely
the case that they can be formed at a later period. The feeling that
it is of little consequence how we behave at home if we conduct
ourselves properly abroad, is a very fallacious one. Persons who are
careless and ill-bred at home may imagine that they can assume good
manners abroad; but they mistake. Fixed habits of tone, manner,
language, and movements can not be suddenly altered; and those who are
ill-bred at home, even when they try to hide their bad habits, are
sure to violate many of the obvious rules of propriety, and yet be
unconscious of it.

And there is nothing which would so effectually remove prejudice against
our democratic institutions as the general cultivation of good-breeding
in the domestic circle. Good manners are the exterior of benevolence,
the minute and constant exhibitions of "peace and good-will;" and the
nation, as well as the individual, which most excels in the external
demonstration, as well as the internal principle, will be most respected
and beloved.

It is only the training of the family state according to its true end
and aim that is to secure to woman her true position and rights. When
the family is instituted by marriage, it is man who is the head and
chief magistrate by the force of his physical power and requirement
of the chief responsibility; not less is he so according to the
Christian law, by which, when differences arise, the husband has the
deciding control, and the wife is to obey. "Where love is, there is
no law;" but where love is not, the only dignified and peaceful course
is for the wife, however much his superior, to "submit, as to God and
not to man."

But this power of nature and of religion, given to man as the
controlling head, involves the distinctive duty of the family state,
_self-sacrificing love_. The husband is to "honor" the wife, to
love her as himself, and thus account her wishes and happiness as of
equal value with his own. But more than this, he is to love her "as
Christ loved the Church;" that is, he is to "suffer" for her, if need
be, in order to support and elevate and ennoble her. The father then
is to set the example of self-sacrificing love and devotion; and the
mother, of Christian obedience when it is required. Every boy is to
be trained for his future domestic position by labor and sacrifices
for his mother and sisters. It is the brother who is to do the hardest
and most disagreeable work, to face the storms and perform the most
laborious drudgeries. In the family circle, too, he is to give his
mother and sister precedence in all the conveniences and comforts of
home life.

It is only those nations where the teachings and example of Christ
have had most influence that man has ever assumed his obligations of
self-sacrificing benevolence in the family. And even in Christian
communities, the duty of wives to obey their husbands has been more
strenuously urged than the obligations of the husband to love his wife
"as Christ loved the Church."

Here it is needful to notice that the distinctive duty of obedience
to man does not rest on women who do not enter the relations of married
life. A woman who inherits property, or who earns her own livelihood,
can institute the family state, adopt orphan children and employ
suitable helpers in training them; and then to her will appertain the
authority and rights that belong to man as the head of a family. And
when every woman is trained to some self-supporting business, she will
not be tempted to enter the family state as a subordinate, except by
that love for which there is no need of law.

These general principles being stated, some details in regard to
domestic manners will be enumerated. In the first place, there should
be required in the family a strict attention to the rules of precedence,
and those modes of address appropriate to the various relations to be
sustained. Children should always be required to offer their superiors,
in age or station, the precedence in all comforts and conveniences,
and always address them in a respectful tone and manner. The custom
of adding, "Sir," or "Ma'am," to "Yes," or "No," is valuable, as a
perpetual indication of a respectful recognition of superiority. It
is now going out of fashion, even among the most well bred people;
probably from a want of consideration of its importance. Every remnant
of courtesy of address, in our customs, should be carefully cherished,
by all who feel a value for the proprieties of good breeding.

If parents allow their children to talk to them, and to the grown
persons in the family, in the same style in which they address each
other, it will be in vain to hope for the courtesy of manner and tone
which good breeding demands in the general intercourse of society. In
a large family, where the elder children are grown up, and the younger
are small, it is important to require the latter to treat the elder
in some sense as superiors. There are none so ready as young children
to assume airs of equality; and if they are allowed to treat one class
of superiors in age and character disrespectfully, they will soon use
the privilege universally. This is the reason, why the youngest children
of a family are most apt to be pert, forward, and unmannerly.

Another point to be aimed at is, to require children always to
acknowledge every act of kindness and attention, either by words or
manner. If they are so trained as always to make grateful
acknowledgments, when receiving favors, one of the objectionable
features in American manners will be avoided.

Again, children should be required to ask leave, whenever they wish
to gratify curiosity, or use an article which belongs to another. And
if cases occur, when they can not comply with the rules of
good-breeding, as, for instance, when they must step between a person
and the fire, or take the chair of an older person, they should be
taught either to ask leave, or to offer an apology.

There is another point of good-breeding, which can not, in all cases,
be understood and applied by children in its widest extent. It is that
which requires us to avoid all remarks which tend to embarrass, vex,
mortify, or in any way wound the feelings of another. To notice personal
defects; to allude to others' faults, or the faults of their friends;
to speak disparagingly of the sect or party to which a person belongs;
to be inattentive when addressed in conversation; to contradict flatly;
to speak in contemptuous tones of opinions expressed by another; all
these are violations of the rules of good-breeding, which children
should be taught to regard. Under this head comes the practice of
whispering and staring about, when a teacher, or lecturer, or clergyman
is addressing a class or audience. Such inattention is practically
saying that what the person is uttering is not worth attending to; and
persons of real good-breeding always avoid it. Loud talking and laughing
in a large assembly, even when no exercises are going on; yawning and
gaping in company; and not looking in the face a person who is
addressing you, are deemed marks of ill-breeding.

Another branch of good manners relates to the duties of hospitality.
Politeness requires us to welcome visitors with cordiality; to offer
them the best accommodations; to address conversation to them; and to
express, by tone and manner, kindness and respect. Offering the hand
to all visitors at one's own house is a courteous and hospitable custom;
and a cordial shake of the hand, when friends meet, would abate much
of the coldness of manner ascribed to Americans.

Another point of good breeding refers to the conventional rules of
propriety and good taste. Of these, the first class relates to the
avoidance of all disgusting or offensive personal habits: such as
fingering the hair; obtrusively using a toothpick, or carrying one in
the mouth after the needful use of it; cleaning the nails in presence
of others; picking the nose; spitting on carpets; snuffing instead of
using a handkerchief, or using the article in an offensive manner;
lifting up the boots or shoes, as some men do, to tend them on the
knee, or to finger them: all these tricks, either at home or in society,
children should be taught to avoid.

Another topic, under this head, may be called _table manners_.
To persons of good-breeding, nothing is more annoying than violations
of the conventional proprieties of the table. Reaching over another
person's plate; standing up, to reach distant articles, instead of
asking to have them passed; using one's own knife and spoon for butter,
salt, or sugar, when it is the custom of the family to provide separate
utensils for the purpose; setting cups with the tea dripping from them,
on the table-cloth, instead of the mats or small plates furnished;
using the table-cloth instead of the napkins; eating fast, and in a
noisy manner; putting large pieces in the mouth; looking and eating
as if very hungry, or as if anxious to get at certain dishes; sitting
at too great a distance from the table, and dropping food; laying the
knife and fork on the table-cloth, instead of on the edge of the plate;
picking the teeth at table: all these particulars children should be
taught to avoid.

It is always desirable, too, to train children, when at table with
grown persons, to be silent, except when addressed by others; or else
their chattering will interrupt the conversation and comfort of their
elders. They should always be required, too, to wait in silence, till
all the older persons are helped.

When children are alone with their parents, it is desirable to lead
them to converse and to take this as an opportunity to form proper
conversational habits. But it should be a fixed rule that, when
strangers are present, the children are to listen in silence and only
reply when addressed. Unless this is secured, visitors will often be
condemned to listen to puerile chattering, with small chance of the
proper attention due to guests and superiors in age and station.

Children should be trained, in preparing themselves for the table or
for appearance among the family, not only to put their hair, face, and
hands in neat order, but also their nails, and to habitually attend
to this latter whenever they wash their hands.

There are some very disagreeable tricks which many children practice
even in families counted well-bred. Such, for example, are drumming
with the fingers on some piece of furniture, or humming a tune while
others are talking, or interrupting conversation by pertinacious
questions, or whistling in the house instead of out-doors, or speaking
several at once and in loud voices to gain attention. All these are
violations of good-breeding, which children should be trained to
avoid, lest they should not only annoy as children, but practice the
same kind of ill manners when mature. In all assemblies for public
debate, a chairman or moderator is appointed whose business it is to
see that only one person speaks at a time, that no one interrupts a
person when speaking, that no needless noises are made, and that all
indecorums are avoided. Such an officer is sometimes greatly needed
in family circles.

Children should be encouraged freely to use lungs and limbs out-doors,
or in hours for sport in the house. But at other times, in the domestic
circle, gentle tones and manners should be cultivated. The words
_gentleman_ and _gentlewoman_ came originally from the fact that the
uncultivated and ignorant classes used coarse and loud tones, and rough
words and movements; while only the refined circles habitually used
gentle tones and gentle manners. For the same reason, those born in the
higher circles were called "of gentle blood." Thus it came that a coarse
and loud voice, and rough, ungentle manners, are regarded as vulgar and
plebeian.

All these things should be taught to children, gradually, and with
great patience and gentleness. Some parents, with whom good manners
are a great object, are in danger of making their children perpetually
uncomfortable, by suddenly surrounding them with so many rules that
they must inevitably violate some one or other a great part of the
time. It is much better to begin with a few rules, and be steady and
persevering with these, till a habit is formed, and then take a few
more, thus making the process easy and gradual. Otherwise, the temper
of children will be injured; or, hopeless of fulfilling so many
requisitions, they will become reckless and indifferent to all.

If a few brief, well-considered, and sensible rules of good manners
could be suspended in every school-room, and the children all required
to commit them to memory, it probably would do more to remedy the
defects of American manners and to advance universal good-breeding
than any other mode that could be so easily adopted.

But, in reference to those who have enjoyed advantages for the
cultivation of good manners, and who duly estimate its importance, one
caution is necessary. Those who never have had such habits formed in
youth are under disadvantages which no benevolence of temper can
altogether remedy. They may often violate the tastes and feelings of
others, not from a want of proper regard for them, but from ignorance
of custom, or want of habit, or abstraction of mind, or from other
causes which demand forbearance and sympathy, rather than displeasure.
An ability to bear patiently with defects in manners, and to make
candid and considerate allowance for a want of advantages, or for
peculiarities in mental habits, is one mark of the benevolence of real
good-breeding.

The advocates of monarchical and aristocratic institutions have always
had great plausibility given to their views, by the seeming tendencies
of our institutions to insubordination and bad manners. And it has
been too indiscriminately conceded, by the defenders of the latter,
that such are these tendencies, and that the offensive points in
American manners are the necessary result of democratic principles.

But it is believed that both facts and reasoning are in opposition to
this opinion. The following extract from the work of De Tocqueville,
the great political philosopher of France, exhibits the opinion of an
impartial observer, when comparing American manners with those of the
English, who are confessedly the most aristocratic of all people.

He previously remarks on the tendency of aristocracy to make men more
sympathizing with persons of their own peculiar class, and less so
toward those of lower degree; and he then contrasts American manners
with the English, claiming that the Americans are much the more affable,
mild, and social. "In America, where the privileges of birth never
existed and where riches confer no peculiar rights on their possessors,
men acquainted with each other are very ready to frequent the same
places, and find neither peril nor disadvantage in the free interchange
of their thoughts. If they meet by accident, they neither seek nor
avoid intercourse; their manner is therefore natural, frank, and open."
"If their demeanor is often cold and serious, it is never haughty or
constrained." But an "aristocratic pride is still extremely great among
the English; and as the limits of aristocracy are still ill-defined,
every body lives in constant dread, lest advantage should be taken of
his familiarity. Unable to judge, at once, of the social position of
those he meets, an Englishman prudently avoids all contact with him.
Men are afraid, lest some slight service rendered should draw them
into an unsuitable acquaintance; they dread civilities, and they avoid
the obtrusive gratitude of a stranger, as much as his hatred."

Thus, _facts_ seem to show that when the most aristocratic nation
in the world is compared, as to manners, with the most democratic, the
judgment of strangers is in favor of the latter. And if good manners
are the outward exhibition of the democratic principle of impartial
benevolence and equal rights, surely the nation which adopts this rule,
both in social and civil life, is the most likely to secure the
desirable exterior. The aristocrat, by his principles, extends the
exterior of impartial benevolence to his own class only; the democratic
principle requires it to be extended _to all_.

There is reason, therefore, to hope and expect more refined and polished
manners in America than in any other land; while all the developments
of taste and refinement, such as poetry, music, painting, sculpture,
and architecture, it may be expected, will come to as high a state of
perfection here as in any other nation.

If this country increases in virtue and intelligence, as it may, there
is no end to the wealth which will pour in as the result of our
resources of climate, soil, and navigation, and the skill, industry,
energy, and enterprise of our countrymen. This wealth, if used as
intelligence and virtue dictate, will furnish the means for a superior
education to all classes, and every facility for the refinement of
taste, intellect, and feeling.

Moreover, in this country, labor is ceasing to be the badge of a lower
class; so that already it is disreputable for a man to be "a lazy
gentleman." And this feeling must increase, till there is such an
equalization of labor as will afford all the time needful for every
class to improve the many advantages offered to them. Already through
the munificence of some of our citizens, there are literary and
scientific advantages offered to all classes, rarely enjoyed elsewhere.
In most of our large cities and towns, the advantages of education,
now offered to the poorest classes, often without charge, surpass what,
some years ago, most wealthy men could purchase for any price. And it
is believed that a time will come when the poorest boy in America can
secure advantages, which will equal what the heir of the proudest
peerage can now command.

The records of the courts of France and Germany, (as detailed by the
Duchess of Orleans,) in and succeeding the brilliant reign of Louis
the Fourteenth--a period which was deemed the acme of elegance and
refinement--exhibit a grossness, a vulgarity, and a coarseness, not
to be found among the very lowest of our respectable poor. And the
biography of the English Beau Nash, who attempted to reform the manners
of the gentry, in the times of Queen Anne, exhibits violations of the
rules of decency among the aristocracy, which the commonest yeoman of
this land would feel disgraced in perpetrating.

This shows that our lowest classes, at this period, are more refined
than were the highest in aristocratic lands, a hundred years ago; and
another century may show the lowest classes, in wealth, in this country,
attaining as high a polish as adorns those who now are leaders of good
manners in the courts of kings.