The Kindness of the Poor

Will these orphans grow up with better manners than those they perceive to be “their betters?” — In the etiquette books there is one consideration in regard to manners that we never read about, what we owe from the example of the poor. The assumption seems to be that it is the well to do that have the best manners. Here is one of those illusions that we accept as truths simply because we don’t stop to think about them. 

A Matter That Is Overlooked and Is Not Even Mentioned in the Books on Etiquette 

ELLEN TERRY, during her last engagement here, presented a remarkably fine play from the Dutch, called “The Good Hope.” She appeared as an old fisherwoman, who gave up to the sea everything she loved in life. When loss on loss had fallen upon her, she lost her last son, her favorite, the hope of her old age, because the owners of the vessel the boy was forced to go as sailor on, to save money, failed to make reasonable provisions for safety. They had, of course, protected themselves by insurance. So to them, the foundering of the ship was of little concern. At the close of the play the old woman was seen in the office of the ship owners and was presented by one of the ship owner’s kind-hearted women folk, with a bowl of soup. Very respectfully and gratefully she accepted it. Then, slowly and with dignity, carrying the bowl in both hands, she walked out of the office, the embodiment of meek and lowly suffering. 

If Ellen Terry had done nothing else in her whole career, the way she played that little scene would have shown her to be a great actress. Only a fine and sympathetic spirit could have conceived and realized the character under such circumstances. The old woman, crossing the stage in her cheap clothes and her heavy wooden shoes, will always remain with me as one of the wonderful achievements of acting. It illustrated far more vividly than any word could do, the patience of the poor with the rich, their forbearance, their kindness. 

In Europe, the situation is more plain than in this country. I shall never forget the astonishment I felt on my first day in London when I rode in an elevator, or, as they say over there, in a “lift.” There were several others in the car. As we went from floor to floor and as some passed out, the elevator man would say, with an air of profound respect, “Thank you.” That little incident was typical of many incidents that I was to witness in England and on the Continent. They all expressed what seemed to me a strange attitude. Those people showed that they were grateful for being allowed to live. For this privilege they felt that they must show their superiors all kinds of gratuitous courtesies. 

At that time we were having the bicycle craze. I made several trips on a wheel in England and in France. It was both amusing and pathetic to note the deferential kindness of the poor wherever we went. They apparently thought because we had leisure to go tearing about the country, we must be in some way worthy of special consideration. In France, as we passed, old women would bob quaintly as we passed and say: “Good day, gentlemen and ladies.” In the etiquette books there is one consideration in regard to manners that we never read about, what we owe from the example of the poor. The assumption seems to be that it is the well to do that have the best manners. Here is one of those illusions that we accept as truths simply because we don’t stop to think about them. 

As if there could be any manners in the world worse than those that, either openly or covertly, convey the sense of patronage! For pure kindness, for the resignation of self in favor of others, there are no manners that can compare with the manners of the poor. Sometimes people complain of the familiarity of inferiors. At the slightest intimation that an inferior is growing familiar they are likely to show great resentment. But the familiarity of the poor is very slight as compared with the familiarity of the well to do in their attitude toward the poor. Indeed, advantage opens the door to all kinds of familiarity with those less fortunate, intrusion into private affairs, the asking of intimate personal questions, the giving of unsolicited advice, and the use of first names. 

One of the quickest ways by which superiority is asserted and established is by means of familiar address. But the inferior must never take the same liberties. On the contrary, the inferior must show here, as in so many other situations in life, patience and kindness. In nearly all the affairs of life, the poor are gallantly showing kindness to those more fortunate than themselves. I have even seen them give up seats in streetcars to the better dressed, though they have paid the same amount of carfare. And I have seen them show wonderful forbearance when the better dressed have betrayed annoyance or resentment at being obliged to sit beside them. 

I once heard a man, a well dressed man, too, give a fashionably attired woman a stinging rebuke for behavior of this kind. To her companion, dressed in expensive clothes like herself, she openly spoke of her annoyance at being obliged to herd with “such awful people.” “If you don’t want to herd with such awful people,” the man exclaimed, “you ought not to ride in a public conveyance. You ought to ride in your own carriage.” Of course, that man was extremely rude and the woman acted wholly within her rights when she left the car at the next street corner. Some of the ill clad who looked on smiled. But most of them merely showed astonishment.

The poor are always at a disadvantage. They are always giving to those better off. Even in church you will find them in what we call “the poorest places.” Whenever they thrust themselves forward, instead of being welcomed because of their needs, they are resented. And if, as occasionally happens, they forget their manners, they are treated as if they were habitual and outrageous offenders. The truth is that they are the most retiring and the most obliging and the kindest people in the world. They are continually reminded of what is given to them. But the world, ‘til lately, has been unaware of how much they give, how prodigal they are in their kindness! — By John D. Barry, 192

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Having Money vs Having Manners

 

The same people who say they disdain manners are outraged when they are treated rudely by those who are of their own circumstances or whose services they are buying. Why, then, does etiquette's reputation for abetting snobbery persist? — It is believed that the word “snobbery” came into use for the first time in 1820’s England. According to Wikipedia, “‘Snob’ is a pejorative term for a person that believes there is a correlation between social status and human worth.” The word “snob” also refers to a person that feels superiority over those from lower education levels, lower “social classes,” or other social areas.

The Poor Can Have Manners, and the Rich Can Lack Taste

Considering the frenzy of interest in consumer goods in this society, it is astonishing to Miss Manners that so many people presume that the gentle art of manners is based on a preoccupation with money. Etiquette, it is widely believed, consists of forms of behavior requiring fortunes in silverware, evening clothing and unwieldy vehicles. Most people only feel they need etiquette on occasions when they are spending a great deal of money putting on a wedding, for example. Otherwise, they can apparently make do with rudeness. 

Dear, dear. You can imagine how upsetting Miss Manners finds this. She doesn't know which offends her more, the people who seek to demonstrate their genuineness by eschewing manners or those who are scrambling to learn them to serve their social ambitions. They both end up being rude. The truth is that there is very little relationship between manners and money. Certainly, Miss Manners has never noticed any preponderance of politeness on the part of the rich. Good manners are, first of all, free. And that is not generally true of status symbols.

Secondly, they cover all forms of outward human behavior, from those needed for the most routine daily encounters in households or on highways, to the special ones for special occasions. And thirdly, the consequences of violating them in ordinary life are more unpleasant than the effects of small technical errors on formal occasions, when it would be rude of other people present to notice. The same people who say they disdain manners are outraged when they are treated rudely by those who are of their own circumstances or whose services they are buying. Why, then, does etiquette's reputation for abetting snobbery persist? 

Miss Manners attributes part of it to the fact that one always thinks of familiar behavior as being simply natural, and strange behavior as etiquette. Everyday behavior is therefore classified as nice or mean, rather than good manners or bad manners, while the self-consciousness one has on special occasions leads one to identify their traditional practices as manners. But there is also a mistaken belief that knowledge and possession of expensive things are themselves a demonstration of propriety. People sometimes try to lead Miss Manners into condemning inexpensive goods especially clothing made of synthetic materials as “tacky.” If “tacky” is intended to mean “improper,” they are quite wrong. 

Propriety and impropriety have nothing to do with how much one can afford to spend. That someone does not wear expensive fabrics has nothing whatever to do with the quality of the manners that person may exhibit. If “tacky” refers to taste, then there is a connection with money. Rich people may have not only the money to spend, but also more leisure to learn to distinguish quality in material objects. Miss Manners has nothing whatever against such an educational activity, which can be great fun and is not unknown among people who do not have money. 

Since the invention of the museum, people can study and enjoy things without owning them and the rich should remember that their servants usually know more about the quality of their silver and linens, from cleaning them, than the owners do. None of this is within the province of manners, however. Etiquette’s interest in taste, as that applies to consumer items, is chiefly in combating ostentation. What is improper is the diamond bracelet worn for tennis, the car or house referred to as a “limousine” or “mansion,” the designer label any inappropriate display of wealth, or preoccupation with the cost of one’s own or other people’s possessions. In fact, there is hardly anything more rude and vulgar than an active interest in whether someone else's clothes are made of synthetic materials. — Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, 1987

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette and Wealth

By the 1890s, the center of fashionable Newport, and its famous 400, was Ochre Point, Ocean Drive and out Bellevue Avenue, where the nouveaux riche were all building their “palaces.” –Good manners are not the exclusive property of the wealthy. Good manners do not discriminate between the “haves” and the “have nots.” This gent was actually lamenting the stilted snobbery, not the actual etiquette of the wealthy.

Wealth vs. Happiness

A Millionaire  Sighs for Freedom From Conventionalities

“I never realized more forcibly that wealth does not bring happiness than one day at Newport,” said Austin Corbin, the millionaire banker and President of the Reading Railroad. “I had been moving along the fashionable drives scanning the faces of the passers-by. All were evidently bored to death. The ladies, arrayed in richest carriage toilets, seemed afraid to move lest they should disarrange their apparel. Not a ripple of laughter did I hear. All seemed to have arrayed themselves in their best and gone out to drive because it was a duty they owed to their social position to be seen among the other fashionables. Everybody's spirits seemed completely bowed down beneath the weight of fashion, decorum and etiquette, so inseparable from wealth. 

“Leaving the four hundred element I drove to an unfashionable and remote part of the beach. There in an eligible-situation, at just the right distance from the water for enjoyment, I saw a neat cottage adorned with the legend, ‘Mrs. O'Donnelly's ladies’ and gents’ boarding-house. Terms, $6 per week.’ A number of athletic young men and a bevy of buxom, rosy cheeked young girls were congregated on the porch and lawn. What a contrast the charmingly, healthful and natural appearance of these young people to that of the blighted, artificial victims of fashion I had just left. They were all in negligee costume, and merriment, playfulness and health sparkled in every eye and rang out heartily from every lip. „ “‘Oh.’ I thought, “if I could only escape from the fashionable prison, called a hotel by courtesy, where I am confined, with what inexpressible joy I would board at Mrs. O'Donnelly's.’”—Pittsburg. Dispatch, 1891

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Early California Etiquette

 "No man or class of men has the power to set up or keep up any pre-conceived standards of right or wrong, of taste or etiquette... Not in Early California, that is!"

Men and Manners, or the Lack Thereof, in Early California

There is in California a practical freedom of speech and action, to be found nowhere in the Atlantic States. Men breathe freely and act as freely, caring, for no lookers-on. The reason is because society here has no leader, and will have none. The adventitious advantages of wealth, family, or profession, which at home enable their possessors to take the lead of the masses, are held at a discount which startles the newcomer. No man or class of men has the power to set up or keep up any pre-conceived standards of right or wrong, of taste or etiquette. The Californian takes a wild pleasure in kicking down the old-fashioned guide boards, so as to make sure of laying out a track for himself.


Wealthy men have their toad-eaters here, as well as elsewhere, but the largest possessions command no real respect among the minds of the people. They look upon riches as the very accident of accidents, as they are in this part of the world, and decline paying reverence to the man of wealth to-day, knowing that he may be "dead-broke" tomorrow, and the raggedest fellow in the crowd comes to play the millionaire in his place. Each one hopes to act the part in his turn, but looks upon the acquirement of wealth, after all, and only the accidental shifting of the colors of the kaleidoscope of existence. — Napa Reporter, 1859

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia