Improving Etiquette by Dueling?

It is argued that the abolition of dueling causes English women to be treated with less respect than in former days, and thus it is indirectly the origin of the suffragette movement. A step back toward those chivalrous, romantic days has been taken in the preparations now in progress for a special exhibition to illustrate the history of swordsmanship, with the object of popularizing the sword in England. 

— Photo of a “Dueling Sword” from Pinterest 

English Movement to Revive Dueling

Well-Known Men Believe That It Would Improve Manners and Discourage Divorce

LONDON, Jan. 26. — In these days of continued novelties and of the revival of many old things, there is not much room left for real surprises, but a surprise is certainly furnished by the statement, made apparently quite seriously, that certain well-known Englishmen are not only in favor of the revival of the duel, but will do their best to bring such a revival about.


It is argued that the abolition of dueling causes English women to be treated with less respect than in former days, and thus it is indirectly the origin of the suffragette movement. A step back toward those chivalrous, romantic days has been taken in the preparations now in progress for a special exhibition to illustrate the history of swordsmanship, with the object of popularizing the sword in England.


It is claimed by the promoters — many of whom are prominent men in English society— that the revival of dueling in England would be associated with the following beneficial results:
1. Better manners and more civility.
2. The purity of the home.
3. The practical abolition of divorce.
4. A higher moral standard.
5. Less friction and rivalry between the sexes.
6. A finer physical standard for all who practice fencing.


Most of the gentlemen who will take part in the celebration, which will be a matinée, are members of the Actor's Sword Club, and the scenes illustrating the history of the duel will be based on a series of famous fights taken from both history and fiction. Sir George Alexander kindly has kindly loaned St. James's theater for the matinée, but owing to the elaborate preparations necessary, the performance can hardly be given before next May. Duels of all periods will be fought, and special ‘quarrel dialogue’ suitable to the period will be written by well-known authors to lead up to each fight. This ‘quarrel dialogue’ will require very careful writing, for a grievance or insult that would have stung an ancient Roman to the quick might not be enough to base, say, a modern French duel upon.


“We shall overcome this difficulty,” said Gerald Ames, “by facing our quarrels upon the honor of women, in which cause man has been prepared to shed his blood throughout the ages. Nowadays woman is not treated with the respect and reverence that was her right in the old days when most women had a champion who was prepared to draw his sword for her honor. If you take a lady out to supper and some cad of a man takes it into his head to annoy her with his insolent staring, she has no redress, and you have no means of punishing him. If dueling were recognized and practiced in England that sort of thing would be stopped and a lady could walk out alone without fearing the insolent advantages and attentions of the cads who infest our streets to-day.


“But apart altogether from the social advantages of dueling, sword practice, or fencing, is quite the finest exercise there is for keeping a man or woman fit. Lord Halsbury, Lord Desborough, Lord Howard, de Walden, and the Speaker (Mr Lowther) are among our best-known fencers. They have all promised their patronage, and among those who have already promised to help are the amateur champions and ex-champions, Norman Forbes, Ben Webster, Justin Huntly McCarthy, Jerrold Robertshaw, Athol Stewart and Col. Matthew. Egerton Castle will act as ‘chorus’ between the scenes, and explain the development of the weapons and the rules of fencing of the period.”— The New York Times, 1912

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

Profiles in Etiquette — Goofus and Gallant

“The appearances have changed over more than 50 (now more than 75) years,... but the subject matter we deal with hasn’t changed: manners, behavior, social etiquette and safety.” Kids of all ages have enjoyed the Do’s and Don’ts of Goofus and Gallant over the decades. The baby boomer generation cut its teeth on their doings, learning morals and manners in the process.

—Photo source, Pinterest 

Corny? Yes. But Highlights’ morality lessons still appear in 2.6 million copies a month

There are two boys. One is ve-e-ery, very bad. Call him Goofus. The other is good--too good to be true. He’s Gallant.

Goofus throws stones at birds; Gallant prefers to feed them. Goofus grabs toys from others; Gallant asks politely. If Goofus litters, you can bet Gallant will stick his candy wrapper in his pocket.

Don’t confuse them with their alliterative cartoon counterparts, Beavis and Butt-head.

They don’t set fires. They don’t ogle super-models or watch music videos. In fact, they’re not even on TV.

For nearly half a century, Goofus and Gallant have been found exclusively in the pages of Highlights for Children, a 2.6-million-circulation magazine for the under-12 set.

Every month they present kids with a relentlessly old-fashioned morality lesson. Be kind. Pick up after yourself. Don’t cut across people’s lawns.

Parents who shudder to hear their preteens muttering “heh, heh” in homage to MTV’s animated sociopaths may be reassured to know that the Goofus and Gallant they remember from their childhoods haven’t really changed.

Amazingly, “Goofus and Gallant” is still one of the most popular features in Highlights, says Kent Brown, the magazine’s editor and a grandson of its founders.

“ ‘Goofus and Gallant’ is the thing that’s most permeated the culture,” he says. “It’s snuck into the American consciousness.”

For instance, Brown says, a journalist once described Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan as “the Goofus and Gallant of the skating world.”

Goofus and Gallant have also been much-parodied in college humor magazines, eliciting obligatory protests from the magazine’s editors. (“Secretly, we’re flattered,” Brown says.)

The feature still follows the format established by the late Garry C. Myers, a psychologist who with his wife, Caroline, founded Highlights in 1946.

One panel shows Goofus engaged in some antisocial behavior, which is described in a caption beneath the picture. The other panel extols Gallant’s praiseworthy comportment.

The contrast is as stark as the cartoon’s pen-and-ink artwork.

Ne’er-do-well Goofus always puts his worst foot forward. He’s impulsive, greedy, lazy and hedonistic. A Jungian might say he represents our shadow side.

For decades Goofus was depicted with a demonic scowl, and while that has been toned down, he still has a stubborn flip in his hair that spells trouble.

He plainly was born under a bad sign, a fact that has not been lost on the magazine’s young readers, some of whom write indignantly on Goofus’ behalf.

“We get letters from children who believe nobody could be as bad as Goofus all the time and nobody could be as good as Gallant,” says Jean Wood, the senior editor who has written the feature for the past 10 years. “I tell them we don’t think of them as good or bad. It’s their behavior that’s good or bad.”

Nevertheless, Gallant gets all the good press.

He’s a neatnik, polite to his elders and always thoughtful. With a smile on his face and a song in his heart, he makes the world a better place. A Jungian might say he represents our sunny side.

And while he’s not technically perfect, he always does the responsible thing, even when he makes a mistake.

Mr. Spontaneity, he’s not, however. We can easily imagine him as an adult weathering a mid-life crisis, wondering why he never had any fun.

Naturally, kids more readily identify with Goofus than Gallant.

“I got a letter from an attorney who’d grown up with the feature,” says Rich Wallace, the magazine’s coordinating editor. “He had something he wanted to get off his chest: ‘Gallant was a wussy.’ ”

Despite all we know about Goofus and Gallant, we haven’t many clues about their backgrounds.

Are they related, or even acquainted? Where do they live? What about their families? How old are they?

“What you know about them you build in your mind,” says Brown, the editor.

It’s been that way since the beginning.

Garry Myers started the feature in October, 1938, while he was an editor at a magazine called Children’s Activities.

In those days, the cartoon was called “The G-Twins,” and Goofus and Gallant were depicted as elves, with pointy ears, jerkins and shoes with curly toes.

Garry and Caroline Myers retired from Children’s Activities and started Highlights on a shoestring in the small town of Honesdale, Pa. A few years later, they bought out Children’s Activities, acquiring the rights to “Goofus and Gallant.” Still elves, the pair first appeared in Highlights in June, 1948.

They lost the elf look and the Spock ears, and by September, 1952, they appeared as ordinary kids in a middle-class setting.

Goofus and Gallant originally were identical twins. Later they became non-twin brothers. “Now they really aren’t even brothers,” senior editor Wood says. “They’re just two boys.”

(Wallace, the magazine’s coordinating editor, has a different take: “I’ve theorized they’re two sides of the same kid.”)

Garry Myers penned the text for the cartoon until his death in 1971. Others carried on until Wood took over in 1985.

Although it has never been spelled out, Wood believes that Goofus and Gallant live in a neighborhood of split-level or ranch-style homes on half-acre lots. Their nuclear families are intact, she says, and they have grandparents, aunts and uncles.

“They go swimming. They play a lot of basketball and baseball. They’re athletic. I don’t want Gallant to come off as a wimp,” she says.

Through the years Goofus and Gallant have sported many ‘dos and duds. They’ve also aged from 6 or 7 to about 10, Wood says.

“The appearances have changed over more than 50 years,” she says, “but the subject matter we deal with hasn’t changed: manners, behavior, social etiquette and safety.”

Company lore has it that Garry Myers drew inspiration from the antics of two of his grandsons, editor Brown and Brown’s cousin, Highlights CEO Garry Myers III.

Myers, who runs the magazine’s business side, grouses that he has been unfairly tagged as Gallant. “Kent gets great glee out of claiming to be Goofus,” he says.

But Brown insists that there’s a kernel of truth to the story.

“ ‘Goofus and Gallant’ was drawn from real observation of real kids, and that included Garry and Kent and other kids in the neighborhood,” he says. “Over time, we’ve come to see that someone who would choose a business career and wear a pin-striped suit must be Gallant. And someone who wears boots to work and is an editor is Goofus.”

Senior Editor Tom White, the magazine’s resident philosopher, observes that no one ever wants to be Gallant, because he carries the burden of perfection. Besides, Goofus’ “bad boy chic” is more glamorous.

But Goofus, for all his flaws, will never be found hanging with Beavis and Butt-head, White says.

“That perversity is missing in ‘Goofus and Gallant'--as it is missing in Highlights,” he says. “It’s not our shtick to be perverse.”

Still, after half a century, G & G manage to sustain the dramatic tension that keeps their young readers coming back.

“You could say they’re poised on the same knife-edge,” White says, “and one tips one way and one tips the other.” — By Michael Haederle, Los Angeles Times, 1995

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

 

Morals, Manners and Kindness

“Civility,” said Lady Montagu, “costs nothing and buys everything.” The cheapest of all things in kindness, its exercise requiring the least possible trouble and self-sacrifice.

Morals and manners, which give color to life, are of much greater importance than laws, which are but their manifestations. The law touches us here and there, but manners are about us everywhere, pervading society like the air we breathe. Good manners, as we call them, are neither more, nor less, than good behavior; consisting of courtesy and kindness, benevolence being the preponderating element in all kinds of mutually beneficial and pleasant intercourse among human beings. 

“Civility,” said Lady Montagu, “costs nothing and buys everything.” The cheapest of all things in kindness, its exercise requiring the least possible trouble and self-sacrifice. “Win hearts,” said Burleigh to Queen Elizabeth, “and you have all men’s hearts and purses.” If we would only let nature act kindly, free from affectation and artifice, the results on social good humor and happiness would be incalculable.— Colusa Daily Sun, 1920

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

Etiquette and the Faux

From the 1935 film of the same name, the social-climbing “Alice Adams,” is doing whatever it takes to promote an appearance of grace, wealth and a lofty social standing to woo the handsome young man, who somehow finds her fascinating. Hiring a maid to serve at their ill-thought out dinner party, and tossing out French bon-mots while putting on airs, Alice’s facade-building is thrown into overdrive with the help of her mother and from the fear she’ll be exposed as a fraud. The charming Arthur Russell, seems to be aware of what’s going on, but only has second thoughts when Alice’s family, including her shady brother, can no longer continue on with the charade.

In 1938, someone had good manners confused with rules promoted by those who talked and wrote about “Best People” and “Best Society” 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Our Artificial Life

We boast of our modern civilization, and in many respects, it is very wonderful. But it is also cluttered up by a lot of flubdub which reflects no credit upon the courage or intelligence of the average mortal. Out of deference to innumerable foolish customs, conventions and caprices, our lives are largely artificial and restricted. We must make ourselves uncomfortable in ridiculous clothing; we must become identified with enterprises in which we have no interest; we must pretend to enjoy things we loathe; we must submit to being bored stiff by tiresome people; we must bow to the decrees of self-constituted dictators in matters of etiquette or be classed as barbarians. 

Our actions are largely governed by inhibitions. Many of them trivial and without any bearing upon true character or morality, but nevertheless considered binding upon all who would appear civilized. Were these rules and regulations established by leaders possessed of superior morals or intellect, they might be observed with better grace. But if such were the case, the rules would probably be quite different from what they are. In the eyes of some of our arbiters, it appears that a breach of table manners is a more heinous offense than a violation of the moral code, to wear out-of-date clothing is more reprehensible than defrauding a creditor. But most of us lack the courage to rebel, because we must be regular and standardized if we would be classed among the “best people.” – LaHabra Valley Star, 1938

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

The Value of Manners and Morals

These young ladies from Los Angeles High of 1913, have maintained high standards of etiquette and excellent deportment.

Pupils to Be Taught Morals and Manners

Morals and manners are among the most necessary things to be learned in the High and Intermediate schools of Los Angeles, and a course has been outlined. Here are the subjects: Politeness on the streets and in crowds; quietness in conversation and laughter; industry; obedience; sympathy; simplicity in dress, speech and action; loyalty; and, above all, honesty, truthfulness, sincerity. The value of good manners will be discussed. –Los Angeles Herald, 1913

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

Manners, Morals and More

Teachers assist children to develop good manners and morals; they help in problems of social adjustment; they impress upon them the fundamental concepts of democracy; and in the stresses of this war-torn world, they attempt to keep the children well-balanced emotionally.

Speaker at Parent Teacher Meeting

Donald Drummond, acting principal of the Grammar and Junior High Schools, gave an interesting and enlightening talk on “The School’s Service to the Community” at the regular monthly meeting of the Parent-Teacher Association on Monday evening, October 23, in the High School library. He described the far more than “Three Rs” which teachers of our public schools teach the young people of the community who are in their charge for the better part of the day. 

They check on their physical health; they assist them to develop good manners and morals; they help in problems of social adjustment; they impress upon them the fundamental concepts of democracy; and in the stresses of this war-torn world, they attempt to keep the children well-balanced emotionally. The Association agreed with the speaker that Coronado is particularly fortunate to have efficient teachers with real responsibility in their work of supplementing home training for the benefit of both individuals and community. – The Coronado Eagle and Journal, 1944

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

Etiquette Advice for Lovelorn

"... there are so many faults about his table manners that I would have to criticise everything, it seems."

Etiquette Advice for the Lovelorn and Unmannerly

"I am going with a young man who is very good to me and has a very good character, but he is very self conscious and twists his hands in such a peculiar manner when he thinks anyone is watching him, and stands all humped over and awkward. It embarrasses me terribly when in company. He also has very bad table manners. 

He leaves his spoon in his cup when he drinks and stoops over his food instead of bringing the food up gracefully to mouth. These things are embarrassing to me and I get so provoked I don't know what to do. I have suggested that he take his spoon out of the cup when drinking and it hurt his feelings frightfully, I believe. But there are so many faults about his table manners that I would have to criticise everything, it seems. 

Won’t you kindly tell me what to do, because he is all right other ways and is more moral than the average boy. I  don't want to contend with his bad manners, as I myself have been taught table etiquette and notice details." —From "C. P."

"A man’s morals are of infinitely more importance to a woman than his table manners or the way he carries himself in company. For the sake of his good morals you should be willing to be patient and long suffering on the score of more trlviaf matters. No man likes to be nagged—and no woman ought to be willing to develop into a hen-pecking wife. 

I am firmly convinced that an attitude of unkind superiority and criticism over personalities, such as leaving a spoon in a cup or twisting hands from embarrassment breaks up many a home and wrecks many lives. If you feel your knowledge, of table etiquette is so fine that it will prevent a daily exercise of tact and kindness toward this man, you had better give him up. You will, however, be making a mistake. 

Try to forget your own good manners—they aren’t really good, you know, or you would not have criticized him. but would have influenced him by tact and indirect methods. Remember how finehe is in the things that really count, and leave to time, patience and affection, the smaller task of helping him to more polished manners." — by Beatrice Fairfax, in the Los Angeles Herald, 1917

Victorian Etiquette: Basic Principles

“Courtesy is the beautiful part of morality, justice carried to the utmost, rectitude refined, magnanimity in trifles.” – Life Illustrated

I. – Manners and Morals 

Good manners and good morals are founded on the same eternal principles of right, and are only different expressions of the same great truths. Both grow out of the necessities of our existence and relations. We have individual rights based on the fact of our individual being; and we have social duties resulting from our connection, in the bonds of society, with other individuals who have similar rights. Morals and manners alike, while they justify us in asserting and maintaining our own rights, require us scrupulously to respect, in word and act, the rights of others. It is true that the former, in the common comprehension of the term, is satisfied with simple justice in all our relations, while the latter often requires something more than the strictest conscientiousness can demand--a yielding of more than half the road--an exercise of the sentiment of benevolence, as well as of equity; but the highest morality really makes the same requisition, for it includes politeness, and recognizes deeds of kindness as a duty.

II. –Rights 

In this country we need no incitements to the assertion and maintenance of our rights, whether individual or national. We are ready at all times to do battle for them either with the tongue, the pen, or the sword, as the case may require. Even women have discovered that they have rights, and he must be a bold man indeed who dares call them in question. Yes, we all, men, women, and children, have rights, and are forward enough in claiming then. Are we equally ready to respect the rights of others?

III. –Duties 

Out of rights grow duties; the first of which is to live an honest, truthful, self-loyal life, acting and speaking always and everywhere in accordance with the laws of our being, as revealed in our own physical and mental organization. It is by the light of this fact that we must look upon all social requirements, whether in dress, manners, or morals. All that is fundamental and genuine in these will be found to harmonize with universal principles, and consequently with our primary duty in reference to ourselves.

1. The Senses 

 Whenever and wherever we come in contact with our fellow-men, there arises a question of rights, and consequently of duties. We have alluded incidentally to some of them, in speaking of habits and dress. The senses of each individual have their rights, and it is your duty to respect them. The eye has a claim upon you for so much of beauty in form, color, arrangement, position, and movement as you are able to present to it. A French author has written a book, the aim of which is to show that it is the duty of a pretty woman to look pretty. It is the duty of all women, and all men too, to look and behave just as well as they can, and whoever fails in this, fails in good manners and in duty. The ear demands agreeable tones and harmonious combinations of tones--pleasant words and sweet songs. If you indulge in loud talking, in boisterous and untimely laughter, or in profane or vulgar language, or sing out of tune, you violate its rights and offend good manners. The sense of smell requires pleasant odors for its enjoyment. Fragrance is its proper element. To bring the fetid odor of unwashed feet or filthy garments, or the stench of bad tobacco or worse whisky, or the offensive scent of onions or garlics within its sphere, is an act of impoliteness. The sense of taste asks for agreeable flavors, and has a right to the best we can give in the way of palatable foods and drinks. The sense of feeling, though less cultivated and not so sensitive as the others, has its rights too, and is offended by too great coarseness, roughness, and hardness. It has a claim on us for a higher culture.

2. The Faculties 

 And if the senses have their rights, we must admit that the higher faculties and feelings of our nature are at least equally dowered in this respect. You can not trespass upon one of them without a violation of good manners. We can not go into a complete exposition of the "bill of rights" of each. You can analyze them for yourself, and learn the nature of their claims upon you. In the mean time, we will touch upon a point or two here and there.

3. Opinions 

Each person has a right to his or her opinions, and to the expression of them on proper occasions, and there is no duty more binding upon us all than the most complete and respectful toleration. The author of "The Illustrated Manners Book" truly says: "Every denial of, or interference with, the personal freedom or absolute rights of another, is a violation of good manners. He who presumes to censure me for my religious belief, or want of belief; who makes it a matter of criticism or reproach that I am a Theist or Atheist, Trinitarian or Unitarian, Catholic or Protestant, Pagan or Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, or Mormon, is guilty of rudeness and insult. If any of these modes of belief make me intolerant or intrusive, he may resent such intolerance or repel such intrusion; but the basis of all true politeness and social enjoyment is the mutual tolerance of personal rights."

4. The Sacredness of Privacy 

Here is another passage from the author just quoted which is so much to the point that we can not forbear to copy it: "One of the rights most commonly trespassed upon constituting a violent breach of good manners, is the right of privacy, or of the control of one's own person and affairs. There are places in this country where there exists scarcely the slightest recognition of this right. A man or woman bolts into your house without knocking. No room is sacred unless you lock the door, and an exclusion would be an insult. Parents intrude upon children, and children upon parents. The husband thinks he has a right to enter his wife's room, and the wife would feel injured if excluded, by night or day, from her husband's. It is said that they even open each others letters, and claim, as a right, that neither should have any secrets from the other. "It in difficult to conceive of such a state of intense barbarism in a civilized country, such a denial of the simplest and most primitive rights, such an utter absence of delicacy and good manners; and had we not been assured on good authority that such things existed, we should consider any suggestions respecting them needless and impertinent.

"Each person in a dwelling should, if possible, have a room as sacred from intrusion as the house is to the family. No child, grown to years of discretion, should be outraged by intrusion. No relation, however intimate, can justify it. So the trunks, boxes, packets, papers, and letters of every individual, locked or unlocked, sealed or unsealed, are sacred. It is ill manners even to open a book-case, or to read a written paper lying open, without permission expressed or implied. Books in an open case or on a center-table, cards in a card-case, and newspapers, are presumed to be open for examination. Be careful where you go, what you read, and what you handle, particularly in private apartments." This right to privacy extends to one's business, his personal relations, his thoughts, and his feelings. Don't intrude; and always "mind your own business," which means, by implication, that you must let other people's business alone.

5. Conformity 

 You must conform, to such an extent as not to annoy and give offense, to the customs, whether in dress or other matters, of the circle in which you move. This conformity is an implied condition in the social compact. It is a practical recognition of the right of others, and shows merely a proper regard for their opinions and feelings. If you can not sing in tune with the rest, or on the same key, remain silent. You may be right and the others wrong but that does not alter the case. Convince them, if you can, and bring them to your pitch, but never mar even a low accord. So if you can not adapt your dress and manners to the company in which you find yourself, the sooner you take your leave the better. You may and should endeavor, in a proper way, to change such customs and fashions as you may deem wrong, or injurious in their tendency, but, in the mean time, you have no right to violate them. You may choose your company, but, having chosen it, you must conform to its rules til you can change them. You are not compelled to reside in Rome; but if you choose to live there, you must "do as the Romans do." The rules which should govern your conduct, as an isolated individual, were such a thing as isolation possible in the midst of society, are modified by your relations to those around you.

This life of ours is a complex affair, and our greatest errors arise from our one-side views of it. We are sovereign individuals, and are born with certain "inalienable rights;" but we are also members of that larger individual society, and our rights can not conflict with the duties which grow out of that relation. If by means of our non-conformity we cause ourselves to be cut off, like an offending hand, or plucked out, like an offending eye, our usefulness is at once destroyed. It is related of a certain king that on a particular occasion he turned his tea into his saucer, contrary to his custom and to the etiquette of society, because two country ladies, whose hospitalities he was enjoying, did so. That king was a gentleman; and this anecdote serves to illustrate an important principle; namely, that true politeness and genuine good manners often not only permit, but absolutely demand, a violation of some of the arbitrary rules of etiquette. The highest law demands complete HARMONY in all spheres and in all relations.

IV.– Equality

In the qualified sense which no doubt Mr. Jefferson affixed to the term in his own mind, "all men are created free and equal." The "noble Oracle" himself had long before as explicitly asserted the natural equality of man. In 1739, thirty-seven years before the Declaration of Independence was penned, Lord Chesterfield wrote: "We are of the same species, and no distinction whatever is between us, except that which arises from fortune. For example, your footman and Lizette would be your equals were they as rich as you. Being poor, they are obliged to serve you. Therefore you must not add to their misfortune by insulting or ill-treating them. A good heart never reminds people of their misfortune, but endeavors to alleviate, or, if possible, to make them forget it." The writer in Life Illustrated, quoted in a previous chapter, states the case very clearly as follows: "It is in the sacredness of their rights that men are equal. The smallest injustice done to the smallest man on earth is an offense against all men; an offense which all men have a personal and equal interest in avenging. If John Smith picks my pocket, the cause in court is correctly entitled, 'The PEOPLE versus John Smith.' The whole State of New York has taken up my quarrel with John, and arrays itself against John in awful majesty; because the pockets, the interests, the rights of a man are infinitely, and therefore equally, sacred. "The conviction of this truth is the beginning and basis of the science of republican etiquette, which acknowledges no artificial distinctions. Its leading principle is, that courtesy is due to all men from all men; from the servant to the served; from the served to the servant; and from both for precisely the same reason, namely, because both are human beings and fellow-citizens!"

V.–A Remark or Two to be Remembered

We purpose, in succeeding chapters, to set forth briefly but clearly, what the actual requirements of good society are in reference to behavior. You must look at these in the light of the general principles we have already laid down. It is not for us to say how far you ought or can conform to any particular custom, usage, or rule of etiquette. We believe that even the most arbitrary and capricious of them either have or have had a reason and a meaning. In many cases, however, the reason may no longer exist, and the form be meaningless; or while it embodies what is a living truth to others, you may have outgrown it or advanced beyond it.

You have an undoubted right, politely but firmly, to decline to do what seems to you, looking upon the matter from your highest stand-point, to be clearly wrong, and it is no breach of good manners to do so; but at the same time you should avoid, as far as possible, putting yourself in positions which call for the exercise of this right. If you can not conscientiously wear a dress coat, or a stove-pipe hat, or cut your hair, or eat flesh-meat, or drink wine, you will naturally avoid, under ordinary circumstances, the circles in which non-conformity in these matters would be deemed a breach of good manners.

When it is necessary that you should mingle with people whose customs you can not follow in all points without a violation of principle, you will courteously, and with proper respect for what they probably think entirely right, fall back upon the "higher law;" but if it is a mere matter of gloved or ungloved hands, cup or saucer, fork or knife, you will certainly have the courtesy and good sense to conform to usage.

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institure of Etiquette, is the Site Editor for Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia