Some of you, my friends, have grown up or lived long inside the
“sanctuary”; that is, had the guidance of truly devoted parents, a fine
education (most often by homeschooling), orthodox religious formation, an
exposure to and appreciation of traditional high culture, and sound instruction
in social etiquette. Others have, like me, come from “out there”. Some of us
belonging to the latter group have climbed the wall and appropriated some of
the blessings of the sanctuary for ourselves; others have looked over it longingly
but not found a way past; still others are unaware of the sanctuary’s existence
and are yet wallowing in primetime TV, fast food, and top 40 radio. But even those
of us who find a way inside still face many obstacles before we can truly make
ourselves at home.
The most daunting of the barriers in my own journey has been
social interactions and polite behaviour. Although I am naturally possessed of
a gentlemanly nature, I have lacked
gentlemanly polish. I find,
therefore, an invaluable gem in the 1875 manual The Gentlemen’s Book of Etiquette, by Cecil B. Hartley. (For the
ladies, there is The Ladies’ Book of
Etiquette by his wife, Florence.
Both are, unfortunately, very hard to find in their original form, but
available electronically and in scanned reprint.)
From the introduction:
MAN was not intended to live like a bear or a hermit, apart
from others of his own nature, and, philosophy and reason will
each agree with me, that man was born for sociability and finds
his true delight in society. Society is a word capable of many
meanings, and used here in each and all of them. Society,
par excellence; the world at large; the little clique to which he
is bound by early ties; the companionship of friends or relatives;
even society tete a tete with one dear sympathizing soul, are
pleasant states for a man to be in.
I have actually tried living like a bear or a hermit, and found that Mr. Hartley is correct: it only increased my misery. Despite my protestations to the contrary, I discovered that I did, in fact, need the society of others; most especially that last-mentioned "society
tete a tete with one dear sympathizing soul".
Further:
You may set it down as a rule, that as you treat the world,
so the world will treat you. Carry into the circles of
society
a refined, polished manner, and an amiable desire to please,
and it will meet you with smiling grace, and lead you
forward
pleasantly along the flowery paths; go, on the contrary,
with a
brusque, rude manner, startling all the silky softness
before you
with cut and thrust remarks, carrying only the hard
realities
of life in your hand, and you will find society armed to
meet
you, showing only sharp corners and thorny places for your
blundering footsteps to stumble against.
Right again. It was this that drove me into isolation to begin with. On this head, however, although I accept full responsibility for my own actions, I do have something to say on at least part of the
cause which I think is not unique to my own story.
Mr. Hartley clearly delineates (as one would expect in 1875) between behaviour appropriate to the society of other gentlemen and that appropriate to mixed company or the society of ladies. His words "startling all the silky softness" &c here are plainly a reference to the feminine. Unlike the gentlemen of the late 19th century, however, my generation of men came of age in the very teeth of feminism, or "women's lib" as it was mostly called then. And at that time, there was an incessant insistence, a la J.S. Mill, (now proved false) that men and women were
equal, meaning
the same in every way, and all perceived differences were the result of archaic socialization. This was the time when feminists thought it their duty to rebuke men who "patronized" them by trying to hold doors or show other small courtesies. Consequently, although the earliest years of my childhood had inculcated in me a rudimentary sense of gentility toward the fairer sex, every bit of my socialization from outside the home and subsequent to about my sixth year contradicted that, and it became ingrained in my subconscious (and that of the greater part of my generation) that women and men were intellectually and emotionally identical. You see, ladies;
gentlemanly conduct is predicated upon the realization of the gentleman that ladies require
gentle treatment. Not that they are intellectually inferior, as some boors have maintained in times past; but simply different, and deserving of special consideration. For men, of their nature, are somewhat rough toward each other. We jest, we tease, we provoke, we fight. And a boy has to be taught that he is
not to act in those ways toward girls, because it will not at all be appreciated.
But our generation was not allowed to learn this, because it was supposedly patronizing and demeaning to women. Hence, the epidemic of boorish and callous treatment of women by men in our day. (As a brief aside, feminism has now invented their own answer to the problem: turn all men into women. So the younger generations of men and boys have a whole different set of problems to face.)
Mr. Hartley shows us a better way:
You will soon become familiar with the signs, and
tell on your first entrance into a room whether kid
gloves and exquisite finish of manner will be appropriate,
or whether it is "hail, fellow, well met" with the inmates.
Remember, however, "once a gentleman always a
gentleman," and be sure that you can so carry out the
rule,
that in your most careless, joyous moments, when freest from
the restraints of etiquette, you can still be recognizable
as a
gentleman by every act, word, or look.
I suppose "hail, fellow, well met" was, in 1875 rugged manly coarseness as opposed to the refinement of the drawing-room or ballroom. Another failing of our time, and of mine: that now we curse like sailors (or soldiers, in my case) in all company without restraint.
Similarly, the first chapter ("Conversation") starts with this now utterly unheeded rule:
ONE of the first rules for a guide in polite conversation,
is to avoid political or religious discussions in
general society. Such discussions lead almost invariably
to irritating differences of opinion, often to open
quarrels,
and a coolness of feeling which might have been
avoided by dropping the distasteful subject as soon as
marked differences of opinion arose. It is but one out
of many that can discuss either political or religious
differences,
with candor and judgment, and yet so far control
his language and temper as to avoid either giving or
taking offence.
This is probably my greatest infraction. Partly out of zeal for the truth, but mostly out of pride and selfish desire to be right, I have both given and taken offense, almost as a way of life. In class, in casual conversation, on social media, and in every possible way I have ignored this invaluable law (although I knew it) and made many enemies where there was no need. Not to say that one should kowtow and compromise his beliefs: when the time is right, it is imperative to stand for the truth. But I, and many, many others, have made a habit of bringing in our opinions when opinions are not called for; of creating tension and dissension when polite amity and kind respect would have better served the cause of truth.
I am still reading, and may post more gems of wisdom as I come across them. But I highly recommend the entire work for any man who wants to improve his character, and especially to the man who wishes to be a better man for the sake of a certain cherished one who deserves the best that he can possibly be and give.
