Read Ebook: George Washington's Rules of Civility Traced to their Sources and Restored by Moncure D. Conway by Conway Moncure Daniel Washington George

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 154 lines and 33503 words, and 4 pages

GEORGE WASHINGTON'S RULES OF CIVILITY

Traced to their Sources and Restored

BY MONCURE D. CONWAY

Inscribed

THE RULES OF CIVILITY.

Among the manuscript books of George Washington, preserved in the State Archives at Washington City, the earliest bears the date, written in it by himself, 1745. Washington was born February 11, 1731 O.S., so that while writing in this book he was either near the close of his fourteenth, or in his fifteenth, year. It is entitled "Forms of Writing," has thirty folio pages, and the contents, all in his boyish handwriting, are sufficiently curious. Amid copied forms of exchange, bonds, receipts, sales, and similar exercises, occasionally, in ornate penmanship, there are poetic selections, among them lines of a religious tone on "True Happiness." But the great interest of the book centres in the pages headed: "Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation." The book had been gnawed at the bottom by Mount Vernon mice, before it reached the State Archives, and nine of the 110 Rules have thus suffered, the sense of several being lost.

The Rules possess so much historic interest that it seems surprising that none of Washington's biographers or editors should have given them to the world. Washington Irving, in his "Life of Washington," excites interest in them by a tribute, but does not quote even one. Sparks quotes 57, but inexactly, and with his usual literary manipulation; these were reprinted by W.O. Stoddard, at Denver, Colorado; and in Hale's "Washington" . I suspect that the old biographers, more eulogistic than critical, feared it would be an ill service to Washington's fame to print all of the Rules. There might be a scandal in the discovery that the military and political deity of America had, even in boyhood, written so gravely of the hat-in-hand deference due to lords, and other "Persons of Quality," or had concerned himself with things so trivial as the proper use of the fork, napkin, and toothpick. Something is said too about "inferiours," before whom one must not "Act ag'tt y'e Rules Moral." But in 1888 the Rules were subjected to careful and literal treatment by Dr. J.M. Toner, of Washington City, in the course of his magnanimous task of preserving, in the Library of Congress, by exact copies, the early and perishing note-books and journals of Washington. This able literary antiquarian has printed his transcript of the Rules , and the pamphlet, though little known to the general public, is much valued by students of American history. With the exception of one word, to which he called my attention, Dr. Toner has given as exact a reproduction of the Rules, in their present damaged condition, as can be made in print. The illegible parts are precisely indicated, without any conjectural insertions, and young Washington's spelling and punctuation subjected to no literary tampering.

Concerning the source of these remarkable Rules there have been several guesses. Washington Irving suggests that it was probably his intercourse with the Fairfax family, and his ambition to acquit himself well in their society, that set him upon "compiling a code of morals and manners." Sparks, more cautiously, says: "The most remarkable part of the book is that in which is compiled a system of maxims and regulations of conduct, drawn from miscellaneous sources." Dr. Toner says: "Having searched in vain to find these rules in print, I feel justified, considering all the circumstances, in assuming that they were compiled by George Washington himself when a schoolboy. But while making this claim it is proper to state, that nearly all the principles incorporated and injunctions, given in these 110 maxims had been enunciated over and over again in the various works on good behaviour and manners prior to this compilation and for centuries observed in polite society. It will be noticed that, while the spirit of these maxims is drawn chiefly from the social, life of Europe, yet, as formulated here, they are as broad as civilization itself, though a few of them are especially applicable to Society as it then existed in America, and, also, that but few refer to women."

Except for the word "parents," which occurs twice, Dr. Toner might have said that the Rules contain no allusion whatever to the female sex. This alone proved, to my own mind, that Washington was in nowise responsible for these Rules. In the school he was attending when they were written there were girls; and, as he was rather precocious in his admirations, a compilation of his own could hardly omit all consideration of conduct towards ladies, or in their presence. There were other reasons also which led me to dissent from my friend Dr. Toner, in this instance, and to institute a search, which has proved successful, for the source of the Rules of Civility.

While gathering materials for a personal and domestic biography of Washington, I discovered that in 1745 he was attending school in Fredericksburg, Virginia. The first church of the infant town was just then finished, and the clergyman was the Rev. James Marye, a native of France. It is also stated in the municipal records of the town that its first school was taught by French people, and it is tolerably certain that Mr. Marye founded the school soon after his settlement there as Rector, which was in 1735, eight years after the foundation of Fredericksburg. I was thus led to suspect a French origin of the Rules of Civility. This conjecture I mentioned to my friend Dr. Garnett, of the British Museum, and, on his suggestion, explored an old work in French and Latin in which ninety-two of the Rules were found. This interesting discovery, and others to which it led, enable me to restore the damaged manuscript to completeness.

"Sugar-plums complete the pleasantness and enjoyment of the dessert, and serve, as it were, to satisfy pleasure. They are brought, while the table is still laid, in a handsome box on a salver, like those given by the ancients to be carried home. Sometimes, also, they are handed round after the hands have been washed in rose water, and the table covered with a Turkey cloth.

"These are riches which we possess in abundance, and your feasts cannot terminate more agreeably in your quarters than with our Verdun sugar-plums. Besides the exquisite delicacy of their sugar, cinnamon and aniseed, they possess a sweet, fragrant odour like the breeze of the Canaries,--that is to say, like our sincerest attachment for you, of which you will also receive proof. Thus you see, then, the courteous advice we have undertaken to give you to serve for a profitable entertainment, If you please, then, we will bring it to a close, in order to devote ourselves more zealously to other duties which will contribute to your satisfaction, and prove agreeable to all those who truly esteem good-breeding and decent general conversation, as we ardently hope.

"Praise be to God and to the glorious Virgin!"

With the Hawkins volume of 1663 is bound, in the British Museum Library, a companion work, entitled, "The second Part of Youth's Behaviour, or Decency in Conversation amongst Women. 1664." This little book is apparently by Robert Codrington, whose name is signed to its remarkable dedicatory letter: "To the Mirrour of her Sex Mrs. Ellinor Pargiter, and the most accomplished with all reall Perfections Mrs. Elizabeth Washington, her only Daughter, and Heiress to the truly Honourable Laurence Washington Esquire, lately deceased."

This was Laurence Washington of Garsden, Wilts., who married Elianor. second daughter of Wm. Gyse; their only child, a daughter, having married Robert Shirley, Earl Ferrars. Laurence Washington died Jan. 17, 1662, and his widow married Sir William Pargiter.

A careful comparison, however, of Washington's Rules with the Hawkins version renders it doubtful whether the Virginia boy used the work of the London boy. The differences are more than the resemblances. If in some cases the faults of the Washington version appear gratuitous, the printed copy being before him, on the other hand it often suggests a closer approach to the French--of which language Washington is known to have been totally ignorant. As to the faults, where Hawkins says ceremonies "are too troublesome," Washington says they "is troublesome;" where the former translates correctly that one must not approach where "another readeth a letter," Washington has "is writing a letter;" where he writes "infirmityes" Washington has "Infirmaties;" the printed "manful" becomes "manfull," and "courtesy" "curtesie." Among the variations which suggest a more intimate knowledge of French idioms than that of Hawkins the following may be mentioned. The first Maxim with which both versions open is: "Que toutes actions qui se font publiquement fassent voir son sentiment respectueux ? toute la compagnie." Hawkins: "Every action done in view of the world ought to be accompanied with some signe of reverence which one beareth to all who are present." Washington: "Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present." Here the restoration of "respectueux," and the limitation of "publiquement" by "compagnie," make the latter rendering much neater. In Maxim viii. 47, which admonishes one not to be angry at table, it is said, "bien si vous vous f?chez," you are not to show it. Hawkins translates "if so bee thou bee vexed;" but Washington more finely, "if you have reason to be so, Shew it not." Or compare the following versions of "Si vous vous reposez chez vous, ay?t quelque siege, faites en sorte de traiter chacun sel? son merite." Hawkins: "if there be anything for one to sit on, be it a chair, be it a stool, give to each one his due." Washington: "when you present seats let it be to every one according to his degree." Rule 45, for "moderation et douceur" has "Sweetness and Mildness," Hawkins only "sweetness." Again: "si vous rencontrez ioliment, si vous donnez quelque bon-mot, en faisant rire les autres, empeschez-vous-en, le plus qu'il vous sera possible." Hawkins: "When so it falleth out that thou deliver some happy lively an jolly conceit abstaine thou, and let others laugh." Washington: "if you Deliver anything witty and Pleasent abtain from laughing thereat yourself."

On the whole, though it is very uncertain, the balance of probabilities seems to favour the theory that the Rules of Civility, found in a copy-book among school exercises, exceedingly abbreviated, and marked by clerical errors unusual with Washington, were derived from the oral teachings of his preceptor; that this Frenchman utilised the English version along with the original, which had been used as a manual in his Rouen College.

The Marie family of Rouen,--from which came the Maryes of Virginia,--is distinguished both in Catholic and Huguenot annals. Among the eminent Jesuit authors was Pierre Marie, who was born at Rouen, 1589, and died at Bourges, 1645. He was author of "La Sainte Solitude; ou les Entretiens solitaires de l'ame," and of "La Science du Crucifix: en forme de m?ditations." The family was divided by the Huguenot movement, and a Protestant branch took root in England. Concerning the latter, Agnew gives the following information:--

"Jean Marie, pasteur of Lion-sur-mer, was a refugee in England from the St. Bartholomew massacre. He is supposed to have belonged to the same family as the Huguenot martyr, Marin Marie, a native of St. George in the diocese of Lisieux. It was in the year 1559 that that valiant man, who had become a settler in Geneva, was arrested at Sens when on a missionary journey to France, laden with a bale of Bibles and New Testaments, and publications for the promotion of the Protestant Reformation; he was burnt at Paris, in the place Maubert, on the 3d of August of that year. Our pasteur was well received in England, and was sent to Norwich, of which city he appears to have been the first French minister. He was lent to the reformed churches of France when liberty of preaching revived, and so returned to Normandy, where we find him in 1583. The first National Synod of Vitr? held its meetings in that year, between the 15th and 27th of May. Quick's 'Synodicon' quotes the following minute:--'Our brother, Monsieur Marie, minister of the church of Norwich in England, but living at present in Normandy, shall be obliged to return unto his church upon its first summons; yet, because of the great success of his ministry in these parts, his church may be entreated to continue for some longer time his absence from it.' He certainly did return to Norwich, because on 29th April 1589 the manuscript Book of Discipline was submitted to the consistory for signature; and Jan Marie signed first, and his colleague M. Basnage, second. One of his sons, Nathaniel Marie, became one of the pasteurs of the London French Church, and married 1st, Ester, daughter of the pasteur Guillaume De Laune, and 2dly , Ester le Hure, widow of Andr? Joye. The Norwich pasteur had probably another son named after himself, a commercial residenter in his native city; for two sons of a Jan Marie were baptized in Norwich French Church: Jan on 3d February 1600, and Pierre, on 6th July 1602. Madame Marie, probably the pasteur's widow, was a witness at the first baptism."

James Marye, with whom we are particularly concerned, sprang from the Catholic family, and was born at Rouen near the close of the seventeenth century. He was educated for the priesthood, no doubt at the Jesuit College in Rouen,--where, as we have seen, Father P?rin's book on manners was printed in 1651. However, James Marye abjured the Catholic religion in 1726. This caused a breach between himself and the family, which consisted of a widowed mother and her two other sons,--Peter and William , both of whose names however, reappeared in their protestant brother's family. In consequence of this alienation James migrated to England, where he pursued his studies, and was ordained by the Bishop of London. In 1728 he married Letitia Maria Anne Staige. She was a sister of the Rev. Theodosius Staige, who was already in Virginia. For that colony the Rev. James Marye also embarked, in 1729, with his bride. Their first child was born during the voyage.

It would appear that the purpose of this emigration was to minister to a settlement of French Huguenots at Monacan on James River. The first band of these refugees had gone over in 1690, under the leadership of Olivier de la Muce, and 600 others had followed in 1699, with their clergyman, Phillipe de Richebourg. The Assembly of Virginia gave them a large tract of land in Henrico County--not far from where Richmond now stands--exempting them from taxation. The name of James Marye first appears in Virginia as christening a child in King William Parish, as it was called,--after the King who had favoured this Huguenot colony.

In 1727 the town of Fredericksburg was founded. In I732 Col. Byrd visited the place, and wrote: "Besides Col. Willis, who is the top man of the place, there are only one merchant, a tailor, a smith, an ordinary keeper, and a lady who acts both as a doctress and coffeewoman." This "Col. Willis" had married Washington's aunt , and there were other families of the neighbourhood connected with the Washingtons. It was not until 1739 that Captain Augustine Washington went to reside near Fredericksburg. Soon after the birth of George the family left their homestead in Westmoreland county, Virginia, and resided on their farm, now known as "Mount Vernon." Although he nowhere alludes to the fact, George Washington's earliest memories, as I have elsewhere shown, were associated with the estate on which he lavished so much devotion, and which the Ladies' Mount Vernon Association has made his most characteristic monument. The Rev. Jonathan Boucher, teacher of Mrs. George Washington's son John Custis, says that Washington was "taught by a convict servant whom his father had bought for a schoolmaster." This was probably one of a shipload of convicts brought by Captain Augustine Washington from England in 1737. When the family removed to the neighbourhood of Fredericksburg , the children went to school at Falmouth,--a village fifty years older than Fredericksburg, and about two miles above, on the opposite side of the river. A church had been erected in Falmouth , but that in Fredericksburg was not completed until some years later. After the death of his father George was sent to reside with his half-brother Augustine, at "Wakefield," the old homestead in Westmoreland where he was born. He returned to live with his mother near Fredericksburg, in 1715. That he then went to school in Fredericksburg appears by a manuscript left by Col. Byrd Willis, grandson of Col. Harry Willis, founder of the town, in which he states that his father, Lewis Willis was Washington's schoolmate. The teachers name is not given, but there can be little doubt that it was James Marye.

The Rev. James Marye's brother-in-law, Rev. Theodosius Staige, had for a time preached in the temporary structure in which the congregation of St. George's, Fredericksburg, met before the church was completed. It was probably during a visit to Mr. Staige that Mr. Marye made an impression on the people of that place. At any rate the early Vestry-book shows that, in 1735, the churchwardens, after the colonial custom, asked leave of the Governor of Virginia to call James Marye to their pulpit, and it was granted. He is described as "Mr. Marie of St. James," being then officiating at St James Church, Northam Parish . At what time and why he left Manakintown is not clear. He fixed his first abode eight miles out of Fredericksburg, in a place which he called "Fayetteville;" and it is not improbable that some of his Huguenot congregation had come with him, and attempted to found there a village. Several infant churches in the county , besides that of Fredericksburg, were under supervision of the Rector of St. George's Parish.

The Rev. James Marye remained in active and successful ministry at Fredericksburg from 1735 until his death, in 1767. He founded the large Virginia family which bears his name, and which has always had eminent representatives. On his death he was succeeded in St. George's Church, Fredericksburg, by his son of the same name, whose honourable tradition was maintained. His great-grandson, John L. Marye,--whose mansion, "Brompton," stood on "Marye's Heights," so famous in the Civil War,--was an eminent lawyer; as also is a son of the latter, John L. Marye Jr., former Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia.

The founder of the Virginia Maryes, who should be ranked among American worthies, was an eloquent clergyman, and built up a noble congregation in Fredericksburg. He was also an accomplished gentleman and a scholar. That he founded and taught the school is tolerably certain. The Municipal Records, as we have seen, ascribe the school a French origin. The name and condition of every respectable resident of Fredericksburg, at the time of his settling there, when it was little more than a "paper town" , is known. There was in the place no one--certainly no "Frenchman"--except Marye who could have taught a school of such importance as that at Fredericksburg. For it presently became known throughout Virginia as the chief Academy, especially for classical education, and its reputation continued for more than a hundred years.

Some of the Rules may strike the modern reader as snobbish, even for the observance of youth. But the originals are in that respect toned down in Washington's MS. Rule 9 takes no cognizance of the principle of the original, that to approach nearer the fire than others, and to turn one's back to it are privileges of persons of rank. The 17th Maxim of chapter iii., which directed certain kissings of the hands of superiors, or of the robe, and other abasements, is entirely omitted. Where the original commands that we should never dispute in any fashion with our superiors in rank, Rule 34 says we ought not to "begin" with them. The only thing clear about which is that the instructor did not wish to admit authority so absolutely into the realm of argument. Rule 46 omits so much of the original as counsels grateful acceptance of reproof from another "the more if you depend on his authority." Other instances of this more liberal tendency will be noticed by those who make a careful comparison of the Rules and the French Maxims.

Here then are rules of conduct, taught, if my theory be correct, by a French protestant pilgrim, unknown to fame, in the New World. They were taught to a small school of girls and boys, in a town of hardly a hundred inhabitants. They are maxims partly ethical, but mainly relate to manners and civility; they are wise, gentle, and true. A character built on them would be virtuous, and probably great. The publisher of the English version says that "Mr. Pinchester, a learned scholar of Oxford," bought 250 copies for a great school he was about to open in London. Probably the school founded by James Marye was the first in the New World in which good manners were seriously taught. Nay, where is there any such school to day?

Just this one colonial school, by the good fortune of having for its master or superintendent an ex-jesuit French scholar, we may suppose instructed in civility; and out of that school, in what was little more than a village, came an exceptionally large number of eminent men. In that school three American Presidents received their early education,--Washington, Madison, and Monroe.

It may be pretty confidently stated that both Madison and Monroe owed their success and eminence more to their engaging manners than to great intellectual powers. They were even notably deficient in that oratorical ability which counted for so much in the political era with which they were connected. They rarely spoke in Congress. When speaking, Madison was hesitating, and was heard with difficulty; but his quietness and modesty, his consideration for others, made the eloquent speak for him Whether these two statesmen were personally taught by James Marye is doubtful, for he was getting old when they were at school in Fredericksburg; but we may feel sure that civility was still taught there in their time, as, indeed it was within the memory of many now living.

George Washington, though even less able than the two others to speak in public, had naturally a strong intellect. But in boyhood he had much more against him than most of his young comrades,--obstructions that could be surmounted only by character. His father had much land but little money; at his death the lands were left chiefly to his sons by the first wife. His widow was left poor, and her eldest son, George, had not the fair prospect of most of his schoolmates. Instead of being prepared for William and Mary College, he was prepared only for going into some business as soon as possible, so as to earn support for his mother and her four younger children. In his old book of school-exercises, the "Rules of Civility" are found in proximity to business forms that bear pathetic testimony to the severe outlook of this boy of fourteen. In the MS. of Col. Byrd Willis, already referred to , he says: "My father, Lewis Willis, was a schoolmate of General Washington, his cousin, who was two years his senior. He spoke of the General's industry and assiduity at school as very remarkable. Whilst his brother and other boys at playtime were at bandy and other games, he was behind the door ciphering. But one youthful ebullition is handed down while at that school, and that was romping with one of the largest girls; this was so unusual that it excited no little comment among the other lads." It is also handed down that in boyhood this great soldier, though never a prig, had no fights, and was often summoned to the playground as a peacemaker, his arbitration in disputes being always accepted.

Once more it may be well enough to remind the reader that it may yet be found that Washington, in his mother's humble home on the Rappahannock, read and pondered "Youth's Behaviour," wrote out what it held for him, and himself became an instructor of his schoolmates in rules of civility. It would be wonderful, but not incredible.

Although Washington became a fine-looking man, he was not of prepossessing appearance in early life; he was lank and hollow-chested. He was by no means a favourite with the beauties for which Fredericksburg was always famous, and had a cruel disappointment of his early love for Betsy Fauntleroy. In his youth he became pitted by smallpox while attending his invalid half-brother, Lawrence, on a visit to the Barbadoes.

But the experienced eye of Lord Fairfax, and of other members of the Fairfax family, had discovered beneath the unattractive appearance of George Washington a sterling character. Their neighbourhood, on the upper Potomac, was much less civilised and refined than Fredericksburg, and this young gentleman, so well instructed in right rules of behaviour and conduct, won their hearts and their confidence. It had been necessary that he should leave school at the age of sixteen to earn a living. At seventeen he was appointed by Lord Fairfax surveyor of his vast estates in Virginia, and for a time he resided with his lordship at Greenway Court. There can be little doubt that it was partly through the training in manners which Washington gained from the old French maxims that he thus made headway against circumstances, and gained the friendship of the highly-educated and powerful Fairfax family.

It should be mentioned, however, that young Washington's head was not in the least turned by this intimacy with the aristocracy. He wrote letters to his former playmates in which no snobbish line is discoverable. He writes to his "Dear friend Robin": "My place of residence is at present at his lordship's where I might, was my heart disengaged, pass my time very pleasantly, as there's a very agreeable young lady lives in the same house . But as that's only adding fuel to fire, it makes me the more uneasy, for by often and unavoidably being in company with her revives my former passion for your Lowland beauty; whereas, was I to live more retired from young women, I might eleviate in some measure my sorrows by burying that chaste and troublesome passion in the grave of oblivion or etearnall forgetfulness, for as I am very well assured, that's the only antidote or remedy that I ever shall be relieved by or only recess that can administer any cure or help to me, as I am well convinced, was I ever to attempt anything, I should only get a denial which would be only adding grief to uneasiness."

The young lady at Greenway Court was Mary Gary, and the Lowland beauty was Betsy Fauntleroy, whose hand Washington twice sought, but who became the wife of the Hon. Thomas Adams. While travelling on his surveys, often among the red men, the youth sometimes gives vent to his feelings in verse.

"Oh Ye Gods why should my Poor resistless Heart Stand to oppose thy might and Power At last surrender to Cupid's feather'd Dart And now lays bleeding every Hour For her that's Pityless of my grief and Woes, And will not on me Pity take. I'll sleep among my most inveterate Foes And with gladness never wish to wake, In deluding sleepings let my Eyelids close That in an enraptured dream I may In a rapt lulling sleep and gentle repose Possess those joys denied by Day."

And it must also be recorded that if he had learned how to conduct himself in the presence of persons superior to himself in position, age, and culture,--and it will be remembered that Lord Fairfax was an able contributor to the "Spectator" --this youth no less followed the instruction of his 108th rule: "Honour your natural parents though they be poor." His widowed mother was poor, and she was ignorant, but he was devoted to her; being reverential and gracious to her even when with advancing age she became somewhat morose and exacting, while he was loaded with public cares.

I am no worshipper of Washington. But in the hand of that man of strong brain and powerful passions once lay the destiny of the New World,--in a sense, human destiny. But for his possession of the humility and self-discipline underlying his Rules of Civility, the ambitious politicians of the United States might to-day be popularly held to a much lower standard. The tone of his character was so entirely that of modesty, he was so fundamentally patriotic, that even his faults are transformed to virtues, and the very failures of his declining years are popularly accounted successes. He alone was conscious of his mental decline, and gave this as a reason for not accepting a third nomination for the Presidency. This humility has established an unwritten law of limitation on vaulting presidential ambitions. Indeed, intrigue and corruption in America must ever struggle with the idealised phantom of this grand personality.

These Rules of Civility go forth with the hope that they will do more than amuse the reader by their quaintness, and that their story will produce an impression beyond that of its picturesqueness. The strong probabilities that they largely moulded the character of Washington, and so influenced the human race, may raise the question, whether the old French Jesuits, and the pilgrim, James Marye, did not possess more truly than our contemporary educators, the art and mystery of moral education. In these days, when ethical is replacing theological instruction, in the home and in the school, there appears danger that it may repeat some of the mistakes of its predecessor. The failure of what was called Religion to promote moral culture is now explicable: its scheme of terror and hope appealed to and powerfully stimulated selfishness, and was also fundamentally anti-social, cultivating alienation of all who did not hold certain dogmas. The terrors and hopes having faded away, the selfishness they developed remains, and is only unchained by the decay of superstition. On the other hand, the social sentiment has thrown off sectarian restrictions, and an enthusiasm of humanity has succeeded. It is now certain that the social instinct is the only one which can be depended on to influence conduct to an extent comparable with the sway once exercised by superstitious terrors and expectations of celestial reward. The child is spiritually a creation of the commune; there can be no other motive so early responsive as that which desires the approval and admiration of those by whom it is surrounded.

To attempt the training of human character by means of ethical philosophy or moral science--as it used to be called--appears to be somewhat of a theological "survival." When the sanctions of authority were removed from the pagan deities they were found to have been long reduced in the nursery to the dimensions of fairies. The tremendous conceptions of Christian theology may some day be revealed as similarly diminished in the catechised mind of childhood. And the abstract principles of ethical philosophy cannot hope for any better fate. The child's mind cannot receive the metaphysics of virtue. It is impossible to explain to a child, for instance, the reasons for truthfulness, which, indeed, have grown out of the experience of the human race as matured by many ages. And so of humanity to animals, which is mainly a Darwinian revival of Buddhist sentiment based on a doctrine of transmigration. And the same may be said of other virtues. We must not suppose that a child has no scepticism because he cannot express or explain it in words; it will appear in the sweetness to him of stolen apples, in the fact that to label a thing "naughty" may only render it more tempting to a healthy boy. A philosopher said, "A fence is the temptation to a jump."

Our ethical teaching is vitiated by, an inheritance from theology of a superstition which subordinates conduct to its motives. Really, if conduct be good, the motive is of least importance. Motives are important as causing conduct, but the Law is just in assuming good or bad motives for the corresponding actions. The world does not depend on a man's inner but on his outer life. Emerson once scandalised some of his admirers by saying that he preferred a person who did not respect the truth to an unpresentable person. But, no doubt, he would regard the presentable person as possessing virtues of equal importance. The nurture of "civility and decent behaviour in company and conversation," is not of secondary, but primary, importance.

For what does it imply? If the Rules about to be submitted are examined, it will be found that their practice draws on the whole moral world, as in walking every step draws on the universal gravitation. Scarcely one Rule is there that does not involve self-restraint, modesty, habitual consideration of others, and, to a large extent, living for others. Yet other Rules draw on the profounder deeps of wisdom and virtue, under a subtle guise of handsome behaviour. If youth can be won to excellence by love of beauty, who shall gainsay?

It may occur to the polished reader that well-bred youths know and practise these rules of civility by instinct. But the best bred man's ancestors had to learn them, and the rude progenitors of future gentlemen have to learn them. Can it be said, however, that those deemed well-bred do really know and practise these rules of civility instinctively? Do they practise them when out of the region of the persons or the community in whose eyes they wish to find approval? How do they act with Indians, Negroes, or when travelling amongst those to whose good opinion they are indifferent? In a Kentucky court a witness who had spoken of a certain man as "a gentleman," was pressed for his reasons, and answered, "If any man goes to his house he sets out the whisky, then goes and looks out of the window." It is doubtful if what commonly passes for politeness in more refined regions is equally humanised with that of the Kentuckian so described. Indeed the only difficulty in the way of such teaching as is here suggested, is the degree to which the words "lady" and "gentleman" have been lowered from their original dignity.

The utilization of the social sentiment as a motive of conduct in the young need not, however, depend on such terms, though these are by no means beyond new moralization in any home or school. An eminent Englishman told me that he once found his little son pointing an old pistol at his sister. The ancient pistol was not dangerous, but the action was. "Had I told him it was dangerous," he said, "it might only have added spice to the thing, but I said, 'I am surprised. I thought you were a little gentleman, but that is the most ungentlemanly thing you could do.' The boy quickly laid aside the pistol, with deep shame. I have found nothing so restraining for my children as to suggest that any conduct is ungentlemanly or unladylike." And let my reader note well the great moral principles in these rules of civility and decent behaviour. The antithesis of "sinfull" is "manfull." Washington was taught that all good conduct was gentlemanly, all bad conduct ill-bred.

It is to be hoped that the time is not far distant when in every school right rules of civility will be taught as a main part of the curriculum. Something of the kind was done by the late Bronson Alcott, in the school he founded in Boston, Massachusetts, near fifty years ago, for children gathered from the street. The school was opened every morning with a "conduct lesson," as it was called. It will be seen by Miss Elizabeth Peabody's "Records of a School" that the children crowded to the door before it was, opened in their anxiety not to lose a word of this lesson. And, rude as most of the children were, this instruction, consisting of questions and answers, gradually did away with all necessity for corporal punishments.

It were a noble task for any competent hand to adapt the Rules given in this volume, and those of the later French work, and still more those of Master Obadiah Walker's book on "Education," to the conditions and ideas of our time, for the use of schools. From the last-named work, that of a Master of University College, Oxford, I will take for my conclusion a pregnant passage.

NOTE.

There has been no alteration of the original French and English documents in the pages following. The spelling, punctuation, use of small or capital letters, italics, etc., whether faults or archaisms, are strictly preserved.

The word 'Maxim' refers to the early French work . 'Rule' refers to Washington's MS.

'Walker' refers to Obadiah Walker's work on Education, spoken of on p. 18.

All actions done before others should be with some sign of respectful feeling to the entire company.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet