Essays on Education and Kindred Subjects Part 11

[4] _Personal Narrative of the Origin of the Caoutchouc, or India-Rubber Manufacture in England._ By Thomas Hanc.o.c.k.

ON MANNERS AND FASHION[1]

Whoever has studied the physiognomy of political meetings, cannot fail to have remarked a connection between democratic opinions and peculiarities of costume. At a Chartist demonstration, a lecture on Socialism, or a _soiree_ of the Friends of Italy, there will be seen many among the audience, and a still larger ratio among the speakers, who get themselves up in a style more or less unusual. One gentleman on the platform divides his hair down the centre, instead of on one side; another brushes it back off the forehead, in the fashion known as "bringing out the intellect;" a third has so long forsworn the scissors, that his locks sweep his shoulders. A considerable sprinkling of moustaches may be observed; here and there an imperial; and occasionally some courageous breaker of conventions exhibits a full-grown beard.[2]

This nonconformity in hair is countenanced by various nonconformities in dress, shown by others of the a.s.semblage. Bare necks, shirt-collars _a la_ Byron, waistcoats cut Quaker fashion, wonderfully s.h.a.ggy great coats, numerous oddities in form and colour, destroy the monotony usual in crowds. Even those exhibiting no conspicuous peculiarity, frequently indicate by something in the pattern or make-up of their clothes, that they pay small regard to what their tailors tell them about the prevailing taste. And when the gathering breaks up, the varieties of head-gear displayed--the number of caps, and the abundance of felt hats--suffice to prove that were the world at large like-minded, the black cylinders which tyrannise over us would soon be deposed.

The foreign correspondence of our daily press shows that this relationship between political discontent and the disregard of customs exists on the Continent also. Red republicanism has always been distinguished by its hirsuteness. The authorities of Prussia, Austria, and Italy, alike recognise certain forms of hat as indicative of disaffection, and fulminate against them accordingly. In some places the wearer of a blouse runs a risk of being cla.s.sed among the _suspects_; and in others, he who would avoid the bureau of police, must beware how he goes out in any but the ordinary colours. Thus, democracy abroad, as at home, tends towards personal singularity.

Nor is this a.s.sociation of characteristics peculiar to modern times, or to reformers of the State. It has always existed; and it has been manifested as much in religious agitations as in political ones. Along with dissent from the chief established opinions and arrangements, there has ever been some dissent from the customary social practices. The Puritans, disapproving of the long curls of the Cavaliers, as of their principles, cut their own hair short, and so gained the name of "Roundheads." The marked religious nonconformity of the Quakers was accompanied by an equally-marked nonconformity of manners--in attire, in speech, in salutation. The early Moravians not only believed differently, but at the same time dressed differently, and lived differently, from their fellow Christians.

That the a.s.sociation between political independence and independence of personal conduct, is not a phenomenon of to-day only, we may see alike in the appearance of Franklin at the French court in plain clothes, and in the white hats worn by the last generation of radicals. Originality of nature is sure to show itself in more ways than one. The mention of George Fox's suit of leather, or Pestalozzi's school name, "Harry Oddity," will at once suggest the remembrance that men who have in great things diverged from the beaten track, have frequently done so in small things likewise. Minor ill.u.s.trations of this truth may be gathered in almost every circle. We believe that whoever will number up his reforming and rationalist acquaintances, will find among them more than the usual proportion of those who in dress or behaviour exhibit some degree of what the world calls eccentricity.

If it be a fact that men of revolutionary aims in politics or religion, are commonly revolutionists in custom also, it is not less a fact that those whose office it is to uphold established arrangements in State and Church, are also those who most adhere to the social forms and observances bequeathed to us by past generations. Practices elsewhere extinct still linger about the headquarters of government. The monarch still gives a.s.sent to Acts of Parliament in the old French of the Normans; and Norman French terms are still used in law. Wigs, such as those we see depicted in old portraits, may yet be found on the heads of judges and barristers. The Beefeaters at the Tower wear the costume of Henry VIIth's bodyguard. The University dress of the present year varies but little from that worn soon after the Reformation. The claret-coloured coat, knee-breeches, lace shirt frills, ruffles, white silk stockings, and buckled shoes, which once formed the usual attire of a gentleman, still survive as the court-dress. And it need scarcely be said that at _levees_ and drawing-rooms, the ceremonies are prescribed with an exactness, and enforced with a rigour, not elsewhere to be found.

Can we consider these two series of coincidences as accidental and unmeaning? Must we not rather conclude that some necessary relationship obtains between them? Are there not such things as a const.i.tutional conservatism, and a const.i.tutional tendency to change? Is there not a cla.s.s which clings to the old in all things; and another cla.s.s so in love with progress as often to mistake novelty for improvement? Do we not find some men ready to bow to established authority of whatever kind; while others demand of every such authority its reason, and reject it if it fails to justify itself? And must not the minds thus contrasted tend to become respectively conformist and nonconformist, not only in politics and religion, but in other things? Submission, whether to a government, to the dogmas of ecclesiastics, or to that code of behaviour which society at large has set up, is essentially of the same nature; and the sentiment which induces resistance to the despotism of rulers, civil or spiritual, likewise induces resistance to the despotism of the world's opinion. Look at them fundamentally, and all enactments, alike of the legislature, the consistory, and the saloon--all regulations, formal or virtual, have a common character: they are all limitations of men's freedom. "Do this--Refrain from that," are the blank formulas into which they may all be written: and in each case the understanding is that obedience will bring approbation here and paradise hereafter; while disobedience will entail imprisonment, or sending to Coventry, or eternal torments, as the case may be. And if restraints, however named, and through whatever apparatus of means exercised, are one in their action upon men, it must happen that those who are patient under one kind of restraint, are likely to be patient under another; and conversely, that those impatient of restraint in general, will, on the average, tend to show their impatience in all directions.

That Law, Religion, and Manners are thus related--that their respective kinds of operation come under one generalisation--that they have in certain contrasted characteristics of men a common support and a common danger--will, however, be most clearly seen on discovering that they have a common origin. Little as from present appearances we should suppose it, we shall yet find that at first, the control of religion, the control of laws and the control of manners, were all one control.

However incredible it may now seem, we believe it to be demonstrable that the rules of etiquette, the provisions of the statute-book, and the commands of the decalogue, have grown from the same root. If we go far enough back into the ages of primeval Fetishism, it becomes manifest that originally Deity, Chief, and Master of the ceremonies were identical. To make good these positions, and to show their bearing on what is to follow, it will be necessary here to traverse ground that is in part somewhat beaten, and at first sight irrelevant to our topic. We will pa.s.s over it as quickly as consists with the exigencies of the argument.

That the earliest social aggregations were ruled solely by the will of the strong man, few dispute. That from the strong man proceeded not only Monarchy, but the conception of a G.o.d, few admit: much as Carlyle and others have said in evidence of it. If, however, those who are unable to believe this, will lay aside the ideas of G.o.d and man in which they have been educated, and study the aboriginal ideas of them, they will at least see some probability in the hypothesis. Let them remember that before experience had yet taught men to distinguish between the possible and the impossible; and while they were ready on the slightest suggestion to ascribe unknown powers to any object and make a fetish of it; their conceptions of humanity and its capacities were necessarily vague, and without specific limits. The man who by unusual strength, or cunning, achieved something that others had failed to achieve, or something which they did not understand, was considered by them as differing from themselves; and, as we see in the belief of some Polynesians that only their chiefs have souls, or in that of the ancient Peruvians that their n.o.bles were divine by birth, the ascribed difference was apt to be not one of degree only, but one of kind.

Let them remember next, how gross were the notions of G.o.d, or rather of G.o.ds, prevalent during the same era and afterwards--how concretely G.o.ds were conceived as men of specific aspects dressed in specific ways--how their names were literally "the strong," "the destroyer," "the powerful one,"--how, according to the Scandinavian mythology, the "sacred duty of blood-revenge" was acted on by the G.o.ds themselves,--and how they were not only human in their vindictiveness, their cruelty, and their quarrels with each other, but were supposed to have amours on earth, and to consume the viands placed on their altars. Add to which, that in various mythologies, Greek, Scandinavian, and others, the oldest beings are giants; that according to a traditional genealogy the G.o.ds, demi-G.o.ds, and in some cases men, are descended from these after the human fashion; and that while in the East we hear of sons of G.o.d who saw the daughters of men that they were fair, the Teutonic myths tell of unions between the sons of men and the daughters of the G.o.ds.

Let them remember, too, that at first the idea of death differed widely from that which we have; that there are still tribes who, on the decease of one of their number, attempt to make the corpse stand, and put food into his mouth; that the Peruvians had feasts at which the mummies of their dead Incas presided, when, as Prescott says, they paid attention "to these insensible remains as if they were instinct with life;" that among the Fejees it is believed that every enemy has to be killed twice; that the Eastern Pagans give extension and figure to the soul, and attribute to it all the same substances, both solid and liquid, of which our bodies are composed; and that it is the custom among most barbarous races to bury food, weapons, and trinkets along with the dead body, under the manifest belief that it will presently need them.

Lastly, let them remember that the other world, as originally conceived, is simply some distant part of this world--some Elysian fields, some happy hunting-ground, accessible even to the living, and to which, after death, men travel in antic.i.p.ation of a life a.n.a.logous in general character to that which they led before. Then, co-ordinating these general facts--the ascription of unknown powers to chiefs and medicine men; the belief in deities having human forms, pa.s.sions, and behaviour; the imperfect comprehension of death as distinguished from life; and the proximity of the future abode to the present, both in position and character--let them reflect whether they do not almost unavoidably suggest the conclusion that the aboriginal G.o.d is the dead chief; the chief not dead in our sense, but gone away carrying with him food and weapons to some rumoured region of plenty, some promised land, whither he had long intended to lead his followers, and whence he will presently return to fetch them.

This hypothesis once entertained, is seen to harmonise with all primitive ideas and practices. The sons of the deified chief reigning after him, it necessarily happens that all early kings are held descendants of the G.o.ds; and the fact that alike in a.s.syria, Egypt, among the Jews, Phoenicians, and ancient Britons, kings' names were formed out of the names of the G.o.ds, is fully explained. The genesis of Polytheism out of Fetishism, by the successive migrations of the race of G.o.d-kings to the other world--a genesis ill.u.s.trated in the Greek mythology, alike by the precise genealogy of the deities, and by the specifically a.s.serted apotheosis of the later ones--tends further to bear it out. It explains the fact that in the old creeds, as in the still extant creed of the Otaheitans, every family has its guardian spirit, who is supposed to be one of their departed relatives; and that they sacrifice to these as minor G.o.ds--a practice still pursued by the Chinese and even by the Russians. It is perfectly congruous with the Grecian myths concerning the wars of the G.o.ds with the t.i.tans and their final usurpation; and it similarly agrees with the fact that among the Teutonic G.o.ds proper was one Freir who came among them by adoption, "but was born among the _Vanes_, a somewhat mysterious _other_ dynasty of G.o.ds, who had been conquered and superseded by the stronger and more warlike Odin dynasty." It harmonises, too, with the belief that there are different G.o.ds to different territories and nations, as there were different chiefs; that these G.o.ds contend for supremacy as chiefs do; and it gives meaning to the boast of neighbouring tribes--"Our G.o.d is greater than your G.o.d." It is confirmed by the notion universally current in early times, that the G.o.ds come from this other abode, in which they commonly live, and appear among men--speak to them, help them, punish them. And remembering this, it becomes manifest that the prayers put up by primitive peoples to their G.o.ds for aid in battle, are meant literally--that their G.o.ds are expected to come back from the other kingdom they are reigning over, and once more fight the old enemies they had before warred against so implacably; and it needs but to name the Iliad, to remind every one how thoroughly they believed the expectation fulfilled.

All government, then, being originally that of the strong man who has become a fetish by some manifestation of superiority, there arises, at his death--his supposed departure on a long projected expedition, in which he is accompanied by his slaves and concubines sacrificed at his tomb--their arises, then, the incipient division of religious from political control, of civil rule from spiritual. His son becomes deputed chief during his absence; his authority is cited as that by which his son acts; his vengeance is invoked on all who disobey his son; and his commands, as previously known or as a.s.serted by his son, become the germ of a moral code; a fact we shall the more clearly perceive if we remember, that early moral codes inculcate mainly the virtues of the warrior, and the duty of exterminating some neighbouring tribe whose existence is an offence to the deity.

From this point onwards, these two kinds of authority, at first complicated together as those of princ.i.p.al and agent, become slowly more and more distinct. As experience acc.u.mulates, and ideas of causation grow more precise, kings lose their supernatural attributes; and, instead of G.o.d-king, become G.o.d-descended king, G.o.d-appointed king, the Lord's anointed, the vicegerent of heaven, ruler reigning by Divine right. The old theory, however, long clings to men in feeling, after it has disappeared in name; and "such divinity doth hedge a king," that even now, many, on first seeing one, feel a secret surprise at finding him an ordinary sample of humanity. The sacredness attaching to royalty attaches afterwards to its appended inst.i.tutions--to legislatures, to laws. Legal and illegal are synonymous with right and wrong; the authority of Parliament is held unlimited; and a lingering faith in governmental power continually generates unfounded hopes from its enactments. Political scepticism, however, having destroyed the divine _prestige_ of royalty, goes on ever increasing, and promises ultimately to reduce the State to a purely secular inst.i.tution, whose regulations are limited in their sphere, and have no other authority than the general will. Meanwhile, the religious control has been little by little separating itself from the civil, both in its essence and in its forms.

While from the G.o.d-king of the savage have arisen in one direction, secular rulers who, age by age, have been losing the sacred attributes men ascribed to them; there has arisen in another direction, the conception of a deity, who, at first human in all things, has been gradually losing human materiality, human form, human pa.s.sions, human modes of action: until now, anthropomorphism has become a reproach.

Along with this wide divergence in men's ideas of the divine and civil ruler has been taking place a corresponding divergence in the codes of conduct respectively proceeding from them. While the king was a deputy-G.o.d--a governor such as the Jews looked for in the Messiah--a governor considered, as the Czar still is, "our G.o.d upon Earth,"--it, of course, followed that his commands were the supreme rules. But as men ceased to believe in his supernatural origin and nature, his commands ceased to be the highest; and there arose a distinction between the regulations made by him, and the regulations handed down from the old G.o.d-kings, who were rendered ever more sacred by time and the acc.u.mulation of myths. Hence came respectively, Law and Morality: the one growing ever more concrete, the other more abstract; the authority of the one ever on the decrease, that of the other ever on the increase; originally the same, but now placed daily in more marked antagonism.

Simultaneously there has been going on a separation of the inst.i.tutions administering these two codes of conduct. While they were yet one, of course Church and State were one: the king was arch-priest, not nominally, but really--alike the giver of new commands and the chief interpreter of the old commands; and the deputy-priests coming out of his family were thus simply expounders of the dictates of their ancestry: at first as recollected, and afterwards as ascertained by professed interviews with them. This union--which still existed practically during the middle ages, when the authority of kings was mixed up with the authority of the pope, when there were bishop-rulers having all the powers of feudal lords, and when priests punished by penances--has been, step by step, becoming less close. Though monarchs are still "defenders of the faith," and ecclesiastical chiefs, they are but nominally such. Though bishops still have civil power, it is not what they once had. Protestantism shook loose the bonds of union; Dissent has long been busy in organising a mechanism for the exercise of religious control, wholly independent of law; in America, a separate organisation for that purpose already exists; and if anything is to be hoped from the Anti-State-Church a.s.sociation--or, as it has been newly named, "The Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and Control"--we shall presently have a separate organisation here also.

Thus alike in authority, in essence, and in form, political and spiritual rule have been ever more widely diverging from the same root.

That increasing division of labour which marks the progress of society in other things, marks it also in this separation of government into civil and religious; and if we observe how the morality which forms the substance of religions in general, is beginning to be purified from the a.s.sociated creeds, we may antic.i.p.ate that this division will be ultimately carried much further.

Pa.s.sing now to the third species of control--that of Manners--we shall find that this, too, while it had a common genesis with the others, has gradually come to have a distinct sphere and a special embodiment. Among early aggregations of men before yet social observances existed, the sole forms of courtesy known were the signs of submission to the strong man; as the sole law was his will, and the sole religion the awe of his supposed supernaturalness. Originally, ceremonies were modes of behaviour to the G.o.d-king. Our commonest t.i.tles have been derived from his names. And all salutations were primarily worship paid to him. Let us trace out these truths in detail, beginning with t.i.tles.

The fact already noticed, that the names of early kings among divers races are formed by the addition of certain syllables to the names of their G.o.ds--which certain syllables, like our _Mac_ and _Fitz_, probably mean "son of," or "descended from"--at once gives meaning to the term _Father_ as a divine t.i.tle. And when we read, in Selden, that "the composition out of these names of Deities was not only proper to Kings: their Grandes and more honourable Subjects" (no doubt members of the royal race) "had sometimes the like;" we see how the term _Father_, properly used by these also, and by their multiplying descendants, came to be a t.i.tle used by the people in general. And it is significant as bearing on this point, that among the most barbarous nation in Europe, where belief in the divine nature of the ruler still lingers, _Father_ in this higher sense is still a regal distinction. When, again, we remember how the divinity at first ascribed to kings was not a complimentary fiction but a supposed fact; and how, further, under the Fetish philosophy the celestial bodies are believed to be personages who once lived among men; we see that the appellations of oriental rulers, "Brother to the Sun," etc., were probably once expressive of a genuine belief; and have simply, like many other things, continued in use after all meaning has gone out of them. We way infer, too, that the t.i.tles, G.o.d, Lord, Divinity, were given to primitive rulers literally--that the _nostra divinitas_ applied to the Roman emperors, and the various sacred designations that have been borne by monarchs, down to the still extant phrase, "Our Lord the King," are the dead and dying forms of what were once living facts. From these names, G.o.d, Father, Lord, Divinity, originally belonging to the G.o.d-king, and afterwards to G.o.d and the king, the derivation of our commonest t.i.tles of respect is clearly traceable.

There is reason to think that these t.i.tles were originally proper names.

Not only do we see among the Egyptians, where Pharaoh was synonymous with king, and among the Romans, where to be Caesar meant to be Emperor, that the proper names of the greatest men were transferred to their successors, and so became cla.s.s names; but in the Scandinavian mythology we may trace a human t.i.tle of honour up to the proper name of a divine personage. In Anglo-Saxon _bealdor_, or _baldor_, means _Lord_; and Balder is the name of the favourite of Odin's sons--the G.o.ds who with him const.i.tute the Teutonic Pantheon. How these names of honour became general is easily understood. The relatives of the primitive kings--the grandees described by Selden as having names formed on those of the G.o.ds, and shown by this to be members of the divine race--necessarily shared in the epithets, such as _Lord_, descriptive of superhuman relationships and nature. Their ever-multiplying offspring inheriting these, gradually rendered them comparatively common. And then they came to be applied to every man of power: partly from the fact that, in these early days when men conceived divinity simply as a stronger kind of humanity, great persons could be called by divine epithets with but little exaggeration; partly from the fact that the unusually potent were apt to be considered as unrecognised or illegitimate descendants of "the strong, the destroyer, the powerful one;" and partly, also, from compliment and the desire to propitiate.

Progressively as superst.i.tion diminished, this last became the sole cause. And if we remember that it is the nature of compliment, as we daily hear it, to attribute more than is due--that in the constantly widening application of "esquire," in the perpetual repet.i.tion of "your honour" by the fawning Irishman, and in the use of the name "gentleman"

to any coalheaver or dustman by the lower cla.s.ses of London, we have current examples of the depreciation of t.i.tles consequent on compliment--and that in barbarous times, when the wish to propitiate was stronger than now, this effect must have been greater; we shall see that there naturally arose an extensive misuse of all early distinctions.

Hence the facts, that the Jews called Herod a G.o.d; that _Father_, in its higher sense, was a term used among them by servants to masters; that _Lord_ was applicable to any person of worth and power. Hence, too, the fact that, in the later periods of the Roman Empire, every man saluted his neighbour as _Dominus_ and _Rex_.

But it is in the t.i.tles of the middle ages, and in the growth of our modern ones out of them, that the process is most clearly seen. _Herr_, _Don_, _Signior_, _Seigneur_, _Sennor_, were all originally names of rulers--of feudal lords. By the complimentary use of these names to all who could, on any pretence, be supposed to merit them, and by successive degradations of them from each step in the descent to a still lower one, they have come to be common forms of address. At first the phrase in which a serf accosted his despotic chief, _mein herr_ is now familiarly applied in Germany to ordinary people. The Spanish t.i.tle _Don_, once proper to n.o.blemen and gentlemen only, is now accorded to all cla.s.ses.

So, too, is it with _Signior_ in Italy. _Seigneur_ and _Monseigneur_, by contraction in _Sieur_ and _Monsieur_, have produced the term of respect claimed by every Frenchman. And whether _Sire_ be or be not a like contraction of _Signior_, it is clear that, as it was borne by sundry of the ancient feudal lords of France, who, as Selden says, "affected rather to bee stiled by the name of _Sire_ than Baron, as _Le Sire de Montmorencie_, _Le Sire de Beauieu_, and the like," and as it has been commonly used to monarchs, our word _Sir_, which is derived from it, originally meant lord or king. Thus, too, is it with feminine t.i.tles.

_Lady_, which, according to Horne Tooke, means _exalted_, and was at first given only to the few, is now given to all women of education.

_Dame_, once an honourable name to which, in old books, we find the epithets of "high-born" and "stately" affixed, has now, by repeated widenings of its application, become relatively a term of contempt. And if we trace the compound of this, _ma Dame_, through its contractions--_Madam_, _ma'am_, _mam_, _mum_, we find that the "Yes'm"

of Sally to her mistress is originally equivalent to "Yes, my exalted,"

or "Yes, your highness." Throughout, therefore, the genesis of words of honour has been the same. Just as with the Jews and with the Romans, has it been with the modern Europeans. Tracing these everyday names to their primitive significations of _lord_ and _king_, and remembering that in aboriginal societies these were applied only to the G.o.ds and their descendants, we arrive at the conclusion that our familiar _Sir_ and _Monsieur_ are, in their primary and expanded meanings, terms of adoration.

Further to ill.u.s.trate this gradual depreciation of t.i.tles and to confirm the inference drawn, it may be well to notice in pa.s.sing, that the oldest of them have, as might be expected, been depreciated to the greatest extent. Thus, _Master_--a word proved by its derivation and by the similarity of the connate words in other languages (Fr., _maitre_ for _master_; Russ., _master_: Dan., _meester_; Ger., _meister_) to have been one of the earliest in use for expressing lordship--has now become applicable to children only, and under the modification of "Mister," to persons next above the labourer. Again, knighthood, the oldest kind of dignity, is also the lowest; and Knight Bachelor, which is the lowest order of knighthood, is more ancient than any other of the orders.

Similarly, too, with the peerage, Baron is alike the earliest and least elevated of its divisions. This continual degradation of all names of honour has, from time to time, made it requisite to introduce new ones having that distinguishing effect which the originals had lost by generality of use; just as our habit of misapplying superlatives has, by gradually destroying their force, entailed the need for fresh ones. And if, within the last thousand years, this process has produced effects thus marked, we may readily conceive how, during previous thousands, the t.i.tles of G.o.ds and demi-G.o.ds came to be used to all persons exercising power; as they have since come to be used to persons of respectability.

If from names of honour we turn to phrases of honour, we find similar facts. The Oriental styles of address, applied to ordinary people--"I am your slave," "All I have is yours," "I am your sacrifice"--attribute to the individual spoken to the same greatness that _Monsieur_ and _My Lord_ do: they ascribe to him the character of an all-powerful ruler, so immeasurably superior to the speaker as to be his owner. So, likewise, with the Polish expressions of respect--"I throw myself under your feet," "I kiss your feet." In our now meaningless subscription to a formal letter--"Your most obedient servant,"--the same thing is visible.

Nay, even in the familiar signature "Yours faithfully," the "yours," if interpreted as originally meant, is the expression of a slave to his master.

All these dead forms were once living embodiments of fact--were primarily the genuine indications of that submission to authority which they verbally a.s.sert; were afterwards naturally used by the weak and cowardly to propitiate those above them; gradually grew to be considered the due of such; and, by a continually wider misuse, have lost their meanings, as _Sir_ and _Master_ have done. That, like t.i.tles, they were in the beginning used only to the G.o.d-king, is indicated by the fact that, like t.i.tles, they were subsequently used in common to G.o.d and the king. Religious worship has ever largely consisted of professions of obedience, of being G.o.d's servants, of belonging to him to do what he will with. Like t.i.tles, therefore, these common phrases of honour had a devotional origin.

Perhaps, however, it is in the use of the word _you_ as a singular p.r.o.noun that the popularising of what were once supreme distinctions is most markedly ill.u.s.trated. This speaking of a single individual in the plural was originally an honour given only to the highest--was the reciprocal of the imperial "we" a.s.sumed by such. Yet now, by being applied to successively lower and lower cla.s.ses, it has become all but universal. Only by one sect of Christians, and in a few secluded districts, is the primitive _thou_ still used. And the _you_, in becoming common to all ranks, has simultaneously lost every vestige of the honour once attaching to it.

But the genesis of Manners out of forms of allegiance and worship is above all shown in men's modes of salutation. Note first the significance of the word. Among the Romans, the _salutatio_ was a daily homage paid by clients and inferiors to superiors. This was alike the case with civilians and in the army. The very derivation of our word, therefore, is suggestive of submission. Pa.s.sing to particular forms of obeisance (mark the word again), let us begin with the Eastern one of baring the feet. This was, primarily, a mark of reverence, alike to a G.o.d and a king. The act of Moses before the burning bush, and the practice of Mahometans, who are sworn on the Koran with their shoes off, exemplify the one employment of it; the custom of the Persians, who remove their shoes on entering the presence of their monarch, exemplifies the other. As usual, however, this homage, paid next to inferior rulers, has descended from grade to grade. In India, it is a common mark of respect; a polite man in Turkey always leaves his shoes at the door, while the lower orders of Turks never enter the presence of their superiors but in their stockings; and in j.a.pan, this baring of the feet is an ordinary salutation of man to man.

Take another case. Selden, describing the ceremonies of the Romans, says:--"For whereas it was usual either to kiss the Images of their G.o.ds, or adoring them, to stand somewhat off before them, solemnly moving the right hand to the lips, and then, casting it as if they had cast kisses, to turne the body on the same hand (which was the right forme of Adoration), it grew also by custom, first that the emperors, being next to Deities, and by some accounted as Deities, had the like done to them in acknowledgment of their Greatness." If, now, we call to mind the awkward salute of a village school-boy, made by putting his open hand up to his face and describing a semicircle with his forearm; and if we remember that the salute thus used as a form of reverence in country districts, is most likely a remnant of the feudal times; we shall see reason for thinking that our common wave of the hand to a friend across the street, represents what was primarily a devotional act.

Similarly have originated all forms of respect depending upon inclinations of the body. Entire prostration is the aboriginal sign of submission. The pa.s.sage of Scripture, "Thou hast put all under his feet," and that other one, so suggestive in its anthropomorphism, "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool," imply, what the a.s.syrian sculptures fully bear out, that it was the practice of the ancient G.o.d-kings of the East to trample upon the conquered. And when we bear in mind that there are existing savages who signify submission by placing the neck under the foot of the person submitted to, it becomes obvious that all prostration, especially when accompanied by kissing the foot, expressed a willingness to be trodden upon--was an attempt to mitigate wrath by saying, in signs, "Tread on me if you will." Remembering, further, that kissing the foot, as of the Pope and of a saint's statue, still continues in Europe to be a mark of extreme reverence; that prostration to feudal lords was once general; and that its disappearance must have taken place, not abruptly, but by gradual modification into something else; we have ground for deriving from these deepest of humiliations all inclinations of respect; especially as the transition is traceable. The reverence of a Russian serf, who bends his head to the ground, and the salaam of the Hindoo, are abridged prostrations; a bow is a short salaam; a nod is a short bow.

Should any hesitate to admit this conclusion, then perhaps, on being reminded that the lowest of these obeisances are common where the submission is most abject; that among ourselves the profundity of the bow marks the amount of respect; and lastly, that the bow is even now used devotionally in our churches--by Catholics to their altars, and by Protestants at the name of Christ--they will see sufficient evidence for thinking that this salutation also was originally worship.

The same may be said, too, of the curtsy, or courtesy, as it is otherwise written. Its derivation from _courtoisie_, courteousness, that is, behaviour like that at court, at once shows that it was primarily the reverence paid to a monarch. And if we call to mind that falling upon the knees, or upon one knee, has been a common obeisance of subjects to rulers; that in ancient ma.n.u.scripts and tapestries, servants are depicted as a.s.suming this att.i.tude while offering the dishes to their masters at table; and that this same att.i.tude is a.s.sumed towards our own queen at every presentation; we may infer, what the character of the curtsy itself suggests, that it is an abridged act of kneeling. As the word has been contracted from _courtoisie_ into curtsy, so the motion has been contracted from a placing of the knee on the floor, to a lowering of the knee towards the floor. Moreover, when we compare the curtsy of a lady with the awkward one a peasant girl makes, which, if continued, would bring her down on both knees, we may see in this last a remnant of that greater reverence required of serfs. And when, from considering that simple kneeling of the West, still represented by the curtsy, we pa.s.s Eastward, and note the att.i.tude of the Mahometan worshipper, who not only kneels but bows his head to the ground, we may infer that the curtsy also is an evanescent form of the aboriginal prostration.

In further evidence of this it may be remarked, that there has but recently disappeared from the salutations of men, an action having the same proximate derivation with the curtsy. That backward sweep of the foot with which the conventional stage-sailor accompanies his bow--a movement which prevailed generally in past generations, when "a bow and a sc.r.a.pe" went together, and which, within the memory of living persons, was made by boys to their schoolmaster with the effect of wearing a hole in the floor--is pretty clearly a preliminary to going on one knee. A motion so ungainly could never have been intentionally introduced; even if the artificial introduction of obeisances were possible. Hence we must regard it as the remnant of something antecedent: and that this something antecedent was humiliating may be inferred from the phrase, "sc.r.a.ping an acquaintance;" which, being used to denote the gaining of favour by obsequiousness, implies that the sc.r.a.pe was considered a mark of servility--that is, of _serf_-ility.

Consider, again, the uncovering of the head. Almost everywhere this has been a sign of reverence, alike in temples and before potentates; and it yet preserves among us some of its original meaning. Whether it rains, hails, or shines, you must keep your head bare while speaking to the monarch; and on no plea may you remain covered in a place of worship. As usual, however, this ceremony, at first a submission to G.o.ds and kings, has become in process of time a common civility. Once an acknowledgment of another's unlimited supremacy, the removal of the hat is now a salute accorded to very ordinary persons, and that uncovering, originally reserved for entrance into "the house of G.o.d," good manners now dictates on entrance into the house of a common labourer.

Standing, too, as a mark of respect, has undergone like extensions in its application. Shown, by the practice in our churches, to be intermediate between the humiliation signified by kneeling and the self-respect which sitting implies, and used at courts as a form of homage when more active demonstrations of it have been made, this posture is now employed in daily life to show consideration; as seen alike in the att.i.tude of a servant before a master, and in that rising which politeness prescribes on the entrance of a visitor.

Many other threads of evidence might have been woven into our argument.

As, for example, the significant fact, that if we trace back our still existing law of primogeniture--if we consider it as displayed by Scottish clans, in which not only ownership but government devolved from the beginning on the eldest son of the eldest--if we look further back, and observe that the old t.i.tles of lordship, _Signor_, _Seigneur_, _Sennor_, _Sire_, _Sieur_, all originally mean, senior, or elder--if we go Eastward, and find that _Sheick_ has a like derivation, and that the Oriental names for priests, as _Pir_, for instance, are literally interpreted _old man_--if we note in Hebrew records how primeval is the ascribed superiority of the first-born, how great the authority of elders, and how sacred the memory of patriarchs--and if, then, we remember that among divine t.i.tles are "Ancient of Days," and "Father of G.o.ds and men;"--we see how completely these facts harmonise with the hypothesis, that the aboriginal G.o.d is the first man sufficiently great to become a tradition, the earliest whose power and deeds made him remembered; that hence antiquity unavoidably became a.s.sociated with superiority, and age with nearness in blood to "the powerful one;" that so there naturally arose that domination of the eldest which characterises all history, and that theory of human degeneracy which even yet survives.

We might further dwell on the facts, that _Lord_ signifies high-born, or, as the same root gives a word meaning heaven, possibly heaven-born; that, before it became common, _Sir_ or _Sire_, as well as _Father_, was the distinction of a priest; that _worship_, originally worth-ship--a term of respect that has been used commonly, as well as to magistrates--is also our term for the act of attributing greatness or worth to the Deity; so that to ascribe worth-ship to a man is to worship him. We might make much of the evidence that all early governments are more or less distinctly theocratic; and that among ancient Eastern nations even the commonest forms and customs appear to have been influenced by religion. We might enforce our argument respecting the derivation of ceremonies, by tracing out the aboriginal obeisance made by putting dust on the head, which probably symbolises putting the head in the dust: by affiliating the practice prevailing among certain tribes, of doing another honour by presenting him with a portion of hair torn from the head--an act which seems tantamount to saying, "I am your slave;" by investigating the Oriental custom of giving to a visitor any object he speaks of admiringly, which is pretty clearly a carrying out of the compliment, "All I have is yours."

Without enlarging, however, on these and many minor facts, we venture to think that the evidence already a.s.signed is sufficient to justify our position. Had the proofs been few or of one kind, little faith could have been placed in the inference. But numerous as they are, alike in the case of t.i.tles, in that of complimentary phrases, and in that of salutes--similar and simultaneous, too, as the process of depreciation has been in all of these; the evidences become strong by mutual confirmation. And when we recollect, also, that not only have the results of this process been visible in various nations and in all times, but that they are occurring among ourselves at the present moment, and that the causes a.s.signed for previous depreciations may be seen daily working out other ones--when we recollect this, it becomes scarcely possible to doubt that the process has been as alleged; and that our ordinary words, acts, and phrases of civility were originally acknowledgments of submission to another's omnipotence.