Curtin - A Question of Manners

7/27/2019 Curtin - A Question of Manners

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/curtin-a-question-of-manners 1/30



A Questionof Manners:Statusand Genderin EtiquetteandCourtesy*

Michael CurtinUniversityof California,Berkeley

Duringthe pastfifteenyears the scholarlystudyof mannershas becomeincreasinglyactive. Thoughthe most important ontributiono the lit-erature NorbertElias's The Civilizing Process is, in fact, an older

book,it has onlyrecentlyattractedmuchattention.Theworkof historianshas been matchedby sociologists such as ErvingGoffmanand the eth-nomethodologistswho have uncovereda wonderland f social processin the apparentlyrivialencountersof "everyday ife." What s perhapsmorecuriousthan this recent interestin manners s the fact that, withthe exceptionof anthropologists, cholarshave so long left manners othe amateurs.

Fromthe Renaissance o the FrenchRevolutionmannerswere an es-sentialaspectof the idealof civilizationand werethoughtworthyof theseriousattention f intelligentmen.The literaryvehicleforthe discussion

of mannerswasthe courtesybook, a genrethatforalmostthree hundredyears,fromElyotto Chesterfield, emaineda lively and mportant trandof English iterature.While ncluding iscussions f theminor ormulationsof etiquette, courtesy literaturewas certainlynot limited to these. Avarietyof differentsubjectsmightbe examined,but typicallythe genreconcernedtselfwiththeadvocacy f idealsof character,ccomplishments,habits,manners,andmorals-in short, the art of living in society. The

* I wish to thank SheldonRothblatt or his help in the preparation f thisarticle.He haskindly eadseveralversionsof theworkandhas suggestednumerousimlprovementsoth in style and substance.

Elias's Ueberden Prozess der Zivilisation(1939) has only recentlybeentranslated NorbertElias, The Civilizing Process, trans.Edmund3ephcott,2vols. [New York,1978-82] ). Someotherrecentworkswhichdiscuss mannersareHeinrichHeckendorn,Wandel esAnstandsm ranzosischen nd m deutschenSprachgebietBern,1970);LeonoreDavidoff,TheBestCircles:Society,Etiquetteandthe Season(London, 1973); JohnMurrayCuddihy,The Ordealof Civility:Freud,Marx,Levi-Strauss,and theJewishStrugglewithModernityNew York,1977); OrestRanum,"Courtesy,Absolutism,and theRise of theFrench-State,1630-1660," Journalof ModernHistory 52 (1980):426-51; William Roosen,"EarlyModernDiplomaticCeremonial: SystemsApproach,"ournalofModern

History 52 (1980):452-76.lJournal of Modern History 57 (September 1985): 395-423]:)1985 by The University of Chicago. 0022-2801185/5703/OOOlS01.00All rights reserved.

This content downloaded on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 06:17:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





396 Curtin

steps of a fashionable dance consorted with injunctions o piety, theworthinessof the chase withthe importance f Aristotelianmoderation,the rules of the table with the requiremenfs f justice. Whatmade thegenre odd to moderntaste was its mixtureof elements of "high" and"low" culture. Mannershad not yet beendismissed as trivial and werediscussed by essayists alongsidethe most serious moral deas withoutasense of incongruityand by the greatestwriters withouta sense of de-rogeance. 0

It was, in fact, only whenmanners ame to seem trivialand unworthy

of associationwith serious moral thoughtthat the courtesy book wasdoomed. After Chesterfield'sLetters to His Son (1774), no authorofdistinctionagainjoined togetherall of the genre'scharacteristic reoc-cupations.The subjectmatter hat had once been combinedunder therubricof "courtesy" split apart. For manners his developmentwas di-sastrous.Separated rom their context in tnoralthoughtand aspiration,mannerswerereadilydismissedas trivial,formal,mechanical,andhyp-ocritical, unfit either for moralistsor for historians. Exiled from highculture, thediscussion of mannerswas confined o theetiquettebook, agenrethathadexisted forcenturiesunder heshadowof courtesy.Though

only a pallid and truncatedversion of the old courtesybook, etiquetteneverthelessbecameatremendously opulargenre n the nineteenth en-tury. Just as the place of manners n sixteenth-, seventeenth-,and eigh-teenth-century ociety wasreflected n thecourtesybook, so the role ofmanners n VictorianEnglandwas expressedby the etiquettebook. Howcan we explainthe decline of one genre andthe rise of theother?Theseare the questionsthis article seeks to answer.

Courtesywritersdirectedtheir advice to an aristocratic udience.2One

can see this intentionmerelyby examining he titles of the majorworks:ThomasElyot s TheBokeNamed heGouernour 1531 , LaurenceHum-phreytsTheNoblesorofNobilitre (1563), JamesCleland'sSlero-paidea,or the Institutionof a YoungNoble Man (1607), HenryPeacham'sTheCompleat Gentleman ( 1622), and Richard Brathwaits The EnglishGentleman1630). Thepurposeof theiradvice was to fit a class, set outby birth to play a majorrole in the state, with the mannersand virtuesto do the job properly.The greatRenaissancedebate about the originsandnature f truenobilitywaswell suited oframe he material f courtesy,and works in the genre commonly began by first acknowledging he

.

. .

2 Throughouthis article"aristocracy" efers to both titlednobility and sub-stantialgentry that s, to largelandownersandto the typical style of life thataccompanied uch ownership.







A Questionof Manners 397

special advantagesand responsibilities of birth, then insisting on theinadequacyof birth without virtue, and finally proceeding o the mainmatter-that is, instruction n virtue.3 The genre was not simply anidealizationof the aristocraticwayof life. Forexample, the duel, whichwas the essence of the aristocratic ode of honor, was condemned lmostunanimously.Courtesywriterswrote as reformersof the aristocracyasmuch as they did as its propagandists,and their attitudetoward theiraudiencewas thatof the humanist ducator,not of the dependent lient.4As humanists, courtesy writersdrew an assuranceand authority romclassical antiquity hatfreed themfrom strictdependenceon aristocraticstandards.As educators, hey had a naturalpreference or virtue overbirth. The malleability of humannature exalts the teacher, just as itprovidesan ncentive or his pupils o learn.When eachers ind hemselvesto be of a lower social status thantheir own pupils, they may also findthat virtue is superior o birth.5 0

Although the genre had roots in antiquity and the Middle Ages, itemergeddecisively only in the Renaissance.Medieval advice literaturesometimes rated virtue equal to, or even above, birth, but its "virtue"was closely circumscribed y therequirements f warfare.The medieval

aristocracywas still largely a militaryorder whose admiredvirtues-prowess, endurance, mpetuosity, ndomitability, andoyalty were de-terminedby this fact.6Such readerscould have only scant nterest n the

3 RuthKelso, TheDoctrineof theEnglishGentleman n the SixteenthCentury(Urbana, Ill., 1929), pp. 12-41, provides a good discussion of Renaissancetheoriesof nobilityandof the debatebetweenbirthandvirtue-. ee also ThomasElyot, TheBokeNamed he GouernourLondon, 1907), pp. 126-30; TheInsti-tucionof a Gentleman London, 1555), prologue,sig. A7v-A8r; LaurenceHum-phrey,TheNobles, or of Nobilitye London,1563), sig. A4r-ASr; amesCleland,Ilero-paidea, or the Institutionof a YoungNoble Man (1607; reprintNew York,1948), pp. 2-10; HenryPeacham,The CompleatGentleman London, 1622),pp. 2-5; RichardBrathwait,TheEnglish Gentleman London, 1630), epistle.

4 Mason, the mainhistorianof thecourtesygenre, concentrates eavily on thepedagogical side of the courtesybook, while historiansof education such asWoodward,Brauer,Charlton, ndRothblatt ll have usedmaterial romcourtesywriters extensively. John F. Mason, Gentlefolk n the Making (Philadelphia,1935); William H. Woodward,Studies in Edxcation during the Renaissance,7

1400-1600 (1906; reprintNew York,1967);GeorgeBrauer,Theoriesof Gentle-manlyEducation n England,1660-17i5 (New York, 1959); KennethCharlton,Education n:Renaissance ngland London,1965);SheldonRothblatt,Traditionand Change in English LiberalEducation London, 1976).

s This poiat was suggested to me by SheldonRothblatt.0 0

6 GervaseMathew,"'Ideals f Knighthoodn LateFourteenth-Centuryngland,"in Studies n MedievalHistoryPresented o FrederickMauricePowicke, ed. R.W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin, and R. W. Southern Oxford, 1948), p. 358; MervynJames,EnglishPolitics and the Conceptof Honour,1485-1642 (Oxford, 1978),pp. 3-6.







398 Curtin

sortof wisdomthatcourtesy iterature epresented. t was theabsolutiststateand tsgreatsymbol,themonarchicalourt,thatcreatedhepolitical

andsocial incentivesthatturned he aristocracy rommilitaryprowess

tocivil arts-and hencetothecourtesybook.7Patronage,money,power,

andprestigewereall to be foundatcourt,just as theyhadbeenin war-

butonly for those who knewthe ways of the court.It was thusthe task

of courtesywritersto harnessaristocraticpridefor constructiveuse in

civil society, to createthe courtierout of the warrior.Castiglione's11

Cortegiano (1528),forexample,wasexplicitlyconcernedwith hemanners

andmoralsof coureife andtaught eadersboththegrazEaand prezzatura

that were useful in tiny and defunct Urbinoand the cool insight anddetachment hatwere required n the cruel andrudecourtsof princely

Italy. - :

InEngland herelationshipbetweencourtsandcourtesy iteraturewas

notas close as it wason theContinent.WhenEnglishreadersookedfor

advice on manners n court, they turned o translationsof Continental

authors Castiglione,DeRefuge,Courtin,andCallibres.Englishwriters

concentratedmoreon service to the state (which, to be sure, was mo-

narchical) hantheydidonpleasingaprince.Elyot, forexample,sought

to educate"inferiourgouernours"-kingly counselors,countyleaders,

ambassadors broad.Onemustnotexaggerate hedirectapplicabilityofthe mannersand moralsdescribedby courtesywriters,however.They

were neithersupplyingprofessionaltrainingnor being readby a pre-

professionalaudience. The programof behaviordescribedby courtesy

writerswashighlygeneralizedandsuitable o theindependent entleman

in civil society. Whatwas essential to courtesybook conductwas the

emergenceof a pacifiedand orderlycivil society out of the relatively

violent and chaotic Middle Ages. Accordingto NorbertElias, the in-

creasinglyvigilantcontrolthatindividualsexercisedovertheiroutward

demeanorduringthe Renaissancemaybe ascribed o the growthof the

absolute tate,particularlyo itsmonopolyof violenceand o itsextensionof law andorder nto the provinces. Thehot temperandemotionalex-

7 Forrelationsbetweenknightsandcourtiers,see Kelso, pp. 48-49; Richard

Barber,TheKnightandChivalry London,1970), pp. 337-40; SidneyAnglo,

"TheCourtier:TheRenaissanceandChanging deals," nTheCourtsofEurope:

Politics, Patronage, andRoyalty,1400-1800, ed. A. G. Dickens(New York,

1977), p. 38. Of course, the aspirationsof the medievalaristocracywere not

entirely inuted o themartial irtues.Thewideextentof thecourtlyovetradition

makes hisclear.Thecourtier-who wasamongother hingsexpected opossess

militaryprowess-was only relatively, not absolutely,more"civil?'thanthe

knight.8 Pora modemviewof Castiglione, ee J. R. Woodhouse, aldesarCastiglione

(Edinburgb,1978).








pressivenessthatmade a knightformidable n a society in whichpowerrelationswereestablishedby violentaggressivenessmadehimvulnerablein civil society.9Similarly, MervynJameshas describedthe medieval"communityof honour thatsanctioned he sortXofggressiveandcom--petitive conductthatmadeboth for continualoutbreaksof violence indaily life andfrequentrebellionsagainstthe king. During he sixteenthcentury, however, what increasinglyunderwrotean individual'sself-esteem andsocial statuswas serviceto theking andstate;.Thecourtesybookwas one of a numberof meansby whichconductconsonantwith acivil society orderedby lawfwasurgeduponthe aristocracy.l°

Softerandmorerefinedmannerswerenotseen byeveryoneas atriumphof righteouscivility overboorishcontentiousness.Advocatesof civilitywere persistentlychallengedby bitterandempassionedattackson themorality of fine manners.The court, home to elegant and impressivemanners,wasalso, thecriticscharged,hometo trivialandevil morality.As ClausUhlig has shownin greatdetail, therewas a tremendousout-pouringof criticism n RenaissanceEuropeagainstthe moral ailings ofcourtlife.l Thecourt, so this literature laimed,encouragedminorac-complishmentsbutdiscouragedmajorvirtues.Courts aught he artsof

deception, flattery,andintrigue but mockedopen andsimplehonesty.They even corrupted exual morality,turningsome to lasciviousness,othersto languideffeminacy.Though eadersin "compliment"andin-gratiatingmanners, ourtswerenevertheless itesof bitterandrelentlesscompetition.Courts unxedheoutward racesof elegantmanners gainsttheirdeepermoralroots.

AlthoughUhlig concludedhis studywiththe Elizabethans, t is clearthat heanticourt rgument ersistedntotheseventeenth entury, endingits moralweight firstto the countryopposition to the earlyStuartsandfinallyto the generaldisgust with CharlesII.12Only in the eighteenth

century did courtcriticism, along with courtsthemselves, decline. In-creasingly, London-based"fashionablesociety" assumedthe role thecourthadpreviouslyplayed as thecynosureof elegantbutimmoralman-

9Elias,2:232-36.lames, pp. 27, 60-63.

1}Claus Uhlig, Hofkritik m Englanddes Mittelaltersundder Renaissance(Berlin,1973); orFrance, eePaulineSmith,TheAnti-Courtierreindn SiJcteenthCenturyFrenchLiterature Geneva, 1966).

12 Thepoliticalconflictsbetweencourtandcountryhave beenlinked o moralandculturaldifferencesby manywriters.SeeLawrenceStone,TheCrisisof theAristocracy,155$-1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 723ferez Zagorin,TheCourtandtheCountryNewYork,1970),pp.34, 43;Uhlig,pp.343-50. D. R. M.Wilkinson,TheComedyofHabit(Leiden,1964), discussescourtesy iterature nrelation othe court of Charles I andRestorationdrama.







400 Curtin

ners. The same arguments hathad been directedagainstcourtswerenowleveledagainst ashionableLondon.Thesearguments adtwo major

foci. First, heChristian referenceortheinnerife, powerfully einforced

by puritanntrospection,madethecultivationof outwardmanners eem

eithertrivialandfoolish orevil andhypocritical.Second,thebelief that

theEnglishmanwas andshouldbe straightforward,old, andhonest

undercuthe advocatesof refinement.Courtly, ashionablemannerswere

identifiedwith foreignerswhose ingratiatingmannersdisguised both

foolish vanity andtreacherous vil. Becausethe courtandfashionableLondonwereindeedpointsof entry orContinentalways, it wastempting

forthosein thecountryside, esentfulanddisapprovingf themetropolis,to representtheir grievances in international erms. The elegant and

immoral taliansof the sixteenthcenturyandtheFrench hereafterwere

to the sturdyEnglishmanwhatthe courtierandthe manof fashionwere

to thecountrygentleman.A certainroughnessof mannerswasthussup-portedbothby religiousconvictionandnationalself-conceit.

Withoutsuggestingthatthe criticsof courtsorof fashionable ociety

werewrong, t is nevertheless lear hat heplausibility f theirarguments

restednotmerelyon therealitiesof courtor fashionbutalsoon thefact

thatthevices of flattery,servility,dissimulation,disloyalty,andsexual

irregularitywereproblemsendemic o societyas a whole.Justas softer,

morerefinedmannersrelied generallyon civil society rather hanpar-

ticularlyon courts,so criticismof courtsandfashionableocietyreflected

profound ncertaintybout hewholestatusof mannersatherhanmerely

doubtsaboutthe specific natureof courts and fashionablesociety. A

4'solution"to the problemwas impossible. Mannerswere inevitably

hypocriticalbecause they were conceived to be a facade drawnover

underlying ealities,particularlyherealityof self-interest.If a solutionwasimpossible,courtesywriterscouldatleastemphasize

thebenevolentaspectsof dissimulation thedesirabilityof suppressingviolentanddisagreeableemotions,the dignityof measuredandorderly

manners,hegains nself-control ndsociability,andsoon. Mostcourtesy

writerswereverywaryof offendingmoralsensibilitiesand ndeed hem-selves believedthatmanners houldbe subordinatedo moralpurposes.Thesuccessof theircompromisewasindicated ythecontinuing opularityof theirworks. It provedpossible to steer a coursebetweenthe Scylla

of fashionable mmoralityandthe Charybdisof countrycrudity.If the

former rivializedmannersby opposingthemto soberrespectability, he

latterdefaced moralityby denying its aestheticaspiration.The harsh

plainness f thePuritansntheirhourof triumph nd heindecent leganceof theRestorationCavaliers ntheirsbroughtdiscredit o bothextremes.

Itwas in theeighteenthcentury hattheappreciation f goodmanners

was moStgeneral. Formanyof the early Georgianssociabilitywas an







A Question of Manners 401

art, andthereforethe courtesybook, the literarygenre that supportedthis art,hadan important lace.13Indeed,manyof theminorartsof life,such as gardening,travel, andfood andwine connoisseurship,becameat this time thecommonpropertyof goodsocietynotmerelythe hobbiesof eccentrics.l4The idea thatBurckhardt iscovered n the ItalianRen-aissance-the emancipationf theindividual ersonalityrom heshacklesof unconscious raditionby theapplication o theself of all thebest thatartandreason ouldoffer wasjoinedtoworldlygoodsense,moderation,and sociability to inspire the characteristic ivilization of eighteenth-

centuryEngland.Thecourtesybook,whichhad ts origins n thetraditionof self-cultivation,obviouslybenefited*om the domesticationof these

Italian deasintoEnglish'sliberaleducation."In addition,mannersandcourtesy iteratureweresupportedby animportanttrandof eighteenth-centuryreligiousopinion. To an extentunalsual mongchurchmen,at-

itudinariansound it possible to squarethe minorand worldly moralsof coalrtesywithChristian rinciples.Thesociab}evirtuesof self-control,reasonableness, act, and moderationwere believed to cooperatewith

revelation,not to competewithit.15Manners ppealed o theageinmore

tangibleways as well. Mostpeople?so thecommonargument an,were

superficialobservers,easily impressedby a show of good mannersbutunableto appreciate he more difficultmoralvirtues. If manners ostsomething n dignityandmoralweight, they gained t backin influenceandutility. Manners,not solid virtue, made6'friends,"and "friends,"notableservice, madeone's career.'6Thiswas an ageof patronage,notof merit of "friends,"not of testableknowledgeand bureaucraticm-

partiality-and thereforethe cultivationof good mannersdid not rest

3 The remainder of this paragraphdraws heavily from Rothblatt, pp. 14, 62.

14 J. H. Plumb, GeorgianDelights Boston, 1980); Girouardstates that !ibraries

and picture galleriesbecame common features of the country house only in the

eighteenth century (MarkGirouard, Life in the EnglishCountryHouse [Oxford,

1978], p. 69).Is For the latitudinarians, see Norman Sykes, ChurchandState inEngland n

theXVlllthCenturyHamden, Conn., 1962), pp. 257-62; L. P. Curtis, AnglicanMoods n theEighteenthCenturyHamden, Conn., 1966), pp. 1-48; Gerald R.

Cragg, ReasonandAuthorityn theEighteenthCenturyCambridge, 1964), pp.

57-61; R. S. Crane, S'Suggestionstowardsa Genealogy of the 'Man of Feeling,' "EnglishLiteraryHistory1(1934): 205 -30; Donald Greene, " Latitudinarianism

and Sensibility: The Genealogy of the 'Man of Feeling' Reconsidered,?' ModernPhilology75 (1977): 159-83 .

16 Charles Pullen ( "Lord Chesterfield andEighteenth-CenturyAppearance and

Reality," Studiesin EnglishLiterature,1500-1800 8 [1968]: 501-15) argues

thatChesterfieldrepresentedcommon eighteenth-centuryopinion on these matters.

i.e., intelligence and virtuous morality were often less effective in the pursuit

of one's interests than good manners. This is an old theme of the anticourt

tradition and can be traced back to the Middle Ages (see Uhlig, pp.-43-54).







402 Curtin

merely on an ideal of high civilization but also on the firm groundofGeorgianplace hunting.

Interest n mannerswas closely tied to the expansionof London n theeighteenthcentury.l7 n some ways courtesybooks may be viewed as ameansby which a country amily prepared tself for a visit to the capital.How to live in the chaotic,cosmopolitan apital,how to dealwith strangerson the basis of impersonalnorms, how to be, in a word, "urbane": heseconsiderationsbecame prominent n courtesy literaturebecause of theincreasing size and importanceof London. The central dichotomy ineighteenth-century iscussions of mannerswas not, as it became in the.nineteenth century, between the aristocracyand the middle class butratherbetweenurbanity ndprovincialism.Mannersdentified ndividuals

not so much according o their rankon a scale of social stratification son their acquaintancewith the cultureof London. Admittedly, he mostprestigiousmanners f thecapitalwere ound n fashionable ndaristocraticcircles, but "good manners"were not simply synonymouswith "aris-tocratic manners."It was indeed the Londonconnection hat separatedthe richestandmost fashionable ections of the aristocracy rom ts rivalsin the lower aristocracy.The- uperiorityof Londonmannerswas by nomeans 1lncontested,and large sections of the aristocracy emainedun-perturbably ocal.l8 But the usages of the capital-connected, as theywere, with the elite of the aristocracy-graduallybut inexorably preadinto the countryside,replacing ocal traditionsand turning quires'eyesto Londonand to courtesy book manners.

Thus, despite the declining importanceof court life, the uncertainmoral standingof fashionableLondon, the continuinguneasinessabouthypocrisy, the national nclination o bluntness,andreligious distrustofworldliness, good mannersheld a place among he recognizedvirtuesofcivilized life. The characteristicxpressionof this association f mannerswith morality, he courtesybook, was solidly based n eighteenth-centuryculture. And yet by the end of the century the genre died. What were

the causes of death?II

The counesy genredied because he conditions hatsustained ts difficultcompromisebetween mannersand morals did not themselves endure.

17 For London and manners, see Rothblatt, pp. 32-39; Richard Sennett, TheFall of Public Man(New York, 1977), pp. 47-88.

18 London manners affected provincial society just as provincial manners affectedLondon society. Robert Malcolmson (PopularRecreations n English Society,1700-1850 [Cambridge, 1973], pp. 67-71), discusses how new ideas of civilitysplit the traditional rural community.







A Questionof ANanners 403

When it becameincongnous to thinkof fine rnanners s an esseatialelementof civilizedlife, thecourtesybookwasdoomed,andtheetiquettebook, a genrethatcheerfullypreachedmanners nX desecrated emple,becamethe appropriate ehicle for instruction n thatdiminishedkindof manners hatwe call "etiquette."Ourexplanationof the demise ofthe courtesybook(and the rise of the etiquettebook)begins, therefore,withanexplanationwhy in the lateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcen-turies hetraditional ssociationbetweenmanners ndmoralswasbroken.

Since PrancisOsborne'simportantAdvice to a Son (1656-58),l9 a

strandof courtesy literature tself had come close to abandoning heattempt o squaremannerswithmorals.Osbornedidnot, in the mannerof later etiquettewriters, give merely perfunctoryrecognitionto themoralcontextof manners. ndeed,hepartlyshared heview of traditionalcritics of mannershatthe "worlds'wasacompound f folly andwicked-ness. For Osborne,however, recognitionof worldly iniquity did notdictatemoralisticwithdrawal.Theveryfactthatthe "world"was so fullof vain, petty, foolish people mademannersessential to the pursuitofself-interest.One earnedgoodmannersn order o improveone's chancesin a cruelworld,not in orderto makethe worlda betterplace. Though

putforward n a disturbingly ynicalway bEy sbornes heusefulnessofgoodmannerswasyas wehaveseen,aclichEof eighteenth-centuryhoughtanda premiseof the courtesybook itself.20

The most famous, indeed notorious,exponent of the expediencyoffinemannerswasChesterfield1694-1773). Anyexplanation f thedemiseof the Englishcourtesybook mustaccountfor Lettersto His Son, thelast important epresentativeof the genre. Certainly,Chesterfielddidnot himself kill the courtesybook. Lettersto His Son does, however,strikingly llustratewhy the courtesybook was unableto perpetuate tstraditional ouplingof mannersandmorals n lateeighteenth-andearly

nineteenth-centuryociety.lust atthemomentwhenforcesdeeplyhostileto the cultivationof fine mannersweregatheringgreatforce, LetterstoHis Sonappearedo representmannersn theirmostcynical, expedient,andimmoral ight.

Chesterfield,as Coxon, Collins, DobrEe,and others have insisted,was not the moralogre thatpopularopinionliked to believe.2l This is

i9Pepysnoted in his diarythatPrancisOsborne'sAdvice to a Son (Oxford,1658) was one of the most discussedbooksof the day. I owe this referencetoMason,p. 69.

20 Pullen, pp. S01-15.

21 RogerCoxon, Chesterfeld andHis Critics(London, 192S);JohnChurtonCollins,Essaysand Studies(Londons1895);BonamyDobrFe,"Introduction,"in TheLettersofPhilipDormerStanhope,4thEarl of Chesterffeld, d. BonamyDobrEe London, 1932).







404 Curtin

not theplaceto defendChesterfieldor to sortout in his writings herealfromtheapparent, he publicfromthe private;but it is importantormyargumento recognizethat t was a simplematter omisreadChesterfieldand oneglect hemanymoral autions hatpepperhisLetters. Chesterfieldhad an affinityfor thattraditionof realismthatrefusedto idealize themoraland ntellectual apacitiesof manbutsawno purposen declaimingagainst niquityandin testifyingto personalrlghteousness.At the sametime, he had no desire to offend or scandalizethe public and wouldcertainlyhave disapprovedof the publicationof his Letters. Indeed,asone who believed that the place of civility andmorality n society wasprecarious,Chesterfield eld it to be a dutyof therichand he enlightenedto support hemythsby whichpublicorderwasmaintained.Andyet thesecret escaped. The Letters werepublished,and in themone findsnotthe carefulandpedanticsubordination f manners o morals hatpublicdiscourserequiredbutrathersome very frankstatementsaboutthe im-portanceof good manners n makingone's way in the world.This wassimultaneously clichEandanoffensive nnovation.Thetraditionalriticsof mannershad alwaysclaimedto uncover heunseemlyrealitythatlaybeneath heelegantexterior.Letters to His Son, theinsouciant estimonyof an insider,suppliedthe proof.

The rootlessness of fashionablemanners s everywhereapparent nChesterfield.He was an aristocratwith no interestin countrylife, acourtierwithouta court,anEnglishmanwitha great(butnot uncritical)appreciation f the French.A greatbelieverin the delightsof civilizedintercourse ndelegantleisure, Chesterfield lso worriedabout heaim-lessness of this style of life and doubtedthe capacityof the ordinaryaristocrato sustain hedesired evel of sophistication.Thoughborn ntofashionablesociety, he remainedanoutsiderwith anacuteawarenessofthe gulf separating he individualfromhis society. Letters to His Son

containeda curiouscombinationof sociabilityandaloofness:one waschargedto seek out good society, to enjoy it, andlearnfromit, but atthe sametimeto remaindistant,controlled,andcoolly observant,readyto turnparticularsituationsto one's advantage.22The elaboratecareChesterfielddevotedtomanners eemedto beentirelyselfishandwithoutconcernfor the good of the community.Whatwas most strikingabout

22 It was this cool, detached manner, not the many moral cautions that Ches-

terfield directed toward his son, that readers of the Lettersseized upon. Thereadiness with which Chesterfield was distorted and misread must be understoodin relation to the moral disapproval that was long directed against courts and the

conscious manipulation of manners. For some contemporary reaction to Ches-terfield, see Sidney Gulick, ed. s TwoBurlesquesofLordChesterfield'sLetters:TheGraces(1774) land] TheFine Gentleman'sEtiquette 1776) (Los Angeles,1960).







A Question of Manners e405

Chesterfield,however, was not his reductionof manners o ingratiationand self-interest-which, as we have seen, was an idea with a longhistory. The instruction n social andpolitical institutions,in modernandancienthistoryandletters, and the many-otherworthysubjectsthatoccupiedso muchof theLetters wereconceived in whatappeared o bea similarlyself-interestedspirit. The Renaissance raditionof self-cul-tivationfound n Chesterfielda verycompromising dherent.He seemedto devote the aesthetic idea of personalitynot to the service of civichumanism,courtly counsel, or even Burokhardtianndividualismbut

ratherto the mediocre ends of eighteenth-century lace hunting. Theindividual ormedhimself so as to be able to exploit the institutionsofsociefy for hisownends, and ndeedeighteenth-centuryublic nstitutionswere all too oftenexploitedby incumbents or privateends.

VicesimusKnox, one of the last of the courtesywriters,complainedof Chesterfield'smmense nfluence: 'Nothinghas of latemilitatedmorepowerfullyagainst Nobility than thepublicationof LordChesterfield'sLetters." Knox's purposewas traditionalamongcourtesywriters. Hewanted to impart o noble youthan educationandmoralcharacter hatwould enablethem to fulfill the mabydutiesof theirsocial position. To

Knox, Chesterfield'sadvicerepresented perniciousdistortionof thesepurposesbecauseLetters to His Son associatedaristocratic ducationnotwithdutyandresponsibilitybutratherwith "a want of all public spirit,and a mostanxiousattention o self-interest,aggrandizement, ndgrat-ification."23Writing n the shadowof the FrenchRevolution,Knoxandmanyothersbelieved that unless the English aristocracyreformed tsmannersalong morerespectable ines, it too would go the way of thecharmingbut dissoluteFrench.While the times were not inauspiciousfor mannersof a certainkind, the aristocraticworldlinessof Letters toHis Son now representeda dangerousabuserather hana progressive

ideal. Chesterfield eemedto associatefine mannerswith the frivolouspreoccupations f a rentierclass, not withthe seriousaspirationsof thecommunityas a whole. Antiaristocraticpinion,made mmenselymorepowerfulandaggressiveby theFrenchtevolution,foundChesterfieldianmannersoffensive. The old argument hat good mannerswere trivialstatussymbols rather hangenuineaspects of highcivilizationwas nowasserted n a chargedpolitical context. In the pastmannershaddrawnprestigefrom theirassociationwith the aristocracy and vice versa). Inthe futurethe value of this associationwas muchdiminished,andeachpartyhadto sharethe ignominy as well as theprestigeof the other.

Likemanyothereighteenth-centuryuthors,Chesterfield,withoutbeingdisrespectfulof religion, wrote in a worldlyvein. At midcentury,when

:

23 Vicesimus Knox,PersonalNobilily (London, 1793), pp. 317-21.







406 Curtin

most of his Letterswere written f not published,this outlookwas ac-ceptableandrespectable.Even amongexplicitly religiouswriters,the

sociablevirtuesof moderation, elf-restraint,andgood-fellowshipwere

highly valued. It was indeed amongthe latitudinarianlergy that the

causeof good manners oundits mostpotentadvocates.Latitudinarianshad bten impressedby the virtuesof moderationafterwitnessingthe

excesses of sectarianenthusiasmn the Civil War.In roughand violent

timesthe causeof manners ouldbe madeto seemthecauseof religion

andenlightenment. utonceachieved,softerandmorerestrainedmanners

appearednimical to profounderhings. Thus, the unusualstabilityofEnglishsociety in the firsttwo-thirdsof the eighteenthcenturyandthe

real improvementn mannersduring hattime gradually outinizedand

thendiminished he valueplacedon polite sociability.By the end of the century just when Chesterfield eft the courtesy

traditionn a veryvulnerableposition- the climateof religiousopinion

wasrapidly hanging.TheEvangelicals,hemost mportantf thereligious

reformers,wrotemuch aboutthe improvement f "manners,"but the

sortof mannersheyhad nmindhad ittleto dowiththeminute,outward

gracesthatfascinatedChesterfield.Wecannoteven say thatthe Evan-

gelicals were interested n mannersof any sort unlesswe mean,as theydid, the manners hatderivedfromreligiouspostulates.Unlikesomeof

theirmoreconventionalVictorianheirs, the earlyEvangelicalswerenot

contentwithmereoutward onformityo respectabletandardsf conduct.

Religiousfaith, continuallyscrutinizedby anxiousandrelentlessintro-

spection,was to determineoutwardbehavior.Whilein manycases faith

coincidedwithworldlygoodmanners, ometimes t didnot. Onewasto

preach he Word n andout of season, andyet it was good mannersnot

to discussreligion in company.24

24 The early Evangelicals encouraged the faithful not to be bashful or ashamed

about religious earnestness. Even if one's behavior was obtuse from the point

of view of worldly manners, one should speak out boldly. Chesterfield addressed

a similar problem, though from a different perspective and with a different con-

clusion. He advised his son to conduct himself according to moralprinciples but

to disguise his principled behavior under a mask of bon}omie. "Do not refuse

lan invitation to gamble deeply] gravely and sententiously, alleging the folly of

staking what would be very inconvenient for one to lose, against what one does

not want to win: but parrythose invitations ludicrously, et en badinant. Say that

if you were sure to lose you might possibly play, but that as you may as well

win, you dread l'embarras des richesses ever since you have seen what an in-

cumbrance they were to poor Harloquin, and that therefore you are determined

never to venture the winning above two Louis a-day" (Lord Mahon, ed., The

Letters of Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield, 4 vols. [London, 1845],

2:6).









Mereoutwardconformitymay have been the best thatcould be im-mediately xpected rom heheathenmassesagainstwhom heEvangelicalsdirectedso muchof theirenergy.Butwith themiddleandupperclassesthe problemwas different.Thereworldly standardsof good behaviorwere already n place and indeedhad been erected into a hollow idolthat,according o theEvangelicals,barred urtherprogress.As WilliamWilberforce 1759-1833), theEvangelical eader,madeclearin his in-fluentialPractical View (1797), the meregood citizenwho did his dutyto himself, his family, andhis society was no longeradequate.Indeed,

it was preciselythe eighteenth-centuryraditionof latitudinarian ood-fellowshipandcitizenshiphatWilberforceound obe hismost ormidableand objectionableopponent.25This comfortableconflation of worldlymannersand moralitywith Christianitydeludedpeople aboutthe truestate of theirsouls. Christianity,Wilberforce nsisted, was a difficult,exigentcreed, whichdid not merelysanctifyenlightenedhumanitybutratherguidedmanto a reconciliationwith God.

Thereremained, f course,muchroom ortheimprovementf mannersat the endof theeighteenthcentury,andno one was moreactive in thisregard hantheEvangelicals hemselves.But thecourtesybook - based

on theRenaissance raditionof self-cultivation wasnot in thepositionto capitalize on the sort of manners hat interestedthe Evangelicals.Whereascourtesy iterature aluedgoodmannersortheirown sakeandregarded hem on moreor less the sameplane as highmoralprinciple,Evangelicals iminishedmannersoamereoutwardxpression f religiousnature.Onthe otherhand,if one wishes to includewithinthe courtesytraditionuchworksasTheWholeDutyofMan(1659)and tsdescendants,thenthegenre tselfendured,ndeed lourished, ntheclimateof religiousrevival. Thegenerallydomestic,self-abnegatorypiritof this branchof"courtesyliterature"was also well-suited to the situationof women,

who, as we shall see, were emergingin the late eighteenthand earlynineteenthcenturiesas the mainconstituencyof good manners.26

25 The argumentagainstrefinedandrespectableworldliness is mademost directlyin chap. 4, the central section of the Practical View. Hannah More made thesame point repeatedly in "An Estimate of the Religion of the Fashionable World"and "Thoughtson the Importanceof the Mannersof the Greatto GeneralSociety,"in Hannah More, Collected Works, 2 vols. (New York, 1857), 2:262-300.

26 The importanceof feminine readershipto nineteenth-centuryetiquette booksis discussed below, Sec IV. Joyce Hemlow ("Fanny Burne-yand the CourtesyBooks," Publications of the Modern Language Association 65 [1950]: 732-33,756-57) has drawnattentionto the "courtesy-novel"and to thenumerous"courtesybooks" directed to women in the late eighteenth century. However, it is not clearthat the volume of courtesy literature directed to women in this period actuallyincreased. A glance at the bibliography in Ruth Kelso's Doctrineor theLady








408 Curtin

Anothertrend in late eighteenth-century pinion which had fatefulconsequencesfor thecourtesybookwas therise of Romanticism.27heRomantic tresson themeritsof diversityas opposedto universality ndon the integrityandworthinessof individualcommunitiesasopposed ocosmopolitantandardsf civilitywashostiletotheintentions f courtesywriters.This line of thoughtassertedthatit was morallyreprehensibleto proclaimgeneralstandards f civilization.Thecosmopolitanwas es-sentiallyrootless andmistookthin andbrittleconvention or strenuousandexaltedvirtue.Mannerswere supposed o be the productof unique

culturesand appropriate nly in the contextthatgave thembirth;theywere not for intellectualdiscussion or for improvementbut rather orsimple and direct living; they were the expressionof the identityof aparticular ommunityor a particularndividual,not of theaspirations fmankindas a whole. If, on the one hand, the cultivationof mannersalienatedmanfromhis community,on the other, it alienatedhimfromhimself. The Romanticquestafterdeepand"authentic" eeling, unin-hibitedby proprietyor social convention,was obviouslydestructiveofmanners.Thecourtesygenre, whichwaspredicated n theideathattheuninstructedanduninhibited elf was base, lost its audiencewhenthe

Romanticsdiscoveredthat the child was father o theman.Theautoch-thonousself of the Romanticswas at every pointcontrary o the effortof courtesywritersto makethe mannersandmoralsof the individualconformwith recognized(if debated)standardsof civilization. Therewas no moreanti-Romantic ookthanLettersto His Son. Chesterfield'scosmopolitancultureandthe readinesswith whichhe accepted he im-positionsof fashionandmannerson the "essential" self markedhimasone of the least Romanticof men.

TheRomantics lsofrequently xpressed heopinion hat heindividualcould discover and cultivate his true self only in the solitudeof the

countryside.This belief had a long history, at least partof whichwas

of theRenaissanceUrbana, III., 1956) shows the wide extent of the genre inearlier times. At a minimum, it is certain that courtesy literature directed towomen maintained itself during the late eighteenth century, whereasthatdirectedto men declined drastically.

27 There are many aspects to Romanticism, some of which contradict others.In this passage I use "Romanticism"to refer to thefollowing ideas;(1) primitivism,(2) the preferencefor diversityover universalityanduniformity,and(3) nationalismbased on historical and ethnic communities. See Alfred Cobban, EdmundBurkeand theRevoltagainst theEighteenthCentury London, 1929), pp. 99, 258-

68; A. O. Lovejoy, TheGreatChainofBeing: AStudy n theHistoryofanIdea(Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. 293, 307, 312-14; A. O. Lovejoy, Essays in theHistory fIdeas(Baltimore, 1948), pp. 228-53; IsaiahBerlin, Against heCurrent:Essays in theHistoryof Ideas (New York, 1979), pp. S, 11-12.








interwovenwith the old opposition to courts andfashionablesociety.The late eighteenth-centuryecrudescenceof the pastoralwas, in part,a reactionagainst the forces of urbanization nd industrializationhatweredestroying raditionalormsof communityife. Romanticismlour-ished by mourninga cultureand a type of manners hatwere passingaway.Thecourtesybook, on theotherhand,diedalongsidemuchof therusticandtraditionalbehavior hatit hadlong campaignedagainst.

III

Thecourtesybookeffectivelyjoined the moreminuteandceremoniousaspectsof "manners"withthose broaderandmoresubstantialpartsof

conduct hatvergeonto whatwe call "morals."Etiquettebooks, on theotherhand, concentratedon precise descriptionsof the exact rules ofinterpersonalbehavior with a relative disregard or moralthought. Inthe formtheytook in the nineteenthcentury,etiquettebookswereorga-nizedaroundparticular ocialsituations dinners,balls, receptions,pre-sentationsat court,calls, promenades,ntroductions,alutations ratherthanaccordingo themoralvirtuesof an deal ndividual-grace, fortitude,self-control.Whereascourtesytreatedmanbroadly n society, etiquette

focusednarrowly nsociability.Onedidnot speakof anetiquettebetweenmasterand servant, employer and employee, buyer and seller, or, ingeneral,of theworkplace,whereasone of thegrand hemesof courtesy,whilenotexactlywork, wasserviceto kingandcommunity,andrelationsbetweenmasterandservantwereexplored horoughly.Norwas thereanetiquetteof familylife: relationsbetweenhusbandandwife andbetweenparentsandchildrenwere amongthe stapletopics of courtesy butwereabsentfrometiquette.Finally, etiquettewritersshowed little interest nthe solitaryindividual; hey prescribedno courses of reading, no self-improvingactivities, no lists of useful habits to cultivate.The courtesy

bookwas, of course, full of precisely this sortof advice.Therewas no important raditionof etiquettebooks in seventeenth-

andeighteenth-centuryEngland.FannyBurney,who was as interestedin mannersand the literatureabout themas anyone, madeEvelinasaythat she regretted he lack of any book whichdescribedthe "laws andcustomsa la mode."28 Even the medieval-styleetiquettebooks which

28 FannyBurney,Evelina, letter 20. This passagewas drawn o my attentionby Hemlow, p. 733. Mason, p. 253, observed hattherewereno native Englishetiquette in histerms"civility")books n theseventeenth ndeighteenthenturies.Evelinauses thephrase"lawsandcustomsa la mode" npreferenceo "etiquette.""Etiquette"does appear n Evelina (letter2()), but it is italicized as a Frenchword. It was Chesterfield,according o the OED, who introduced"etiquette"intoEnglish.Withsuchanambassador,t is notsurprisinghatwhen"etiquette"







410 Curtin

concentratedeavily on tablemanners ndverybasicphysicalproprietieswere no longerbeingproduced y theEnglish.When n 1788JohnWesleywanted ocautionhis followersagainstboorishcoarseness,herepublishedpassagesfromTheRefinedCourtier 1663), itself a paraphrasef DellaCasa's Galateo (1558).29Therewere some etiquettebooks available,however, thoughnone of them was entirelysatisfactory.AdamPetrie'sRules of Good Deportment, or of Good Breeding(1720) was heavilydependent n Frenchauthorities, nd,whereoriginal, t wasrathernaive.TheManof Manners c. 1735)3° aveadviceon afew pointsof etiquette-

introductions, alutations, andpromenades-but thejocular, facetioustone of this work imited tsusefulness.MatthewTowle, adancingmasterat Oxford,includeda discussion of etiquette n his YoungGentleman'sandLady'sPrivateTutor 1770)which, thoughcompetent,wasstronglyslanted oward hedutiesof the youngto the oldand hereforenotentirelyappropriateor generalsociety. ThePolite Academy n.d.) was anotherwork that containeduseful advice but that was directedto children.Translations f FrenchandItalianworksweremadeand,of course,onecould consultearlier courtesybooks on somepointsof etiquette.31Thegreatpopularity f Chesterfieldn the lateeighteenth ndearlynineteenth

centuriesmusthave been due, in part, to readerswho wishedto gleanbits of etiquettefrom the voluminousandrepetitiveLettersto His Son.JohnTruslerassisted suchreadersbyextracting hepassagesonmannersfromChesterfieldandpublishingthemseparatelyas Principles of Po-liteness, itself an immenselypopularwork.32Trusleralso essayed an

crossed the Channel, it lost its primary French meaning of "label" or "ticket"but retained the secondary definitions of "court ceremonial" or "manners andrules of polite society." John Walker (A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary [1791;reprint,Menston, 1968]) was first to include "etiquette" in an English dictionary:

"This word crept into use some years after Johnson wrote his Dictionary, norhave I found it in any other I have consulted. I have ventured, however, to insertit here, as it seems to be established; and as it is more specific than ceremonial,it is certainly of use."

29 ArminianMagazine, vol. 11 (1788). I owe this referenceto MauriceQuinlan,VictorianPrelude: AHistory of English Uanners, 1700-1830 (New York, 1941),p. 34.

30 Dated by the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, vol. 2,col. 1938.

31 Fortranslations of Della Casa, see Antonio Santosuosso, The Bibliographyof Giovanni Della Casa: Books, Readers and Critics, 1537-1975 (Florence,1979), pp. 1011; for translations of Courtin, see V. B. Heltzel, "The Rules of

Civility (1671) and Its French Sources," Modern Language Notes 43 (1928):17-22.32 Sidney L. Gulick, A Chesterfield Bibliography to 1800 (Chicago, 1935),

p. 7. Principles of Politeness went throughthirty-fiveeditions (including reissues)between 1775 and 1800.








etiquettebookof his own, System of Etiquette ( 1804), an unreliableworkthat includedsomeimportant rrorson the etiquetteof dueling n its firstedition. BetweenTrusler'sbook andJamesPitt'sInstructions in Etiquette

(1828) thereappear o have been no etiquettebooks published.33While the etiquette book as a separategenredeveloped only slowly

andhaltingly n theeighteenthandearlynineteenth enturies, t emergedin the 1830swith surprising apidity ndpopularity. n 1837theQuarterly

Review was able to review eleven separateetiquette books publishedbetween 1835and 1837, several of which claimed to have alreadygonethrough as many as eleven printings.34The suddenappearanceof theetiquette book was relatedto the audience t addressed.In the fifteenthandearlysixteenthcenturies,for example,etiquettebooks were directedtoward he childrenof gentle parents,particularly owardpages servingin thehouseholds f aristocraqcmagnates.35ater, he declining nfluenceof these householdsand the rising importance f royalcourts were alsoreflected in etiquette books, particularlyon the Continent.The youngmanwith a career o makeatcourtbecame he objectof etiquettewriters'attentions.36eitheryouthfulpages norfuturecourtiers omposeda likely

33 It is, of course, difficult to prove a negative. There is a subject index tobooks issued between 1816 and 1846 in the London book trade. This includes aheading entitled "Etiquette, Morals, etc. ," but it contains no entries for etiquettebooks for the period 1816-28 (The London Catalogue of Books Published inGreat Britain. Bibliotheca Londinensis: A Classified Index to the Literature ofGreat Britain during Thirty Years [London, 1848] ). Robert Watt's BibliothecaBritannica (Edinburgh, 1824) also lists none. Nor do the subject indexes issuedon the collections of the London Library or the British Library (R. A. Peddie,Subject Index of Books Published before 1800, 4th ser. [London, 1933-48]; C.T. Hagberg-Wright and C. J. Purnell, Catalogue of the London Library, 2 vols.[London, 19131). These lists, of course, are not complete, and for later periodsetiquette books have been located that escaped them. Nevertheless, researches

have not turned up any titles between 1804 and 1828, and it would seem eitherthat there simply were none or that they were printed in such small numbers thatthey escaped the main libraries and faded from notice. As one librarian said ina private communication,etiquette books are "ephemeral"literatureand thereforenot always collected.

34 [AbrahamHayward], "Codes of Mannersand Etiquette" (Quarterly Review

59 11837]: 396), accepted the number of printings claimed by the various etiquettebooks as "without much exaggeration."

35 FrederickJ. Furnivall, ed., TheBabeesBook, Aristotle'sABC, Urbanitatis,Stans Puer ad Mensam, The Lytille Childrenes Lytil Boke, The Bokes of Nurtureof Hugh Rhodes and John Russell, Wynkynde Worde's Boke of Keruynge, TheBooke of l)emeanor, The Boke of Curtasye, Seager's Schoole of Vertue, etc.

(London, 1868).36 Antoine de Courtin, for example, addressed his Nouveau traite'de la civilite'(1671) to a provincial friend's son who was about to come to court for the firsttime. As indicated in Sec. I, the court was moreimportant o Continentaldiscussionsof manners than English.







412 Curtin

marketfor etiquettebooks in the late eighteenthandearly nineteenthcenturies. The market or modernetiquettewas the middleclass, andthe manners t wantedto learnwere not the courtesybookgeneralitiesof universalpolitenessbut rather he specificdetailsof the aristocraticlife-style. Etiquettewriterswereexplicitabout heirexpectedreadership.CharlesDay declared:

In a mercantilecountry ike England,peoplearecontinually ising n the world,shopkeepersecomemerchants,ndmechanicsmanufacturers;ith he possessionof wealth they acquirea taste for the luxuriesof life.... Butalthough heir

capacities orenjoymentncrease, t rarelyoccurs hat he polishof theirmannerskeepspacewiththerapidity f theiradvancement;uchpersons reoftenpainfullyreminded hatwealthaloneis insufficientoprotect hem rom hemortificationsa limitedacquaintancewith society will entailupontheambitious.37

TheSpiritofEtiquetteagreed hat t was "highlydesirable hattheagre-mensof society shouldbe moregenerallydiffusedamongst he middleclass" and directeditself "to those who are anxiousto becomebetteracquaintedwiththeusagesof thepoliteworld."38Theappearancef theetiquettebook, the QuarterlyReviewsourlynoted, couldbe explained

by the "unworthy nddegrading agerness"of themiddleclass "to learnhow lords andladies ate, dressed,andcoquetted."39Aristocraticmannersfor middleclass audiences:this formula, first

clearlyrecognizednthe 1830s,remainednusethroughouthenineteenthcentury.Judgingby theenormouspopularity f Chesterfield'sLetters-"hardly o be matched n theeighteenthcentury"40 it seemslikely thatan enterprisingwriteror publishermighthave exploitedthis formulaearlier.Therewereclearreasons,however,why even the dullestcouldnot mistakeits commercialpossibilitiesin the 1830s. In the firstplace,the tremendoussuccess of the silver-forknovel in the 1820s alerted

writersandpublishers o the potentialprofitsof marketingaristocraticmanners o middle-classaudiences.Bothcontemporaries ndlaterhis-torianshave attributedhe popularityof this genreto themiddleclass's"idolatryof rank"andto its hopeof learninghow "personsof a certainrankandconsequence n society demean hemselves o eachother n the

37 [CharlesDay], Hintson Etiquette London,1836), pp. 10-11.38 TheSpiritof Etiquette London,1837), p ii .39 Hayward,p. 397;see also 1T.C. Morgan],"Etiquette,"NewMonthlyMag-

azine 54 (1838): 23.

40Gulick,Bibliography,p.3-4; Letterso His Sonwasthethirdmost requentlyborrowed ookfrom heBristolLibrary uringheyears1773-84 (PaulKaufman,Borrowingsrom theBristolLibrary,1773-1784: A lYniqueRecordof ReadingVogues[Charlottesville,Va., 1960], p. 122)







A Question of Manners 413minutestparticulars"yreading heseworks.41notherwords,thesilver-forknovel pioneeredthe formula of the etiquettebook in fictionalizedform. In the second place, the strugglessurrounding he ReformBillcast all things, includingmanners, n thepc)larizingight of class. If themiddleclass were to mix in the fashionabledrawingrooms where somany political decisions were made, thenit would have to acquire herequisitemanners.

If we mustfocusnarrowlyon the 1830sin order o explain thesuddenemergenceof the etiquettebook, we mustlook morewidely for an ex-planationwhy etiquettebookscame to rely on a middle-classaudiencein the firstplace. Wemust askwhether, ike theetiquettebooksdirectedto pages in aristocratichouseholdsand to futurecourtiers,Victorianetiquettebooksandtheiraudiencereflected hebroadsocial structure ftheirera. Inparticular,wastheetiquettebook aby-product f thatvaguebutundeniablephenomenon,"the rise of the middleclass"?

In one obvious and important espect the answermustbe negative.The middleclass audiencethatshowedsuch a "degradingeagernesstolearn how lordsandladies ate, dressed,andcoquetted"was not an ag-gressiveandself-confidentclass thatwas set on remaking he world inits own image. It was aristocratic,not middle-class,manners hat weretaught ntheetiquettebook. Themanydisparagingemarkshatetiquettewritersdirectedagainstthe boorishnessof parvenusremindus thatthetriumph f themiddleclassinVictorianEnglandwasbynomeans ompleteandthatparticularlyn questionsof education,aesthetics,andmanners,older,oftenaristocratic,dealsremainedpotent.We mustbe carefulnotto cut the mattertoo fine, however. It was, after all, the economicachievementof the middleclass andits new (albeit insecure)self-con-sciousness thatsupplied heetiquettebookwithits audience. Weshouldnot dismiss readerswith a pitying nodtowardabject

deference,either.Thosewho wantedto learnaristocraticmannersperceivedthe tasknotas a cravencapitulation o a class enemybut as a worthyemulationofhighstandards.Aristocraticmanners id notappear ocontradictconomicsuccess butrather o crown it with a diademof high culture.Etiquettebooks were indeedan authenticcreationof middle-classcivilization:acivilization,however,thatexpressedsomeof itsdeepest and ralest rgesin the emulationof its class antagonists.

Bothcourtesy andetiquettewereclosely, if complexly,boundto thesystemsof prestigeandsocial stratification f theirrespectivesocieties.

41 tHenryTaylor],"Novelsof FashionableLife " Quarterly Review 48 (1832):166- 67. MatthewRosa(TheSilver-Fork chool[PortWashington,N Y , 1964],p. 18) agreed that the formula for these novels was aristocraticmanners ormiddle-classaudiences.







414 Cllrtin

Upwardmobility was built directlyandexplicitly into the structureofthe etiquettebook:middle-classreaders earnedaristocraticmanners norder o convert heireconomicsuccess intosocialprestige.Individualswere "placed" and identities formedon the basis of a myriadof tinybits of informationdrawnfrom the realmof manners,most of whichcould be understoodonly in the context of the social class system. Itwas assumed hatmannersdentified ndividualsaccording o theirclassand that middle-classindividualswished to blurthis identificationbylearningthe mannersof their betters. Etiquettewriterstaughtreaderswhowereeagerbothto makesocial advancesandtohidethefactof theiradvancehow to avoidthose humiliatingblunders hatdrewattention ohumbleorigins. Thiscomplewof ideasandemotionsaboutmannersandsocial mobility was not uniqueto etiquette. Such themes were amongthestaplesof Victoriannovels andsocial criticism.What riumphedwasnoeso muchthe aristocraticmanners hatetiquettebooks spread o themiddle class-because, in fact, influenceran in both directions-butratherhegeneralpointof viewthatsubordinatedmannersosocialclass.An individual's manners,therefore, were not taken at face value butratherwere interpretedo revealhis class position,origin, aspiration rsomecombination f thethree.Infact, thegameof mannerswasendlesslycomplexbecause, thoughultimatelyrelated o the class structure, n theshortrunmannersreflectedthe status structuremoreaccurately.As arule, mannersbecamea lively issue withinrather hanbetweenclassesandservedto exaggeratesmall differencesrather hanto measure argeones. In distinguishing he upperaristocracy romthe lower, the loweraristocracyromthe uppermiddleclasses, this "set'9fromthat, andsoon, mannerswere usefulandfascinatingbecausethey ministered o thecommon endencyof individualsto compare hemselvesnot with theirclassenemiesbutwiththeirnearneighbors n statusandprestige.More-over,thereis a sense in whichthe reduction

of manners o the vanitiesofstatuscompetitionactuallydiminished heirimportance s a measureofsocial stratification.Forthosewhoheldto rigorous tandards f char-acter,achievement,andmorality,mannerswerecorruptedby theiras-sociationwithpettystatuscompetitionandlost theplacetheyonce heldalongsidehehighervirtuesof civilized life-and hencealsotheirpowerto ndicatesocial status.Thelow intellectual evel of the etiquettebookin omparisonotheoldcourtesy raditionmeasuredhedescentof mannersfroman ideal of civilizationto a symbolof vanityandstatus.

Eighteenth-century ourtesy writers, reflectingboth the difficultiesandopportunities f London ife,

describedan inclusive sociabilitythatsought o create temporaryharmoniesbetweendivergent nterestsandopinionsby the inculcationof polite, aesthetic, and useful normsofcommingling. ictorian tiquette ftenaimedattheopposite.Anexclusive







sociability that sought to limit company o select and conforming ndi-viduals was its preoccupation.A concernwith status symbols and othermeans of identifying the "ins" and "outs" superseded he traditionalinterestsof writerson manners uch as the natureof "pleasing," of self-control, or of the legitimate and illegitimateforms of hypocrisy. A sat-isfactionwith standards ased on "set" or class replaceda strivingafteruniversalpoliteness. Underlying he emergenceof a self-satisfied, ex-clusive etiquettewas the establishment ithin he aristocracy f a commonset of manners, f not morals,basedonthe triumph f fashionableLondonover provincialdiversity. London Society had matured or ossified-

andnow spokewitha forcefulandapparentlynanimous oice.42Etiquettewriters who passed along its decrees frequentlyreferred o the au-thority-ofSociety as if such a referenceansweredall questionsof value.This or that bit of etiquette was "correct"because that was the waySocietydid it. Society did not, of course? nswerany substantial uestionsof value. Indeed, the exclusion of "undesirables" rom Society and ofmoral hought rom the etiquettebookwent hand n hand. A limited andself-satisfiedSociety produced rivialand unexaminedmanners; he ex-clusion of moral thought from the etiquette book permittedetiquettewriters o propound uch mannerswithout pressing ense of incongruity.

In the courtesybook, on the otherhand,problems f social stratificationsimply did not amount o much. Of course, courtesydealt with "rank"and "order"rather han "class" or "classes," and t was not uncommonfor badmanners o be stigmatizedwithwordsof vaguely social referencesuch as "vulgar,"but these were relativelyunimportant.Courtesybookswere ypicallydirected o theyoungortoprovincials, otto social inferiors.Moreover, he context n whichupward ocial mobilityoccurred hangedradically rom the eighteenth o the nineteenth entury.As describedbyR. G. Wilson,for example, he Leedsmerchants f the eighteenth enturywere not a "class," separated rom heirsuperiorsby both consciousness

andeconomic nterest.To the contrary,he richermerchantsmivced asilywith the local gentry, intermarriedwith them, sold apprenticeships otheiryounger ons, andentertained hemduring he Leeds social season.Merchants ode with the hounds,collectedpictures,andwhen they couldafford t, indulged heirtaste for architecture ndgardening, ust as theirsuperiorsdid. "Since the frontierbetween own andcountrywas difficultto determine,and the merchantwho knew nothing of the ways of theland was unknown, he transition or the man of wealth to the ideal way

42 The "voice" of LondonSociety maturediterallyas well as figuratively. nthe elevation of Received StandardEnglish(above other local dialects) to thenational anguage,Londonplayedan importantole. ReceivedStandardEnglishhad, of course, a brightfutureas an indicatorof social status.







416 Curtin

of life in eighteenth-centuryociety wasnotdifEcult."Themannersandgeneralcultureof the Leedsmerchantdidnot, in otherwords,reinforcehis economicdifferenceswiththe gentry.43

By the earlynineteenthcentury he situati-onadchangeddrastically.When heoldwoolenstradewasdestroyedbymanufacturershomarketedtheirown products,Leedsmerchants hose to cast their ot notwiththenew world of industrialcapitalism which, however "middleclass,"wasaliento them-but ratherwiththatwithwhichtheywereacquainted.Thoso who could affordit set up as countrygentlemenor joined thenumerousandimportant lass of "urbangentry"thatAlan Everitthas

described; thersopted orgentleprofessions uchasthechurch rmilitaryor founda differentniche in the worldof commercesuch as banking.44

43 R. G. Wilson,GentlemenMerchants:TheMerchantCommunityn Leeds,1700-18S0 (Manchestet,1971), p. 227. PeterMathias TheTransformationfEngland NewYork,1979],pp. 247-48) notesthat hegreateighteenth-centuryLondonbrewerswereavidparticipantsn polite societyandwere "recognizedasbelonging o thesameclubasthelanded ntetest."OftheLondonmerchants,NicholasRogers "Money,LandandLineage:TheBigBourgeoisieofHanoverianLondon,"SocialSlistory4 [1979]:437-54, esp. 453) writes:"Drawnprincipallyfromwell-establishedrbanamiliesresembling ttimesextendedkinshipgroups,the merchantelites of DtheGeorgianera enjoyeda statusnot accordedto thecaptainsof industry,whose petty-bourgeoisoriginscreatedformidablesocialbarriers.Theacceptanceof themerchantgrandeebutnotthefactory-master,nfact,underscoredot}l heflexibilityand imitations f Hanoverianoliteculture."GordonJackson(Hull in theEighteenthCentury Oxford,1972], pp. 262-69)makes hesamepointabout heHullmexchants.WhileWilsonportraysheLeedsmerchants seagerto buyanestateandcopythearistocratictyleof life, RogersandJacksonstressthe independenceof the urbanpatriciate.Forourpurposes,independence rdependences notcrucialsinceallwriters tressthatmerchantsfollowed a patternof sociabilitysimilarto thatof the landedgentleman.ForJacksonandRogersthis meansthe merchantswerepartof the samehighrank

as the landedelite andequalparticipantsn politeculture; orWilsonit meansthatthey were slightly below the landedelite but close enoughto copy theirbettersandto be acceptedby theirbettersas partners or marriage,business,andconviviality.Theimportancef sociabilityntownhistoryhasbeenmentionedby severalwriters AlanEveritt,"Introduction,"nPerspectivesnEnglish JrbanHistory, ed. Alan Everitt[London, 1973], p. 7). PeterBorsay("The EnglishUrbanRenaissance:The Developmentof ProvincialUrbanCulture,c. 1660-c.1760," Social History5 [1977]:581-614) findsthatone causeof the urbanrenaissancen the provinceswas the fluid, opennatureof a society thatplacedapremium nmanners, ashion,andconsumption.Statuswasnolongerascribedbutmustbe achieved by tastefulandfashionablepatternsof consumption,bygoodmanners,ntelligence,etc. Thetown, accordingo Borsay,waswhere his

sortof statuswas best pursued.44Another easontheol,dmerchant lass of Leedsdeclinedwastheirrefusalafterthe Europeanmarketcollapsed, to follow tradeto America.EverythingaboutAmerica the extremesof weather,the incivility, the dirt, the general








Even in the nineteenthcenturythereremainedan important ection ofthemiddleclass thatshared hehabitsof thearistocracy.Rubinsteinhascalled attention o the London-based inancialmiddleclass, which, incontrast o the manufacturingmiddle class of the provinces,kept veryclose ties with traditional andedsociety throughreligion, education,andgeneralstyle of life.45It was the industrial,not thecommercialandfinancial,middleclass thatcreatedthe oppositionalclass structurehatdominatedhe maginationf VictorianEngland ndparipassu heetiquettebook. Fromneitherestablishedmerchantnorgentryorigins, the manu-facturerswere newmenwhowereunused o theways of politesociety-andvice versa. Etiquettebooks bothattested o this divisionwithintheelite andministered o its closure.

Therewere, of course, many who doubtedthe authorityof Society,who thoughtpolite society was not so polite, after all. Forthose with amilitantmiddle-classconsciousness, those who, for examplesthoughtof upwardmobilityin thetermsof SamuelSmiles'sSelf-Help,etiquettewas anathema.During heeighteenthcentury,when thesocialorderwasheavilyinfluencedby patronageandconnectionsof "friends,i'mannershadanobviousroleto play in themakingof acareer.Butin thenineteenth

century at least accordingto the myth of careersopen to talent itwas not the gracesbutratherhardwork, perseverance,daring,and in-telligence thatmade for success.46In some ways, Smiles's Self-Help,not the etiquettebook, was the true successor to courtesy. SelS-Helptaughtreadersvirtuesthatwerewidelyadmiredn theirsociety andthatcontributedo thepursuitof usefulandproductiveives, just as courtesy

prominence f plebianculture wasabhorrento theoldmerchants."Thesonsof the Divcons,Denisons, Milnesandtheir like werenotpreparedo pass theirtime in similarexcursions. They preferredhuntingandassemblies, Bath and

Scarborough,ndsoughtacommission nthearmyor agoodbenefice"(Wilson,p. 120).

4S W, D. Rubinstein,"The VictorianMiddleClasses: Wealth,Occupation,andGeography,"EconomicHistoryReview, 2d ser., 30 (1977): 602-23, esp.620.

46 A reviewer in the Congregationalistsarcasticallywrote after enc-aminingsome books on manners:"We are the crowd, the 'commonherd,' the vulgarpeople, the oipolloi,as the Greekshadit, the nobodies of 'society.' Well, inpractice, this does notmatter;ourpeaceis not troubledby it; we really do notcare aboutprecedence; t neverdisturbsus to know that, accordingto Courtetiquette,LordSo and So, or SirJohnSomebody,has theright to go intoor outof a roombefore us; we sleep none the worse for it, we eat or drink ust thesame; ndeed nthegreatcommunitieswheremostof us live, we arenot consciousthat there s such a thingas.precedence democraticpeopleto thebackboneit is firstcome, firstserved"("Notes on EtiquetteandPrecedence,"Congre-gationalist 2 [1873]:20-27, 91-99, esp. 21).







418 Curtin

had. The samecouldnot be saidof etiquette.Theabilityto passexam-inations, to buy and sell at advantageous erms:these were what themarket ociety rewarded,not a facility formaking"friends."47

BothSelf-Helpandcourtesy iteraturewereaddressed o anaudiencewhichwas presumed o be youthful,high-spirited,andaggressive,butwhichrequired nadmixturef restraint ndself-disciplineorthepursuitof worldlydistinction.Thecharacteristicmoralvirtuesof thepresumedaudiencefor etiquette,on the otherhand,were tactandconsideration,qualitiesthatsuitedthose whoseconcernwas to "fit into" society, not

to standout fromit. Themanners aughtby etiquettewerethoseof thedrawingroom, notof the widersociety. To completeourunderstandingof theplaceof theetiquettebookin Victorian ulture,we must hereforelook not only to broadquestionsof social structurebut also to moredomesticthings.

IV

Victorian adies-both middle-classandaristocratic-enjoyed a.muchgreaterrange of sociable opporiunitiesthan their eighteenth-centurypredecessors. twasthisfact, in conjunctionwiththeeconomictriumphof

the middleclass, thatwas the decisive variable n the emergenceoftheVictorianetiquettebook. Manners renot, though heymayseemsofroma twentieth-centuryerspective,a natural ndinevitablesubjectofmainly eminine nterest.Courtesyiteraturewasanalmostentirelymas-culinegenre for the simplereasonthatits task was to instructreadershowto get on "in the world," a spherein which ladies did not oftenmove. There were, of course, manyworks devoted to the social andmoralduties of women, but the messageof these was to stay at homeand o cultivate the traditional emininevirtuesof modesty,chastity,and he like.48By the late eighteenthcentury,courtesy iteraturebegan

tofinda somewhatmoreactive role for womenin sociability, but thedomesticife and ts correspondingmoralhabitsremainedhemaincon-cern.How differentwas etiquetteand how curious to thinkthat thisdespisedand trivial genre shouldhave been a partof the "wideningsphere" f opportunitieshatwomenenjoyed n the nineteenth entury!All he fears of femininesociabilitythathadtroubledcourtesywritersforenturiesweresimply gnoredbyetiquettewriters. nplaceof warningsabouthe frivolityof fashion,the insipidandwastefulhabitsof visiting,promenading,ndtlie like, we findsuggestionshow to enjoythesepas-times.What nthecourtesybookhadbeenevil and orbiddenemptationsweren

etiquetteenjoyableandrespectableamusements f theeveryday47 Rothblatt,p.62, 124-2548 Kelso,Doctrine or theLady,pp.25, 31.







A QuestionfManners 419

world.Onthe otherhand,the eliminationfrometiquetteof mostof themoral,educational, ndpoliticalmatterhathadbeenthestapleof courtesymayalso beunderstood,n part,as aconsequenceof thegenre' feminineorientation:womenwerenot activeinthe worldandhence didnotrequireinstruction boutworldly hings in theirbooks of manners.The etiquettebook,therefore,presupposedheemergence f women ntothe mainstreamof sociability-a step forward hathistorianshave not yet sufficientlyrecognized49 but also theircontinuingexclusion from society's mostimportant ourcesof powerandprestige.

It was in the sociabilityof the "lady" that s, thewomanwhotoiledneither n the home northe marketplace that the etiquettebookfoundits characteristic, houghnot its exclusive, subjectmatter.Luncheons,cards,calls, at-homes: hesewerealmostentirely eminineactivitiesandwere,alongwith dinnersandballs, themostcommon opicsof etiquette.

The ife-styleof the rentier entleman idnot impose tselfonthe etiquettebook in the samemanner.Behaviorat gentlemen'sclubs, for example,was only rarelytreatedby etiquettewriters,whereasthe ladies' clubs

thatsprangup in the last decadesof the centuryregularlycalled forthadvice.Similarly,the huntbecameatopic forthe etiquettebookon those

occasions-such as the hunt breakfast in whichladies regularlypar-ticipatedalong withgentlemen.Thus, while the formulaof aristocraticmanners ormiddle-classa-udiences eld, therewasa strongbias towardspecificallyfeminineinterests.

In additionto overt subjectmatter,other,moresubtleaspectsof the

etiquettebook were relatedto its femininebias. The great importance-etiquettewritersattributedo mannersn all problemsof class and status

owed much to the influenceof ladies on the genre. Powerlessin mostways, ladiesfoundin mannersa meansby which theycouldassert hem-selves and create effects in their interests. Nineteenth-centuryadies,

likeeighteenth-centuryentlemen,realized hatmannersweremore hanmerelyan aestheticfancy. They were also a meansof makingfriendsand, through riends,gaininginfluenceandrecognition.Mannersnflu-encedthe most important attlea womaneverfoughtfor social class-that is, her struggleto win a desirablespouse.To theextentthata wifecould help her husbandprosper,mannersagainplayeda key role. Herability to act as a hostess, to createan impressivedomesticfacade, tomlx readilywiththosewhowereuseful to herhusband: ll these requiredskillfulmanners.Someetiquettewriters lsoclaimed hatwhilethemiddle-classmanners f a manmightbe toleratedn politesocietyoutof deference

to his wealthor talents, the same did not apply to his wife, who could49 But see J. A. Banks andOlive Banks,FeminismandFamilyPlanningin

VictorianEngland(New York,1964);andDavidoff(n. 1 above).








420 Curtin

expect to be entirelyexcludedunless her mannerspassed muster.50 heobsessive concern of etiquettewritersto establishcriteriaby which toidentify andto exclude undesirableswas motivatednot merelyby thesnobberyand insecuritiesof social superiors,however.Ladies, in par-ticular, required"protection"more for fear of morallycompromisingassociationsthan forreasonsof social status.Finally, the commonanti-middle-classprejudiceof the etiquettebook may be attributed, n part,to the situationof the lady. Removed romthe daily struggleof earninga livingS hemiddle-classadyembraced nd dealizedmanners ndhabits

that were consistent with her world of leisure and thatdenigrated heworld from which she was excluded-the world of work. It was themiddle-classwoman, notthemiddle-classman, whoseleisureexpandedmost rapidlyin the nineteenthcenturyand whose attitudes,therefore,were most affected by those ancient experts in leisureand anti-middle-class feeling-the aristocracy.

The most mportantanddifficult-to-define)ffect of the femininepointof view on theetiquettebookmaybefound n the moralandpsychologicalatmosphere f the genre.In particular, tiquettewriters epeatedlytressedthe importanceof tact, consideration,and self-sacrifice. Very specific

suggestions were regularly made:the properway to treat a borrowedbook so that it could be returnedn good condition, the suggestion totravelwithsoft boxes thatwouldnot scratchahostess' floors,thecautionto place one's piano at a distance from the commonwall of a semi-detachedhouse, and so forth. Howeveruseful these suggestionsmayhave been to the inconsiderate,etiquettewritersdid not-conceivetheiraudience to be neophytes in mattersof tact. They wrote as if tactfulconsiderationwere the commoncurrencyof society, and the knottiestproblemof good mannerswas how to dealwith thekindnessandtact ofothers. Some effort was devoted, therefore,to instructing eadershow

to avoid ong-winded ndself-defeating xchangesof deferential indnesswith similarlymindedgentlefolk.In thetactful worldof etiquette t wasdifficult to make explicit requestsfor assistance or special treatment-not becausesuchrequestswould be refused,but becausetheyinevitab}ywould be accepted,howevermuchdifficultytheyimposedon theother.Moreover,when somebreachof tactdid occur,whensome hurtful emarkwas passed, the reactionwas muchmorelikely to be troubledandvul-nerablesilence thanaggressivereactionandretaliation. n otherwords,the world of tact was one in whichself-sacrifice, not self-interest,wasregularlyexpected, asserted,contested, andnegotiated.

The fact thatetiquettedid notreflect hecommon mageof theinsolent,boorishVictorian s not surprising,since books of mannersof all ages

so FlorenceKliclamann, tiqwette f Today(London, 902),p. 5.








counsel restraint,decency, andkindliness.However,thecourtesybook,trueto its masculine nspiration,hada differentmoralatmosphererometiquette, despiteagreementon the superIScial ppearance f tact. Forexample, the preoccupationof etiquettewriters with anticipating hevulnerabilitiesof others in ordernot to hurtthem took on a different:meaning n courtesy. In courtesy, individualswereconsideredvolatile,not vulnerable,and the refsult f a breachof proprietywas likely to besome form of retaliation,perhapseven a challenge to duel. Similarly,while theeffortsof courtesywriters o teach heirreaders ow to "please"

resembled he tact of etiquette, the two differedentirely n internalmo-tivation. No one discussed"pleasing' withgreateracuitythanChester-field, but the lesson taughtby Letters to His Son was anythingbutself-effacingkindliness.SlOne "pleased"becauseitwas inone's self-interestto do so, not because of concernand respectfor one's fellows.52Eachgenre had an hypocrisyappropriate o itself. In courtesyone deceivedothers out of calculation:one could get one's way more successfullythrough he arts of tact thanthroughdirect self-assertion.In etiquette?On he otherhand,onedeceivedoutof kindlinessandhadthe preservationof another'samourpropreas one's object. It must be added,however,

thatthekindlinessof etiquetteprobably estedon self-deceptionas wellas truebenevolence. Thepowerlessandtimidoften find hatself-interestis best pursuedby a sortof deference thatwins the approbation f thepowerful. In this sense, both the tact of etiquette and the pleasing ofcourtesy hadthe sameobject, thoughthe formerwas muchmore proneto mystify andidealize itself.

Though t is, of course,true hae act, self-effacement, ndvulnerabilityarenotexclusivelyfeminine,just as aggressiveself-seeking s not inev-itably andexclusively masculine,the fact remainsthatthe relativede-pendence andpowerlesshessof women andindependenceand powerof

mencreatea psychologyandmorality ppropriateo theirgiven conditionsof life. Theworldof tactpresupposes at least) three hings, ali of whichare found, not exclusively, but in their pureststate, in the situationofthe lady. First, becausedeferentialself-sacrifice is rapidlysupersededby assertive thoughnotnecessarilyamoral rindividualistic)elf-interestintliepursuit f scarceandvalued esources,actfulness nfolds uxuriantly

sl The contrastbetweenthe tactfulnessof etiquetteand the dissimulationofcourtesy s, of course,relative.Courtesywriterswerenot entirelywithout inceretactfulness.Similarly, therewas a certainamountof self-seeking dissimulation

in etiquette.52 For examplej Osborne,Advice to a Son (n. 19 above), p. 43: "Speake

disgracefullyof none at Ordinaries,or publickmeetings: east somekinsman,or Friendbeing there shouldforce you into baserecantation."







422 Cxrtin

onlyunder hesteadywarmth f security,privilege,andwealth.Second,becausethe struggleover scarceandvaluedresources s a basicfact ofthe humancondition, stratcgieswhich are generallyineffectivein thisstruggle, such as tactfulself-sacrifice,can only flourishapart romthe"world,s'nalimitedbutprotected nvironment. inally,suchaprotectiveenvironmentmplies the subordination f its tactfulinmates o worldlybutbenevolentguardianswhoalonecanshieldthewholefromcorruptingstruggleswith outsideforces. Thus, by a wholly unfamiliar oute, wearriveata veryfamiliarVictoriandestination.Themoralnature f women

owed its beautyto its remova] romthe world. Since this moralbeautyconsisted argelyof various ormsof self-sacrifice, t couldflourishonlywhenself-sacrificewas savedfrombeing self-destructive.All this wasnicely compatiblewith, and indeeddependentupon, patriarchal omi-nation.

Thisanalysismayseemunnecessarilyharsh.Tact,consideration, ndkindlinessarenot to be despised.Theyareindispensableo all formsofdecencyandcivility, andsocieties aremuchmore ikely to lament heirdearth hantheir abundance.A civic culturerequires hatindividuals,while pursuingtheirown proj-ects, lso acknowledge heirrespectand

regard orothersandtheirprojects.Tactandgoodmanners, houghoftentakingoddandtrivialforms,aretheusualmeansby whichwe make hisacknowledgment. n otherwords, we maychoose to be tactfulbecauseof our recognitionof our interdependencyn civil society rather hanbecauseof the psychologicalcompulsionsof dependency.

If, because of their dependency,women took a leadingrole in themoralityof tact, we mustalso acknowledge hatwe are all dependentbeings. Nietzsche's protestsagainst"slave morality"notwithstanding,the only feasible moralityin any society takes interdependency s itsstartingpoint. TheVictorians,whowereveryconcernedabout heharsh

andcompetitivenatureof theirown society andwho also believedthatwomenwere a meansbywhichmoral mprovementmightoccur,graspedin an obscureand perhapsdistortedway the interrelationbetweende-pendencyand morality.Simonede Beauvoirhas written:"Becauseofwoman'smarginalpositionin theworld,menwill turn o herwhentheystrivethroughculture o go beyondtheboundaries f theiruniverseandgain access to somethingother than what they have known. Courtlymysticism, humanistcuriosity, the taste of beautywhich flourished nthe ItalianRenaissance,the preciosityof the seventeenthcentury,theprogressivedealismof theeighteenth all brought boutunderdifferent

formsanexaltationof femininity."53 othislet usaddthat heVictorians

S3 Simonede Beauvoir,TheSecondSex,trans.H. M. Parshley New York1961), p. 122.








also turned o womenwhenthey strovefor what they conceivedto be apurermoralworld. If we findthat the "moralpurity"of womenis a by-

productof social dependency,we mayalso wonder f morality tself hassomething o learn fromthe history of women'sdependency. :

V

Thus, the etiquettebook'was decisively influencedby womenor, moreprecisely, by ladies. The roots of the genre's preoccupationwith tactandkindlinesswere found in the c'ombinationf privilege andpower-lessness that'definedherposition. All this supportspopular deas abouttheprotectedanddomesticatedives of Victorianadies. Inanotherway,ho'wever, he etiquettebookmarkeda significantphasein the liberation

of the lady fromthehome. If theeconomic andpoliticalworldwere stillclosed to her, at least sociability was no longer the threatto femininevirtuethat it had been in courtesyliterature.The Victorians,after all,did not invent the domesticatedand virtuous ady; they inheritedher.What hey did invent or ratherdrasticallyexpanded-were theoppor-tunitiessheenjoyed o pursuea careerof largely ndependentociability.The tremendousgrowth and elaborationof the LondonSeason in thenineteenthcenturywas a productnotonly of the marriagemarket,or ofties betweenpoliticalandfashionable stablishments, rsimplyof greaterwealthandbettertransport,butalso of the desire of ladies for an outletfor achievementand of the endorsementof; hatdesireby an importantsegment f generalopinion.Bymeansofthevarious inelygraded ctivitiesof the LondonSeason, womenerectedfor themselvessomethingcom-parable o a career adder.Sociability, in otherwords, was not merelyfor"fun." Itwas forladies-also ameansof recognition,of organizinganddirectingambition,and helike. Inthissense, theVictorian tiquettebook playedthe samerole for ladies as the Renaissancecourtesy bookhad for gentlemen.

Documents

Curtin - A Question of Manners