George Washington\'s Rules of Civility by Moncure D. Conway
M >>
Moncure D. Conway >> George Washington\'s Rules of Civility
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 GEORGE WASHINGTON'S
RULES OF CIVILITY
Traced to their Sources and Restored
BY
MONCURE D. CONWAY
1890
Inscribed
TO MY SON
_EUSTACE CONWAY_
THE RULES OF CIVILITY.
Among the manuscript books of George Washington, preserved in the State
Archives at Washington City, the earliest bears the date, written in it
by himself, 1745. Washington was born February 11, 1731 O.S., so that
while writing in this book he was either near the close of his
fourteenth, or in his fifteenth, year. It is entitled "Forms of
Writing," has thirty folio pages, and the contents, all in his boyish
handwriting, are sufficiently curious. Amid copied forms of exchange,
bonds, receipts, sales, and similar exercises, occasionally, in ornate
penmanship, there are poetic selections, among them lines of a religious
tone on "True Happiness." But the great interest of the book centres in
the pages headed: "Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company
and Conversation." The book had been gnawed at the bottom by Mount
Vernon mice, before it reached the State Archives, and nine of the 110
Rules have thus suffered, the sense of several being lost.
The Rules possess so much historic interest that it seems surprising
that none of Washington's biographers or editors should have given them
to the world. Washington Irving, in his "Life of Washington," excites
interest in them by a tribute, but does not quote even one. Sparks
quotes 57, but inexactly, and with his usual literary manipulation;
these were reprinted (1886, 16 deg.) by W.O. Stoddard, at Denver, Colorado;
and in Hale's "Washington" (1888). I suspect that the old biographers,
more eulogistic than critical, feared it would be an ill service to
Washington's fame to print all of the Rules. There might be a scandal in
the discovery that the military and political deity of America had, even
in boyhood, written so gravely of the hat-in-hand deference due to
lords, and other "Persons of Quality," or had concerned himself with
things so trivial as the proper use of the fork, napkin, and toothpick.
Something is said too about "inferiours," before whom one must not "Act
ag'tt y'e Rules Moral." But in 1888 the Rules were subjected to careful
and literal treatment by Dr. J.M. Toner, of Washington City, in the
course of his magnanimous task of preserving, in the Library of
Congress, by exact copies, the early and perishing note-books and
journals of Washington. This able literary antiquarian has printed his
transcript of the Rules (W.H. Morrison: Washington, D.C. 1888), and the
pamphlet, though little known to the general public, is much valued by
students of American history. With the exception of one word, to which
he called my attention, Dr. Toner has given as exact a reproduction of
the Rules, in their present damaged condition, as can be made in print.
The illegible parts are precisely indicated, without any conjectural
insertions, and young Washington's spelling and punctuation subjected to
no literary tampering.
Concerning the source of these remarkable Rules there have been several
guesses. Washington Irving suggests that it was probably his intercourse
with the Fairfax family, and his ambition to acquit himself well in
their society, that set him upon "compiling a code of morals and
manners." (Knickerbocker Ed. i. p. 30.) Sparks, more cautiously, says:
"The most remarkable part of the book is that in which is compiled a
system of maxims and regulations of conduct, drawn from miscellaneous
sources." (i. p. 7.) Dr. Toner says: "Having searched in vain to find
these rules in print, I feel justified, considering all the
circumstances, in assuming that they were compiled by George Washington
himself when a schoolboy. But while making this claim it is proper to
state, that nearly all the principles incorporated and injunctions,
given in these 110 maxims had been enunciated over and over again in the
various works on good behaviour and manners prior to this compilation
and for centuries observed in polite society. It will be noticed that,
while the spirit of these maxims is drawn chiefly from the social, life
of Europe, yet, as formulated here, they are as broad as civilization
itself, though a few of them are especially applicable to Society as it
then existed in America, and, also, that but few refer to women."
Except for the word "parents," which occurs twice, Dr. Toner might have
said that the Rules contain no allusion whatever to the female sex. This
alone proved, to my own mind, that Washington was in nowise responsible
for these Rules. In the school he was attending when they were written
there were girls; and, as he was rather precocious in his admirations, a
compilation of his own could hardly omit all consideration of conduct
towards ladies, or in their presence. There were other reasons also
which led me to dissent from my friend Dr. Toner, in this instance, and
to institute a search, which has proved successful, for the source of
the Rules of Civility.
While gathering materials for a personal and domestic biography of
Washington,[1] I discovered that in 1745 he was attending school in
Fredericksburg, Virginia. The first church (St. George's) of the infant
town was just then finished, and the clergyman was the Rev. James
Marye, a native of France. It is also stated in the municipal records of
the town that its first school was taught by French people, and it is
tolerably certain that Mr. Marye founded the school soon after his
settlement there as Rector, which was in 1735, eight years after the
foundation of Fredericksburg. I was thus led to suspect a French origin
of the Rules of Civility. This conjecture I mentioned to my friend Dr.
Garnett, of the British Museum, and, on his suggestion, explored an old
work in French and Latin in which ninety-two of the Rules were found.
This interesting discovery, and others to which it led, enable me to
restore the damaged manuscript to completeness.
[Footnote 1: George Washington and Mount Vernon. A collection of
Washington's unpublished agricultural and personal letters. Edited, with
historical and genealogical Introduction, by Moncure Daniel Conway.
Published by the L.I. Historical Society: Brooklyn, New York, 1889.]
The various intrinsic interest of these Rules is much enhanced by the
curious story of their migration from an old Jesuit College in France to
the copy-book of George Washington. In Backer's Jesuit Bibliography it
is related that the "pensionnaires" of the College of La Fleche sent to
those of the College at Pont-a-Mousson, in 1595, a treatise entitled:
"Bienseance de la Conversation entre les Hommes." The great Mussipontane
father at that time was Leonard Perin (b. at Stenai 1567, d. at
Besancon 1658), who had been a Professor of the Humanities at Paris. By
order of Nicolas Francois, Bishop of Toul, Father Perin translated the
La Fleche treatise into Latin, adding a chapter of his own on behaviour
at table. The book, dedicated to the Bishop of Toul, was first printed
(16 deg.) at Pont-a-Mousson in 1617, (by Car. Marchand). It was printed at
Paris in 1638, and at Rouen in 1631; it was translated into Spanish,
German, and Bohemian. In 1629 one Nitzmann printed the Latin, German,
and Bohemian translations in parallel columns, the German title being
"Wolstand taglicher Gemainschafft mit dem Menschen." A comparison of
this with the French edition of 1663 in the British Museum, on which I
have had to depend, shows that there had been no alteration in Father
Perin's Latin, though it is newly translated. This copy in the library
of the British Museum was printed in Paris for the College of Clermont,
and issued by Pierre de Bresche, "auec privilege du Roy." It is
entitled: "Les Maximes de la Gentillesse et de l'Honnestete en la
Conversation entre les Hommes. Communis Vitae inter homines scita
urbanitas. Par un Pere de la Compagnie de Jesus."
In dedicating this new translation (1663) to the youth of Clermont,
Pierre de Bresche is severe on the French of the La Fleche
pensionnaires. "It is a novelty surprising enough to find a very
unpolished French book translated into the most elegant Latin ever met
with." M. de Bresche declares that he was no longer able to leave so
beautiful a work in such "abjection," and had added a translation which
preserves the purity of the French tongue, and is proportioned to the
merit of the exquisite Latin expressions. We can hardly suppose that
Pierre de Bresche was eulogising his own work, but there is no other
name in the book. Possibly his criticism on the French of the original
edition was only that of an _editeur_ desiring to supplant it. At any
rate, as Father Perin wrote the elegant Latin we cannot doubt that the
chapter he added to the book was in scholarly French.
The old book of the Jesuit "pensionnaires,"--which, had they not ignored
woman, might be called the mother of all works on Civility,--is charming
as well as curious. It duly opens with a chapter of religious
proprieties, at mass, sacrament, sermon, and grace at meat. The Maxims
of secular civility open with the second chapter, and it will be seen
that they are for the gentry. They are mainly for youths whose
environments are portrayed in the interesting frontispiece of the work,
where they are seen in compartments,--at church, in college, in
conversation, at the fireside, in promenade, and at table. We have
already seen, from Backer's Jesuit bibliography, that Father Leonard
Perin added a chapter on "bienseance" at table; but after this there is
another chapter--a wonderful chapter--and it would be interesting to
learn whether we owe this also to Perin. This last chapter is
exquisitely epicurean, dealing with table-setting, table-service, and
the proper order of entrees, roasts, salads, and dessert. It closes--and
the book closes--with a sort of sugarplum paean, the sweets and spices
being in the end gracefully spiritualised. But this concluding passage
of Chapter XI. ("Des Services & honneurs de la Table") must be quoted:--
"Sugar-plums complete the pleasantness and enjoyment of the
dessert, and serve, as it were, to satisfy pleasure. They are
brought, while the table is still laid, in a handsome box on a
salver, like those given by the ancients to be carried home.[1]
Sometimes, also, they are handed round after the hands have been
washed in rose water, and the table covered with a Turkey cloth.
"These are riches which we possess in abundance, and your feasts
cannot terminate more agreeably in your quarters than with our
Verdun sugar-plums. Besides the exquisite delicacy of their sugar,
cinnamon and aniseed, they possess a sweet, fragrant odour like the
breeze of the Canaries,--that is to say, like our sincerest
attachment for you, of which you will also receive proof. Thus you
see, then, the courteous advice we have undertaken to give you to
serve for a profitable entertainment, If you please, then, we will
bring it to a close, in order to devote ourselves more zealously to
other duties which will contribute to your satisfaction, and prove
agreeable to all those who truly esteem good-breeding and decent
general conversation, as we ardently hope.
"Praise be to God and to the glorious Virgin!"[2]
* * * * *
[Footnote 1: This is not unknown at some of the civic banquets in
London.]
[Footnote 2: "Les dragees acheuent la douceur de la resjoueissance du
dessert & font comme l'assouuissement du plaisir. Elles sont portees
dans vne belle boette posees sur vn plat, les tables restans encore
dressees a la facon de celles que les Anciens donnoient a emporter en la
maison. Quelquefois aussi les mains estants desia lauees auec
l'eau-rose, & la table couuerte de son tapis de Turquie, elle sont
presentees.
"Ce sont des richesses que nous possedons en abondance & vos festins ne
se peuuent pas terminer plus agreablement que par nos dragees de Verdun
en vos quartiers. Elles ont parmy les charmantes delicatesses de leur
succre, de leur canelle, & de leur anis, vne douce & suaue odeur qui
egale celles de l'air de nos Canaries, c'est a dire de nos plus sinceres
inclinations en vostre endroit dont vous receuerez de mesme les
tesmoignages. Vous voyez donc icy les advis de la ciuilite que nous
auons entrepris de vous donner, pour vous servir d'vn fructueux
divertissement. Nous les finissons donc si vous le trouuiez agreable,
pour nous porter auec plus de zele aux autres deuoirs qui contribueront
a vostre satisfaction, & qui seront agreables a touts les veritables
estimateurs de la bien-seance & de l'honnestete de la conuersation
commune, comme nous le soutraitions auec passion.
"Loueange a Dieu & a la glorieuse Vierge."]
The earlier editions of the book do not appear to have been published
for the outer world, but were printed in the various colleges where they
were used. Another French work on the same subject, but including much
about ladies, published about the year 1773, plagiarises largely from
the Jesuit manual, but does not mention it. It is probable therefore
that the Perin volume was not then known to the general public. The
anonymous book just mentioned was translated into English.[1] Some of
the phraseology of the Perin book, and many of its ideas, appear in a
work of Obadiah Walker, Master of University College, Oxford, on
Education, but it is not mentioned.[2] Eighteen of the Washington Rules,
and an important addition to another, are not among the French Maxims.
Two of these Rules, 24 and 42, are more damaged than any others in the
Washington MS., and I had despaired of discovering their meaning. But
after my translations were in press I learned from Dr. W.C. Minor that
an early English version of the Maxims existed, and in this I have found
additions to the French, work which substantially include those of the
Washington MS. Through this fortunate discovery the Rules of Civility
are now completely restored.
[Footnote 1: "The Rules of Civility, or Certain Ways of Deportment
observed amongst all persons of Quality upon seueral Occasions." The
earliest edition I have found is that of 1678 (in the British Museum
Library), which is said to be "Newly revised and much Enlarged." The
work is assigned a French origin on internal evidence,--e.g., other
nations than France are referred to as "foreign," and "Monsieur" is used
in examples of conversation. The date is approximately fixed as 1673,
because it is said that while it was in press there had appeared "The
Education of a Young Prince." The latter work was a translation of "De
I'education d'un Prince. Par le Sieur de Chanteresne" [P. Nicole], by
Pierre du Moulin, the Younger, and published in London, 1673.]
[Footnote 2: Of Education. Especially of Young Gentlemen. In two Parts.
The Fifth Impression. Oxford: Published at the Theatre for Amos
Custeyne. 1887. [It was anonymous, but is known to be by Obadiah Walker,
Master of University College, Oxford.]]
The version just alluded to purports to be by a child in his eighth
year. It was first printed in 1640 (London), but the earliest edition in
the British Museum, where alone I have been able to find a copy, is that
of 1646, which is described as the fourth edition.[1] The cover is
stamped in gilt, "Gift of G. III." The translations are indeed rude, and
sometimes inaccurate as to the sense, but that they were the unaided
work of a child under eight is one of the "things hard to be believed"
which a Maxim admonishes us not to tell. In the edition of 1651 there is
a portrait of Master Hawkins at the age of eight, and the same picture
appears in 1672 as the same person at ten. Moreover, in an edition of
1663 the "Bookseller," in an address "to the reader," seems rather vague
in several statements. "A counsellor of the Middle Temple, in 1652,
added twenty-five new Precepts marked thus (*) at which time a Gentleman
of _Lincoln's_-Inn turned the Book into Latine." There are, however, in
this edition thirty-one Precepts not in the French work, and of these
twenty-six are in the edition of 1646. The Latin version appended
(signed H.B.) is exactly that of Father Perin, with the exception of a
few words, considerable omissions, and the additional Precepts. The
additions are all evidently by a mature hand.
[Footnote 1: "Youth's Behaviour, or Decency in Conversation amongst
men. Composed in French by grave persons for the Use and benefit of
their youth. Now newly translated into English by Francis Hawkins. The
fourth edition, with the addition of twenty-sixe new Precepts (which are
marked thus *) London. Printed by W. Wilson for W. Lee, and are to be
sold at the _Turks-head_ neere the _Miter Taverne_ in _Fleetstreet_.
1646." There are some lines "In laudem Authoris" by J.S., and the
following:--"Gentle Reader,--Thinke it not amisse to peruse this Peece,
yet connive at the Style: for it hath neede thereof, since wrought by an
uncouth and rough File of one greene in yeares; as being aged under
eight. Hence, worthy Reader, shew not thy self too-too-rigid a Censurer.
This his version is little dignified, and therefore likely will it
appears to thee much imperfect. It ought to be his own, or why under the
Title is his name written? Peradventure thou wilt say, what is it to me?
yet heare: Such is it really, as that I presume the Author may therein
be rendred faithfully: with this courteously be then satisfied.--This
small Treatise in its use, will evidently appear to redound to the
singular benefit of many a young spirit, to whom solely and purposely it
is addressed. Passe it therefore without mistake and candidly."]
With the Hawkins volume of 1663 is bound, in the British Museum Library,
a companion work, entitled, "The second Part of Youth's Behaviour, or
Decency in Conversation amongst Women. 1664." This little book is
apparently by Robert Codrington, whose name is signed to its remarkable
dedicatory letter: "To the Mirrour of her Sex Mrs. Ellinor Pargiter, and
the most accomplished with all reall Perfections Mrs. Elizabeth
Washington, her only Daughter, and Heiress to the truly Honourable
Laurence Washington Esquire, lately deceased."
This was Laurence Washington of Garsden, Wilts., who married Elianor.
second daughter of Wm. Gyse; their only child, a daughter, having
married Robert Shirley, Earl Ferrars. Laurence Washington died Jan. 17,
1662, and his widow married Sir William Pargiter.[1]
[Footnote 1: See "An Examination of the English Ancestry of George
Washington. By Henry F. Waters, A.M., Boston. New England Historic
Genealogical Society, 1889."]
In a letter to the New York _Nation_ (5th June 1890), I said: "Though my
theory, that the Rev. James Marye taught Washington these 'Rules,' has
done good service in leading to the discovery of their origin, it cannot
be verified, unless the clergyman's descendants have preserved papers
in which they can be traced." I have since learned from the family that
no such papers exist. The discovery just mentioned, that a Part Second
of Youth's Behaviour was published in 1664, and dedicated to two ladies
of the Washington family in England, lends force to Dr. Minor's
suggestion that Washington might have worked out his Rules from the
Hawkins version. It would be natural that Part II. so dedicated should
be preserved in the Virginia family, and should be bound up with Part
I., published the year before, as it is bound in the British Museum. It
is certain that one of the later editions of the Hawkins version was
used in the preparation of Washington's "Rules," for the eighteen Rules
not in the French book are all from "Youth's Behaviour" (1663).
Moreover, the phraseology is sometimes the same, and one or two errors
of translation follow the Hawkins version. _E.g._, Maxim ii. 16 begins:
"Prenez garde de vous echauffer trop au jeu, & aux emportements qui s'y
eleuet." The second clause, a warning against being too much carried
away by excitements of play, is rendered by Hawkins, "Contend not, nor
speake louder than thou maist with moderation;" and in the Washington
MS., "affect not to Speak Louder than ordenary."
A careful comparison, however, of Washington's Rules with the Hawkins
version renders it doubtful whether the Virginia boy used the work of
the London boy. The differences are more than the resemblances. If in
some cases the faults of the Washington version appear gratuitous, the
printed copy being before him, on the other hand it often suggests a
closer approach to the French--of which language Washington is known to
have been totally ignorant. As to the faults, where Hawkins says
ceremonies "are too troublesome," Washington says they "is troublesome;"
where the former translates correctly that one must not approach where
"another readeth a letter," Washington has "is writing a letter;" where
he writes "infirmityes" Washington has "Infirmaties;" the printed
"manful" becomes "manfull," and "courtesy" "curtesie." Among the
variations which suggest a more intimate knowledge of French idioms than
that of Hawkins the following may be mentioned. The first Maxim with
which both versions open is: "Que toutes actions qui se font
publiquement fassent voir son sentiment respectueux a toute la
compagnie." Hawkins: "Every action done in view of the world ought to be
accompanied with some signe of reverence which one beareth to all who
are present." Washington: "Every action done in company ought to be with
some sign of respect to those that are present." Here the restoration of
"respectueux," and the limitation of "publiquement" by "compagnie," make
the latter rendering much neater. In Maxim viii. 47, which admonishes
one not to be angry at table, it is said, "bien si vous vous fachez,"
you are not to show it. Hawkins translates "if so bee thou bee vexed;"
but Washington more finely, "if you have reason to be so, Shew it not."
Or compare the following versions of "Si vous vous reposez chez vous,
ayat quelque siege, faites en sorte de traiter chacun selo son merite."
Hawkins: "if there be anything for one to sit on, be it a chair, be it a
stool, give to each one his due." Washington: "when you present seats
let it be to every one according to his degree." Rule 45, for
"moderation et douceur" has "Sweetness and Mildness," Hawkins only
"sweetness." Again: "si vous rencontrez ioliment, si vous donnez quelque
bon-mot, en faisant rire les autres, empeschez-vous-en, le plus qu'il
vous sera possible." Hawkins: "When so it falleth out that thou deliver
some happy lively an jolly conceit abstaine thou, and let others laugh."
Washington: "if you Deliver anything witty and Pleasent abtain from
laughing thereat yourself."
Yet how curt is the version last quoted, and how blundering the
sentence! Washington's spelling was always faulty, but it is not
characteristic of him to write "abtain" for "abstain." This is one of
many signs of haste, suggesting that his pen was following oral
instruction. The absence of punctuation is normal; in some cases words
have dropped out: such clerical mistakes occur as "eys," "but" for
"put," "top" for "of," "whth" for "without," and "affection" for
"affectation"--the needed letters being in the last case interlined.
Except as regards punctuation, no similar errors occur in any manuscript
from Washington's hand, either in youth or age. Another reason for
supposing that he may have been following an instructor is the excessive
abbreviation. It was by no means characteristic of Washington to
suppress details, but here his condensation sometimes deprives maxims of
something of their force, if not of their sense. _E.g._, Rule 59: "Never
express anything unbecoming, nor Act against the Rules Moral before your
inferiours." _Cf._ Hawkins: "Never expresse anything unbeseeming, nor
act against the Rules morall, before thy inferiours, for in these
things, thy own guilt will multiply Crimes by example, and as it were,
confirme Ill by authority." And "Shift not yourself in the sight of
others" hardly does duty for the precept, "It is insufferable
impoliteness to stretch the body, extend the arms, and assume different
postures." There are, however, but few instances in which the sense of
the original has been lost; indeed, the rendering of the Washington MS.
is generally an improvement on the original, which is too diffuse, and
even more an improvement on the Hawkins version.
Indeed, although Washington was precocious,--a surveyor at
seventeen,--it would argue qualities not hitherto ascribed to him were
we to suppose that, along with his faulty grammar and spelling, he was
competent at fourteen for such artistic selection and prudent omission
as are shown by a comparison of his 110 Rules with the 170 much longer
ones of the English version. The omission of religious passages, save
the very general ones with which the Rules close, and of all scriptural
ones, is equally curious whether we refer the Rules to young Washington
or to the Rector who taught him. But it would be of some significance if
we suppose the boy to have omitted the precept to live "peeceably in
that vocation unto which providence hath called thee;" and still more
that he should have derived nothing from the following: "Do not think
thou canst be a friend to the King whilst thou art an enemy to God: if
thy crying iniquity should invite God's judgments to the Court, it would
cost thy Soveraigne dear, to give them entertainment." If Washington was
acquainted with Part II. of "Youth's Behaviour," relating to women and
dedicated to ladies of the Washington race, it is remarkable that no
word relating to that sex is found among his Rules.[1]
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7