The Laws of Etiquette | Page 3

to my buttonhole."
"Well, my dear friend," said Delille, "you were the only one that did
_that,_ at all events. No one hangs up his napkin in that style; they are
contented with placing it on their knees. And what did you, do when
you took your soup?" "Like the others, I believe. I took my spoon in
one hand, and my fork in the other--" "Your fork! Who ever eat soup
with a fork?--But to proceed; after your soup, what did you eat?" "A
fresh egg." "And what did you do with the shell?" "Handed it to the
servant who stood behind my chair." "With out breaking it?" "Without
breaking it, of course." "Well, my dear Abb,, nobody ever eats an egg
without breaking the shell. And after your egg--?" "I asked the Abb,
Radonvillers to send me a piece of the hen near him." "Bless my soul! a
piece of the _hen_? You never speak of hens excepting in the barn-yard.
You should have asked for fowl or chicken. But you say nothing of
your mode of drinking." "Like all the rest, I asked for claret and
_champagne._" "Let me inform you, then, that persons always ask for
claret wine and _champagne wine._ But, tell me, how did you eat your

bread?" "Surely I did that properly. I cut it with my knife, in the most
regular manner possible." "Bread should always be broken, not cut. But
the coffee, how did you manage it?" "It was rather too hot, and I poured
a little of it into my saucer." "Well, you committed here the greatest
fault of all. You should never pour your coffee into the saucer, but
always drink it from the cup." The poor Abb, was confounded. He felt
that though one might be master of the seven sciences, yet that there
was another species of knowledge which, if less dignified, was equally
important.
This occurred many years ago, but there is not one of the observances
neglected by the Abb, Cosson, which is not enforced with equal
rigidness in the present day.



CHAPTER I.
GOOD BREEDING.
The formalities of refined society were at first established for the
purpose of facilitating the intercourse of persons of the same standing,
and increasing the happiness of all to whom they apply. They are now
kept up, both to assist the convenience of intercourse and to prevent too
great familiarity. If they are carried too far, and escape from the control
of good sense, they become impediments to enjoyment. Among the
Chinese they serve only the purpose of annoying to an incalculable
degree. "The government," says De Marcy, in writing of China,
"constantly applies itself to preserve, not only in the court and among
the great, but among the people themselves, a constant habit of civility
and courtesy. The Chinese have an infinity of books upon such subjects;
one of these treatises contains more than three thousand articles.--
Everything is pointed out with the most minute detail; the manner of
saluting, of visiting, of making presents, of writing letters, of eating,

etc.: and these customs have the force of laws--no one can dispense
with them. There is a special tribunal at Peking, of which it is one of
the chief duties, to ensure the observance of these civil ordinances?"
One would think that one was here reading an account of the capital of
France. It depends, then, upon the spirit in which these forms are
observed, whether their result shall be beneficial or not. The French and
the Chinese are the most formal of all the nations. Yet the one is the
stiffest and most distant; the other, the easiest and most social.
"We may define politeness," says La Bruy,re, "though we cannot tell
where to fix it in practice. It observes received usages and customs, is
bound to times and places, and is not the same thing in the two sexes or
in different conditions. Wit alone cannot obtain it: it is acquired and
brought to perfection by emulation. Some dispositions alone are
susceptible of politeness, as others are only capable of great talents or
solid virtues. It is true politeness puts merit forward, and renders it
agreeable, and a man must have eminent qualifications to support
himself without it." Perhaps even the greatest merit cannot successfully
straggle against unfortunate and disagreeable manners. Lord
Chesterfield says that the Duke of Marlborough owed his first
promotions to the suavity of his manners, and that without it he could
not have risen.
La Bruy,re has elsewhere given this happy definition of politeness, the
other passage being rather a description of it. "Politeness seems to be a
certain care, by the manner of our words and actions, to make others
pleased with us and themselves."
We must here stop to