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°) 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 Flèche sent to
those of the College at Pont-à-Mousson, in 1595, a treatise entitled:
"Bienseance de la Conversation entre les Hommes." The great Mussipontane
father at that time was Léonard Périn (b. at Stenai 1567, d. at
Besançon 1658), who had been a Professor of the Humanities at Paris. By
order of Nicolas François, Bishop of Toul, Father Périn translated the
La Flèche 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°) at Pont-à-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
Périn'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'Honnesteté en la
Conversation entre les Hommes. Communis Vitæ inter homines scita
urbanitas. Par un Père 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 Flèche
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 Périn 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 Léonard
Périn added a chapter on "bienséance" 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 Périn. 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 dragées acheuent la douceur de la resjoüissance du
dessert & font comme l'assouuissement du plaisir. Elles sont portées
dans vne belle boêtte posées sur vn plat, les tables restans encore
dressées à la façon de celles que les Anciens donnoient à emporter en la
maison. Quelquefois aussi les mains estants desia lauées auec
l'eau-rose, & la table couuerte de son tapis de Turquie, elle sont
presentées.
"Ce sont des richesses que nous possedons en abondance & vos festins ne
se peuuent pas termíner plus agreablement que par nos dragées 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
égale celles de l'air de nos Canaries, c'est à dire de nos plus sinceres
inclinations en vostre endroit dont vous receuerez de mesme les
tesmoignages. Vous voyez donc icy les advis de la ciuilité 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 contribuëront
à vostre satisfaction, & qui seront agreables à touts les veritables
estimateurs de la bien-seance & de l'honnesteté de la conuersation
commune, comme nous le soutraitions auec passion.
"Loüange à Dieu & à 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 Périn 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 Périn, 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 échauffer 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 à 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 fâchez,"
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,
ayãt quelque siege, faites en sorte de traiter chacun selõ 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]
[Footnote 1: In the edition of Hawkins (1663) bound up with Part II. in
the British Museum (bearing on the cover the name and arms of the
"Hon'ble Thos. Greville") there is just one precept concerning women:
"If thou art yet unmarried, but intendest to get thee a wife modest,
rather than beautiful, meddle not with those Ladies of the Game, who
make pageants of their Cheeks, and Shops of their Shoulders, and
(contrary to all other Trades) keep open their Windows on the
Sabbath-day, impudently exposing their nakedness to the view of a whole
Congregation," &c. There are, in an appendix, pictures of a
puritanically shrouded "Virtue," and a "Vice" who, apart from the
patches on her face, singularly resembles a portrait of pretty Lady
Ferrars in Codrington's book (_ante_, p. 21) ed. 1672.]
On the whole, though it is very uncertain, the balance of probabilities
seems to favour the theory that the Rules of Civility, found in a
copy-book among school exercises, exceedingly abbreviated, and marked by
clerical errors unusual with Washington, were derived from the oral
teachings of his preceptor; that this Frenchman utilised (and was once
or twice misled by) the English version along with the original, which
had been used as a manual in his Rouen College.
The Marie family of Rouen,--from which came the Maryes of Virginia,--is
distinguished both in Catholic and Huguenot annals. Among the eminent
Jesuit authors was Pierre Marie, who was born at Rouen, 1589, and died
at Bourges, 1645. He was author of "La Sainte Solitude; ou les
Entretiens solitaires de l'ame," and of "La Science du Crucifix: en
forme de méditations." The family was divided by the Huguenot movement,
and a Protestant branch took root in England. Concerning the latter,
Agnew (_French Protestant Exiles_, i. p. 100) gives the following
information:--
"Jean Marie, pasteur of Lion-sur-mer, was a refugee in England from
the St. Bartholomew massacre. He is supposed to have belonged to
the same family as the Huguenot martyr, Marin Marie, a native of
St. George in the diocese of Lisieux. It was in the year 1559 that
that valiant man, who had become a settler in Geneva, was arrested
at Sens when on a missionary journey to France, laden with a bale
of Bibles and New Testaments, and publications for the promotion of
the Protestant Reformation; he was burnt at Paris, in the place
Maubert, on the 3d of August of that year. Our pasteur was well
received in England, and was sent to Norwich, of which city he
appears to have been the first French minister. He was lent to the
reformed churches of France when liberty of preaching revived, and
so returned to Normandy, where we find him in 1583. The first
National Synod of Vitré held its meetings in that year, between the
15th and 27th of May. Quick's 'Synodicon' (vol. i. p. 153) quotes
the following minute:--'Our brother, Monsieur Marie, minister of
the church of Norwich in England, but living at present in
Normandy, shall be obliged to return unto his church upon its first
summons; yet, because of the great success of his ministry in these
parts, his church may be entreated to continue for some longer time
his absence from it.' He certainly did return to Norwich, because
on 29th April 1589 the manuscript Book of Discipline was submitted
to the consistory for signature; and Jan Marie signed first, and
his colleague M. Basnage, second. One of his sons, Nathaniel Marie,
became one of the pasteurs of the London French Church, and married
1st, Ester, daughter of the pasteur Guillaume De Laune, and 2dly
(in 1637), Ester le Hure, widow of André Joye. The Norwich pasteur
had probably another son named after himself, a commercial
residenter in his native city; for two sons of a Jan Marie were
baptized in Norwich French Church: (1) Jan on 3d February 1600, and
(2) Pierre, on 6th July 1602. Madame Marie, probably the pasteur's
widow, was a witness at the first baptism."
James Marye, with whom we are particularly concerned, sprang from the
Catholic family, and was born at Rouen near the close of the seventeenth
century. He was educated for the priesthood, no doubt at the Jesuit
College in Rouen,--where, as we have seen, Father Périn's book on
manners was printed in 1651. However, James Marye abjured the Catholic
religion in 1726. This caused a breach between himself and the family,
which consisted of a widowed mother and her two other sons,--Peter and
William (the latter an officer), both of whose names however, reappeared
in their protestant brother's family. In consequence of this alienation
James migrated to England, where he pursued his studies, and was
ordained by the Bishop of London. In 1728 he married Letitia Maria Anne
Staige. She was a sister of the Rev. Theodosius Staige, who was already
in Virginia. For that colony the Rev. James Marye also embarked, in
1729, with his bride. Their first child (Lucy) was born during the
voyage.
It would appear that the purpose of this emigration was to minister to a
settlement of French Huguenots at Monacan (or Manakintown, as it was
called) on James River. The first band of these refugees had gone over
in 1690, under the leadership of Olivier de la Muce, and 600 others had
followed in 1699, with their clergyman, Phillipe de Richebourg. The
Assembly of Virginia gave them a large tract of land in Henrico
County--not far from where Richmond now stands--exempting them from
taxation. The name of James Marye first appears in Virginia (1730) as
christening a child in King William Parish, as it was called,--after the
King who had favoured this Huguenot colony.
In 1727 the town of Fredericksburg was founded. In I732 Col. Byrd
visited the place, and wrote: "Besides Col. Willis, who is the top man
of the place, there are only one merchant, a tailor, a smith, an
ordinary keeper, and a lady who acts both as a doctress and
coffeewoman." This "Col. Willis" had married Washington's aunt (and
godmother), and there were other families of the neighbourhood connected
with the Washingtons. It was not until 1739 that Captain Augustine
Washington (the General's father) went to reside near Fredericksburg.
Soon after the birth of George (Feb. 11, 1731 Old Style) the family left
their homestead in Westmoreland county, Virginia, and resided on their
farm, now known as "Mount Vernon." (It was so named by Washington's
elder half-brother, Lawrence, who built the mansion, in 1743-5, in
honour of the English Admiral Vernon, with whom he served as an officer
at Carthagena.) Although he nowhere alludes to the fact, George
Washington's earliest memories, as I have elsewhere shown[1], were
associated with the estate on which he lavished so much devotion, and
which the Ladies' Mount Vernon Association has made his most
characteristic monument. The Rev. Jonathan Boucher, teacher of Mrs.
George Washington's son John Custis, says that Washington was "taught by
a convict servant whom his father had bought for a schoolmaster." This
was probably one of a shipload of convicts brought by Captain Augustine
Washington from England in 1737. When the family removed to the
neighbourhood of Fredericksburg (from which, however, they were
separated by the Rappahannock river), the children went to school
(probably) at Falmouth,--a village fifty years older than
Fredericksburg, and about two miles above, on the opposite side of the
river. A church had been erected in Falmouth (Brunswick parish), but that
in Fredericksburg was not completed until some years later. After the
death of his father (April 12, 1743) George was sent to reside with his
half-brother Augustine, at "Wakefield," the old homestead in
Westmoreland where he was born. He returned to live with his mother near
Fredericksburg, in 1715. That he then went to school in Fredericksburg
appears by a manuscript left by Col. Byrd Willis, grandson of Col. Harry
Willis, founder of the town, in which he states that his father, Lewis
Willis was Washington's schoolmate. The teachers name is not given, but
there can be little doubt that it was James Marye.
[Footnote 1: George Washington and Mount Vernon. Introduction, p.
xxvii.]
The Rev. James Marye's brother-in-law, Rev. Theodosius Staige, had for a
time preached in the temporary structure in which the congregation of
St. George's, Fredericksburg, met before the church was completed. It
was probably during a visit to Mr. Staige that Mr. Marye made an
impression on the people of that place. At any rate the early
Vestry-book shows that, in 1735, the churchwardens, after the colonial
custom, asked leave of the Governor of Virginia to call James Marye to
their pulpit, and it was granted. He is described as "Mr. Marie of St.
James," being then officiating at St James Church, Northam Parish
(Goochland county, Virginia). At what time and why he left Manakintown
is not clear. He fixed his first abode eight miles out of
Fredericksburg, in a place which he called "Fayetteville;" and it is not
improbable that some of his Huguenot congregation had come with him, and
attempted to found there a village. Several infant churches in the
county (Spottsylvania), besides that of Fredericksburg, were under
supervision of the Rector of St. George's Parish.
The Rev. James Marye remained in active and successful ministry at
Fredericksburg from 1735 until his death, in 1767. He founded the large
Virginia family which bears his name, and which has always had eminent
representatives. On his death he was succeeded in St. George's Church,
Fredericksburg, by his son of the same name, whose honourable tradition
was maintained. His great-grandson, John L. Marye,--whose mansion,
"Brompton," stood on "Marye's Heights," so famous in the Civil War,--was
an eminent lawyer; as also is a son of the latter, John L. Marye Jr.,
former Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia.[1]
The founder of the Virginia Maryes, who should be ranked among American
worthies, was an eloquent clergyman, and built up a noble congregation
in Fredericksburg. He was also an accomplished gentleman and a scholar.
That he founded and taught the school is tolerably certain. The
Municipal Records, as we have seen, ascribe the school a French origin.
The name and condition of every respectable resident of Fredericksburg,
at the time of his settling there, when it was little more than a "paper
town" (in colonial phrase), is known. There was in the place no
one--certainly no "Frenchman"--except Marye who could have taught a
school of such importance as that at Fredericksburg. For it presently
became known throughout Virginia as the chief Academy, especially for
classical education, and its reputation continued for more than a
hundred years.[2]
[Footnote 1: For valuable information concerning the Marye family and
its descendants, see Brock's "Huguenot Emigration to Virginia."
(Virginia Hist. Soc., Richmond, 1886.)]
[Footnote 2: In a note I have from John L. Marye (sometime
Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia), he says: "As to the habit of the
Parish Minister to conduct or overlook the schools, it would appear must
probable that this was the case in 1745, when we remember how destitute
at that era colonial society was of well-organized public or private
schools (save the Tutors in families). When I entered Mr. Hanson's
school in 1834, it was the custom of Parson McGuire and some of the
Vestry to attend the annual Examinations."]
Some of the Rules may strike the modern reader as snobbish, even for the
observance of youth. But the originals are in that respect toned down in
Washington's MS. Rule 9 takes no cognizance of the principle of the
original, that to approach nearer the fire than others, and to turn
one's back to it are privileges of persons of rank. The 17th Maxim of
chapter iii., which directed certain kissings of the hands of superiors,
or of the robe, and other abasements, is entirely omitted. Where the
original commands that we should never dispute in any fashion with our
superiors in rank, Rule 34 says we ought not to "begin" with them. The
only thing clear about which is that the instructor did not wish to
admit authority so absolutely into the realm of argument. Rule 46 omits
so much of the original as counsels grateful acceptance of reproof from
another "the more if you depend on his authority." Other instances of
this more liberal tendency will be noticed by those who make a careful
comparison of the Rules and the French Maxims.
Here then are rules of conduct, taught, if my theory be correct, by a
French protestant pilgrim, unknown to fame, in the New World. They were
taught to a small school of girls and boys, in a town of hardly a
hundred inhabitants. They are maxims partly ethical, but mainly relate
to manners and civility; they are wise, gentle, and true. A character
built on them would be virtuous, and probably great. The publisher of
the English version (1665) says that "Mr. Pinchester, a learned scholar
of Oxford," bought 250 copies for a great school he was about to open in
London. Probably the school founded by James Marye was the first in the
New World in which good manners were seriously taught.[1] Nay, where is
there any such school to day?
[Footnote 1: It is probable that Mr. Marye's fine precedent was
followed, to some extent, in the Fredericksburg Academy. The present
writer, who entered it just a hundred years after George Washington
recorded the "Rules," recalls, as his first clear remembrance of the
school, some words of the worthy Principal, Thomas Hanson, on
gentlemanly behaviour. Alluding to some former pupil, who had become
distinguished, he said, "I remember, on one occasion, in a room where
all were gathered around the fire--the weather being very cold--that
some one entered, and this boy promptly arose and gave the new-comer his
seat at the fire. It made an impression on me which I have never
forgotten." And how long have lasted in the memory of the writer hereof
the very words of our teacher's homage to the considerate boy who obeyed
Washington's eighth Rule!]
Just this one colonial school, by the good fortune of having for its
master or superintendent an ex-jesuit French scholar, we may suppose
instructed in civility; and out of that school, in what was little more
than a village, came an exceptionally large number of eminent men. In
that school three American Presidents received their early
education,--Washington, Madison, and Monroe.
It may be pretty confidently stated that both Madison and Monroe owed
their success and eminence more to their engaging manners than to great
intellectual powers. They were even notably deficient in that oratorical
ability which counted for so much in the political era with which they
were connected. They rarely spoke in Congress. When speaking, Madison
was hesitating, and was heard with difficulty; but his quietness and
modesty, his consideration for others, made the eloquent speak for him
Whether these two statesmen were personally taught by James Marye is
doubtful, for he was getting old when they were at school in
Fredericksburg; but we may feel sure that civility was still taught
there in their time, as, indeed it was within the memory of many now
living.
George Washington, though even less able than the two others to speak in
public, had naturally a strong intellect. But in boyhood he had much
more against him than most of his young comrades,--obstructions that
could be surmounted only by character. His father had much land but
little money; at his death (1743,) the lands were left chiefly to his
sons by the first wife. His widow was left poor, and her eldest son,
George, had not the fair prospect of most of his schoolmates. Instead of
being prepared for William and Mary College, he was prepared only for
going into some business as soon as possible, so as to earn support for
his mother and her four younger children. In his old book of
school-exercises, the "Rules of Civility" are found in proximity to
business forms that bear pathetic testimony to the severe outlook of
this boy of fourteen. In the MS. of Col. Byrd Willis, already referred
to (loaned me by his granddaughter, Mrs. Tayloe, of Fredericksburg), he
says: "My father, Lewis Willis, was a schoolmate of General Washington,
his cousin, who was two years his senior. He spoke of the General's
industry and assiduity at school as very remarkable. Whilst his brother
and other boys at playtime were at bandy and other games, he was behind
the door ciphering. But one youthful ebullition is handed down while at
that school, and that was romping with one of the largest girls; this
was so unusual that it excited no little comment among the other lads."
It is also handed down that in boyhood this great soldier, though never
a prig, had no fights, and was often summoned to the playground as a
peacemaker, his arbitration in disputes being always accepted.
Once more it may be well enough to remind the reader that it may yet be
found that Washington, in his mother's humble home on the Rappahannock,
read and pondered "Youth's Behaviour," wrote out what it held for him,
and himself became an instructor of his schoolmates in rules of
civility. It would be wonderful, but not incredible.
Although Washington became a fine-looking man, he was not of
prepossessing appearance in early life; he was lank and hollow-chested.
He was by no means a favourite with the beauties for which
Fredericksburg was always famous, and had a cruel disappointment of his
early love for Betsy Fauntleroy. In his youth he became pitted by
smallpox while attending his invalid half-brother, Lawrence, on a visit
to the Barbadoes.
But the experienced eye of Lord Fairfax, and of other members of the
Fairfax family, had discovered beneath the unattractive appearance of
George Washington a sterling character. Their neighbourhood, on the
upper Potomac, was much less civilised and refined than Fredericksburg,
and this young gentleman, so well instructed in right rules of behaviour
and conduct, won their hearts and their confidence. It had been
necessary that he should leave school at the age of sixteen to earn a
living. At seventeen he was appointed by Lord Fairfax surveyor of his
vast estates in Virginia, and for a time he resided with his lordship at
Greenway Court. There can be little doubt that it was partly through the
training in manners which Washington gained from the old French maxims
that he thus made headway against circumstances, and gained the
friendship of the highly-educated and powerful Fairfax family.
It should be mentioned, however, that young Washington's head was not in
the least turned by this intimacy with the aristocracy. He wrote letters
to his former playmates in which no snobbish line is discoverable. He
writes to his "Dear friend Robin": "My place of residence is at present
at his lordship's where I might, was my heart disengaged, pass my time
very pleasantly, as there's a very agreeable young lady lives in the
same house (Col. George Fairfax's wife's sister). But as that's only
adding fuel to fire, it makes me the more uneasy, for by often and
unavoidably being in company with her revives my former passion for your
Lowland beauty; whereas, was I to live more retired from young women, I
might eleviate in some measure my sorrows by burying that chaste and
troublesome passion in the grave of oblivion or etearnall forgetfulness,
for as I am very well assured, that's the only antidote or remedy that I
ever shall be relieved by or only recess that can administer any cure or
help to me, as I am well convinced, was I ever to attempt anything, I
should only get a denial which would be only adding grief to
uneasiness."
The young lady at Greenway Court was Mary Gary, and the Lowland beauty
was Betsy Fauntleroy, whose hand Washington twice sought, but who became
the wife of the Hon. Thomas Adams. While travelling on his surveys,
often among the red men, the youth sometimes gives vent to his feelings
in verse.
"Oh Ye Gods why should my Poor resistless Heart
Stand to oppose thy might and Power
At last surrender to Cupid's feather'd Dart
And now lays bleeding every Hour
For her that's Pityless of my grief and Woes,
And will not on me Pity take.
I'll sleep among my most inveterate Foes
And with gladness never wish to wake,
In deluding sleepings let my Eyelids close
That in an enraptured dream I may
In a rapt lulling sleep and gentle repose
Possess those joys denied by Day."
And it must also be recorded that if he had learned how to conduct
himself in the presence of persons superior to himself in position, age,
and culture,--and it will be remembered that Lord Fairfax was an able
contributor to the "Spectator" (which Washington was careful to study
while at Greenway,)--this youth no less followed the instruction of his
108th rule: "Honour your natural parents though they be poor." His
widowed mother was poor, and she was ignorant, but he was devoted to
her; being reverential and gracious to her even when with advancing age
she became somewhat morose and exacting, while he was loaded with public
cares.
I am no worshipper of Washington. But in the hand of that man of strong
brain and powerful passions once lay the destiny of the New World,--in a
sense, human destiny. But for his possession of the humility and
self-discipline underlying his Rules of Civility, the ambitious
politicians of the United States might to-day be popularly held to a
much lower standard. The tone of his character was so entirely that of
modesty, he was so fundamentally patriotic, that even his faults are
transformed to virtues, and the very failures of his declining years are
popularly accounted successes. He alone was conscious of his mental
decline, and gave this as a reason for not accepting a third nomination
for the Presidency. This humility has established an unwritten law of
limitation on vaulting presidential ambitions. Indeed, intrigue and
corruption in America must ever struggle with the idealised phantom of
this grand personality.
These Rules of Civility go forth with the hope that they will do more
than amuse the reader by their quaintness, and that their story will
produce an impression beyond that of its picturesqueness. The strong
probabilities that they largely moulded the character of Washington, and
so influenced the human race, may raise the question, whether the old
French Jesuits, and the pilgrim, James Marye, did not possess more truly
than our contemporary educators, the art and mystery of moral education.
In these days, when ethical is replacing theological instruction, in the
home and in the school, there appears danger that it may repeat some of
the mistakes of its predecessor. The failure of what was called
Religion to promote moral culture is now explicable: its scheme of
terror and hope appealed to and powerfully stimulated selfishness, and
was also fundamentally anti-social, cultivating alienation of all who
did not hold certain dogmas. The terrors and hopes having faded away,
the selfishness they developed remains, and is only unchained by the
decay of superstition. On the other hand, the social sentiment has
thrown off sectarian restrictions, and an enthusiasm of humanity has
succeeded. It is now certain that the social instinct is the only one
which can be depended on to influence conduct to an extent comparable
with the sway once exercised by superstitious terrors and expectations
of celestial reward. The child is spiritually a creation of the commune;
there can be no other motive so early responsive as that which desires
the approval and admiration of those by whom it is surrounded.
To attempt the training of human character by means of ethical
philosophy or moral science--as it used to be called--appears to be
somewhat of a theological "survival." When the sanctions of authority
were removed from the pagan deities they were found to have been long
reduced in the nursery to the dimensions of fairies. The tremendous
conceptions of Christian theology may some day be revealed as similarly
diminished in the catechised mind of childhood. And the abstract
principles of ethical philosophy cannot hope for any better fate. The
child's mind cannot receive the metaphysics of virtue. It is impossible
to explain to a child, for instance, the reasons for truthfulness,
which, indeed, have grown out of the experience of the human race as
matured by many ages. And so of humanity to animals, which is mainly a
Darwinian revival of Buddhist sentiment based on a doctrine of
transmigration. And the same may be said of other virtues. We must not
suppose that a child has no scepticism because he cannot express or
explain it in words; it will appear in the sweetness to him of stolen
apples, in the fact that to label a thing "naughty" may only render it
more tempting to a healthy boy. A philosopher said, "A fence is the
temptation to a jump."
Our ethical teaching is vitiated by, an inheritance from theology of a
superstition which subordinates conduct to its motives. Really, if
conduct be good, the motive (generally too complex for even
consciousness to analyse) is of least importance. Motives are important
as causing conduct, but the Law is just in assuming good or bad motives
for the corresponding actions. The world does not depend on a man's
inner but on his outer life. Emerson once scandalised some of his
admirers by saying that he preferred a person who did not respect the
truth to an unpresentable person. But, no doubt, he would regard the
presentable person as possessing virtues of equal importance. The
nurture of "civility and decent behaviour in company and conversation,"
is not of secondary, but primary, importance.
For what does it imply? If the Rules about to be submitted are examined,
it will be found that their practice draws on the whole moral world, as
in walking every step draws on the universal gravitation. Scarcely one
Rule is there that does not involve self-restraint, modesty, habitual
consideration of others, and, to a large extent, living for others. Yet
other Rules draw on the profounder deeps of wisdom and virtue, under a
subtle guise of handsome behaviour. If youth can be won to excellence by
love of beauty, who shall gainsay?
It may occur to the polished reader that well-bred youths know and
practise these rules of civility by instinct. But the best bred man's
ancestors had to learn them, and the rude progenitors of future
gentlemen have to learn them. Can it be said, however, that those deemed
well-bred do really know and practise these rules of civility
instinctively? Do they practise them when out of the region of the
persons or the community in whose eyes they wish to find approval? How
do they act with Indians, Negroes, or when travelling amongst those to
whose good opinion they are indifferent? In a Kentucky court a witness
who had spoken of a certain man as "a gentleman," was pressed for his
reasons, and answered, "If any man goes to his house he sets out the
whisky, then goes and looks out of the window." It is doubtful if what
commonly passes for politeness in more refined regions is equally
humanised with that of the Kentuckian so described. Indeed the only
difficulty in the way of such teaching as is here suggested, is the
degree to which the words "lady" and "gentleman" have been lowered from
their original dignity.
The utilization of the social sentiment as a motive of conduct in the
young need not, however, depend on such terms, though these are by no
means beyond new moralization in any home or school. An eminent
Englishman told me that he once found his little son pointing an old
pistol at his sister. The ancient pistol was not dangerous, but the
action was. "Had I told him it was dangerous," he said, "it might only
have added spice to the thing, but I said, 'I am surprised. I thought
you were a little gentleman, but that is the most ungentlemanly thing
you could do.' The boy quickly laid aside the pistol, with deep shame. I
have found nothing so restraining for my children as to suggest that any
conduct is ungentlemanly or unladylike." And let my reader note well the
great moral principles in these rules of civility and decent behaviour.
The antithesis of "sinfull" is "manfull." Washington was taught that all
good conduct was gentlemanly, all bad conduct ill-bred.
It is to be hoped that the time is not far distant when in every school
right rules of civility will be taught as a main part of the curriculum.
Something of the kind was done by the late Bronson Alcott, in the school
he founded in Boston, Massachusetts, near fifty years ago, for children
gathered from the street. The school was opened every morning with a
"conduct lesson," as it was called. It will be seen by Miss Elizabeth
Peabody's "Records of a School" that the children crowded to the door
before it was, opened in their anxiety not to lose a word of this
lesson. And, rude as most of the children were, this instruction,
consisting of questions and answers, gradually did away with all
necessity for corporal punishments.
It were a noble task for any competent hand to adapt the Rules given in
this volume, and those of the later French work, and still more those of
Master Obadiah Walker's book on "Education," to the conditions and ideas
of our time, for the use of schools. From the last-named work, that of a
Master of University College, Oxford, I will take for my conclusion a
pregnant passage.
"The greatest _Magnetismes_ in the World are _Civility_, Conforming
to the innocent humours, and infirmities, sometimes, of others,
readiness to do courtesies for all, Speaking well of all behind
their backs. And sly _Affability_, which is not only to be used in
common and unconcerning speech, but upon all occasions. A man may
deny a request, chide, reprehend, command &c. _affably_, with good
words, nor is there anything so harsh which may not be
inoffensively represented."