The proverb, "The beginning is half the battle," applies in a multitude
of ways. In the first instant of a greeting between two people, the
ground upon which they meet should be indicated. Cordiality, reserve,
distrust, confidence, caution, condescension, deference--whatever the
real or the assumed attitude may be, should be shown unmistakably when
eyes meet and heads bend in the ceremony of greeting.
To put into this initial manner the essence of the manner which one
chooses to maintain throughout is one of the fine touches of diplomacy.
People fail to do this when their effusively gracious condescension
subsequently develops into snobbishness, or when an austere stiffness
of demeanor belies the friendliness which they really intend to
manifest. The latter fault is often due to diffidence or awkward
self-consciousness; the former is usually traceable to the caprice of
an undisciplined nature, and is a significant mark of ill-breeding.
The vital part of a greeting is in the expression of the eyes. This is
so nearly spontaneous that the most guarded cannot altogether veil the
spirit that looks out of these "windows of the soul." The studied
attitude and genuflection fail to hide surliness or contempt; and
hostility, bitter and implacable, may reveal itself by the smoldering
spark of anger in the eye, and destroy the effect of the most artful
obsequiousness of manner. Since we cannot control this one
impulsively-truthful medium of expression, it becomes a matter of
policy as well as of morals to harbor no spirits whose "possession" of
us would be an unpleasant and inconvenient revelation.
Next to the eyes, the pose of the figure indicates the sentiment of the
moment. Arrogant assumption of superiority may be read in the expanded
chest, the stiffened neck, and the head thrown backward at a decided
angle; or, subservient humility is seen in the forward-bending head and
the wilted droop of the shoulders. And again, the difference between a
real humility and the artificial deference which gallantry prompts is
easily detected. The gallant's head and shoulders are bowed, but not
in meekness, for there is a certain tension in the controlled muscles
that suggests that he can "straighten up" at will, whereas the really
humble man appears to have no power to lift his bowed head or equally
drooping spirit.
The bending of the head and trunk, or the "bow," is the final and most
active exponent of the spirit of the greeting. In its degrees and
gradations are marked the degrees of deference, real or formal.
The bow begins at the head, and may observe the following gradations:
It may be an inclination of the head only, differing from a "nod" in
the dignity of movement.
The inclination may extend to the shoulders, causing a slightly
perceptible forward leaning. This inclination may continue to the
waist line.
The extreme inclination bends the entire trunk from the hips. The legs
are straight and the feet near together, in the attitude of "position"
in free gymnastics.
In every bow, of whatever gradation, the movement should be slow, the
eye steady, the face serene, and the whole demeanor expressive of
polite interest in the object. An averted eye is disrespectful, and
suggests insincerity or treachery. Not that it always means either;
the "drooping eyelash" is affected by many women as gracefully
expressive of feminine modesty. It may be coquettish, but there is
nothing particularly womanly in never looking a man in the eye. Search
the face that confronts you, and learn what manner of man this is whom
you are receiving into your company and fellowship. If he quails under
the inquisition, so much the worse for him. If he is worth looking at,
it is a pity to miss the sight. Moreover, we more than half suspect
that a woman's face is more attractive if her eyes occasionally "look
up clear," instead of allowing the downcast lids to hide all of their
vivacity and expression.
The gayety or the gravity of the countenance may serve to measure the
cordiality or the reserve which respectively distinguish two
"bows"--exactly alike as to movement, and equally courteous, the one
inviting confidence, the other repelling familiarity. The time, the
place, and the occasion, and the mutual relations of people, decide the
essential character of the appropriate bow. It must always be the
exponent of the nature and disposition of the individual, and of his
relation to the person whom he greets. No one has precisely the _same
manner_ for any two people of his acquaintance--that is, if he has any
vital manner at all. We are to others largely what they inspire us to
be, and only lifeless indifference reduces "manner" to one same
automatic manifestation. The life of a social greeting is in its
exclusive spirit, and though the variations of outward manner are
difficult to trace, it is a graceful and flattering thing to make this
specialty of manner felt in every greeting extended. Perhaps, after
all, it is the eye that controls this, as the spirit within controls
the eye.
In general, the manner of a greeting should be optimistic, free from
ungracious suspicion, and indicating a cheerful willingness to take
people at their best; and even when most sternly forbidding
intrusiveness, it should appear that the repulse is for good cause, and
is not merely the expression of a capricious and unfounded arrogance.
The latter quality, quite as often as not, characterizes the manner of
snobs toward people who are infinitely their superiors in all that
indicates character and breeding.
The "curtsey"--or "courtesy"--is a feature of the minuet, and revived
with the old-fashioned dance. It is a pretty bit of old-time grace,
and is appropriate in responding to formal introductions and greetings
in the drawing-room, especially when paying respect to elderly people.
It is most effective when executed in a costume of voluminous
draperies. It is a woman's ceremonial; no man ever "curtseys." The
regulation "bow" is the only "deference" that gracefully combines with
a dress suit.
The _courtesy_ is a strictly formal obeisance, and the courtly
reverence which it embodies is something more abstract than concrete,
not necessarily inspired by the person to whom its deference is shown.
Like all greetings exchanged in the midst of crowds or in public
places, it is somewhat impersonal in manner. Personal recognitions and
distinctions are reserved for more private occasions. One's greetings
to fellow-guests at a reception are uniformly affable, irrespective of
personal preferences. Though our dearest friend and our direst foe
both be present, we must not pointedly discriminate between them; we
are not at liberty to use the parlors of our host for either a lover's
tryst or a duelling-ground.
A guest's first duty on entering a parlor or drawing-room is to pay his
or her respects to the hostess and the ladies who are receiving with
her. Gentlemen should also make it a point to find the host as soon as
possible, and extend to him a similar courtesy. The host, in turn,
when not receiving formally with the hostess, roams at large, giving a
hospitable greeting to each lady among his guests.
In America, when a lady and gentleman meet, after being duly
introduced, it is the lady's privilege to bow first. This rule
protects her from the intrusion of an unwelcome acquaintance. But when
the acquaintance is established and mutually agreeable, the rule is
immaterial.
In general, the elder or the more distinguished person bows first. But
if the one who for any reason would be the proper one to take the
initiative is known to be near-sighted, and liable to overlook an
acquaintance unintentionally, it is more polite for the other person
not to stand on ceremony.
It is interesting to note that on the continent of Europe the rule
regarding recognitions is exactly reversed. The subject bows first to
the king, the courtier to the lady; deference to a superior, rather
than social equality, being expressed by the bow.
One of the moot questions of the day is, "When is it proper to
introduce people to each other?" The strictest etiquette forbids
casual social introductions, or the introducing of any two people at
any time without the consent of both parties. It is argued that people
who meet in a drawing-room as fellow-guests are introduced, by that
mere fact, sufficiently for the social purposes of the hour; and they
may engage in conversation, if they choose, without the least
hesitancy; both understanding that this interchange involves no
acquaintance beyond the present occasion. By this arrangement an
awkward silence is averted, and it certainly seems as if the chief
argument in favor of "introducing people" is met; since, with "the
roof" as their transient introduction, they are perfectly at ease
without personal introductions. When people are used to this idea it
is altogether the most sensible and agreeable solution of the question;
but many social assemblies demonstrate that a large number of people
are yet waiting to be introduced, and not without some feeling of
resentment when this ceremony is neglected. Let it be understood that
any one is at liberty to speak to a fellow-guest without an
introduction; also, that such a "talk" does not warrant any subsequent
claim of acquaintance. If in the course of this impromptu chat mutual
interest is awakened, either one may later seek an introduction in due
form through some common friend.
On informal occasions, when few guests are present, especially in
country towns, it may be more kindly and social to give personal
introductions; and the good sense of this idea, probably, is founded on
the fact that under these conditions a hostess can be reasonably sure
that the acquaintance will be congenial. To the villager many of the
extreme rules of etiquette are unreasonable, because the conditions
that enforce them in town life are not present in the life of the quiet
hamlet. The rule regarding introductions is one which must be modified
to suit circumstances. It is one of the cases when various delicate
considerations may justify exceptions. The lady who in her city home
introduces nobody, may in her country home introduce everybody, if that
seems best. In the matter of delicate exceptions we observe the most
significant display of tact.
When introductions are made, gentlemen should be presented to ladies,
younger people to older people, etc. The formula for introductions may
be abbreviated to a mere announcement of the two names: "Mr.
Smith--Mrs. Jones"--the pause and inflection filling the ellipsis; and
really, upon the tone and manner depends the courtesy of the
introduction so barren of phrasing. A formal presentation is made in
this form:--"Miss Smith, allow me to present Mr. Jones."
Tact suggests that a hostess shall avoid bringing uncongenial people
together; but if this unfortunately happens through ignorance or
thoughtlessness, tact with equal urgency requires that the guests thus
inauspiciously mingled shall not allow any one, not even the hostess
herself, to discover the mistake. The same rule which allows perfect
strangers to be agreeably social for an hour, and then part as
strangers yet, certainly will grant to enemies a similar privilege.
The woman who conscientiously, and _perfectly_, hides her personal
animosities rather than mar the harmony of the social circle, is doing
her part to keep the world in tune.
The offer of the social right hand of fellowship is a tacit recognition
of equality. Hand-shaking is said to be an American habit. Certainly
the social conditions in a republic are favorable to such a custom. It
is a pity that a mode so adapted to express the warmth and loyalty of
friendship should be indiscriminately employed in casual greetings.
The pressure of the hand should mean more than it can mean, when, as
now, it is bestowed with equal alacrity on life-long friend and recent
acquaintance.
Fastidious and sensitive people are rather conservative in
hand-shaking. Etiquette allows considerable latitude. It is proper
and graceful, but not required, for two men to shake hands when
introduced. A lady does not usually shake hands with a new
acquaintance, unless the circumstances of the introduction make her
responsible for allowing special cordiality, as when a person is
introduced to her in her own house. A host and hostess shake hands
with a guest; they may omit to shake hands with the same person when
they meet him elsewhere.
Whatever one's personal impulse, it is polite to defer to the evident
preference of another; and to shake hands heartily if a hand is
cordially extended, or to refrain from proffering the hand when reserve
is evident in the manner of the other person.
Hand-shaking as a conventional ceremony should be as impersonal and as
void of significance as possible. The clasp of the hand should be firm
but brief; not hasty, yet not prolonged; and the fingers should relax
and loosen their hold at once, not dropping listlessly, nor retaining a
lingering pressure. When a lady gives her hand to a guest she expects
to get it back again almost immediately, and in an uncrushed condition.
To hold another's hand until he or she is conscious of the detaining
grasp is a liberty that only trusted friends may take.
At the same time, a hearty manner of greeting may be the fashion in
some places; and to meet it otherwise than cheerfully would seem
churlish, according to local standards. It is always well-bred--as
well as politic--to conform to local customs so far as is consistent
with dignity.
Another custom, gradually going out, is the woman's fashion of kissing
effusively each woman-friend of her acquaintance. This senseless habit
has no excuse for being. When kissing is the language of impulsive
affection, etiquette has nothing to say about it except to demand that
the general public shall not be called upon to witness the ceremony.
Public thoroughfares and thronged social assemblies we not the proper
places for such demonstrations. Nothing is less interesting than other
people's kisses, unless it be the gushing recital of private affairs
with which these unguarded people also entertain every stranger within
earshot. When scenes like these are observed at railroad stations and
on board of trains when demonstrative leave-taking is in progress, we
may forgive the exhibition since the circumstances warrant more than
usual impulsiveness and forgetfulness of surroundings. But when the
most common-place meeting of acquaintances, who see each other every
day, is attended with these phenomena, etiquette, as well as
common-sense, enters a severe protest. The kiss, which should be the
most exclusive symbol of friendship, becomes the most insignificant
form of greeting.
It is not proper, according to strict etiquette, to give the kiss of
greeting in public places; but when near relatives or cherished friends
do choose thus to greet each other, the kiss should be exchanged
unobtrusively and with dignity; conversation on private matters should
be conducted in subdued tones, and a well-bred gravity--quite
consistent with cheerfulness--should characterize the manner.
It would be well if every person in society should register a solemn
resolution never to kiss _anybody_ unless prompted to do so by the
irresistible impulse of affection. It is safe to say that nine-tenths
of the kisses of social greeting would be dispensed with. The quality
of the remaining tenth would doubtless be proportionately improved.