received, is saying that he either loves singularity, or that he thinks
for himself. Which of the two is the case, can only be found by
examining the grounds of his opinions.
Don't appear to the public too sure, or too eager upon any project. If
it should miscarry, which it is a chance but it does, you will be
laughed at. The surest way to prevent which, is not to tell your designs
or prospects in life.
If you give yourself a loose tongue in company, you may almost depend on
being pulled to pieces as soon as your back is turned, however they may
seem entertained with your conversation.
For common conversation, men of ordinary abilities will upon occasion do
well enough. And you may always pick something out of any man's
discourse, by which you may profit. For an intimate friend to improve
by, you must search half a country over, and be glad if you can find him
at last.
Don't give your time to every superficial acquaintance: it is bestowing
what is to you of inestimable worth, upon one who is not likely to be
the better for it.
If a person has behaved to you in an unaccountable manner, don't at once
conclude him a bad man, unless you find his character given up by all
who know him, nor then, unless the facts alleged against him be
undoubtedly proved, and wholly inexcusable. But this is not advising you
to trust a person whose character you have any reason to suspect.
Nothing can be more absurd than the common way of fixing people's
characters. Such a one has disobliged me, therefore he is a villain.
Such another has done me a kindness, therefore he is a saint.
Superficial people are more agreeable the first time you are in their
company, than ever afterwards. Men of judgment improve every succeeding
conversation; beware therefore of judging by one interview.
You will not anger a man so much by showing him that you hate him, as by
expressing a contempt of him.
Most women had rather have any of their good qualities slighted, than
their beauty. Yet that is the most inconsiderable accomplishment of a
woman of real merit.
You will be always reckoned by the world nearly of the same character
with those whose company you keep.
You will please so much the less, if you go into company determined to
shine. Let your conversation appear to rise out of thoughts suggested by
the occasion, not strained or premeditated: nature always pleases:
affectation is always odious.
ON DRESS.
It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that dress, though often
considered a trifling matter, is one of considerable importance, for a
man's personal appearance is a sort of "index and obscure prologue" to
his character.
Lord Chesterfield has said, "I cannot help forming some opinion of a
man's sense and character from his dress." Besides, the appearance of a
well-dressed man commands a certain degree of respect which would never
be shown to a sloven. As Shakspeare has written, "The world is still
deceived by ornament;" and there are those who associate fine clothes
with fine people so strongly, that they do not trouble themselves to
ascertain whether the wearers are worthy of respect, as others form
their opinions of books by the gilding of the leaves and beauty of the
binding.
The dress of a gentleman should be such as not to excite any special
observation, unless it be for neatness and propriety. The utmost care
should be exercised to avoid even the appearance of desiring to attract
attention by the peculiar formation of any article of attire, or by the
display of an immoderate quantity of jewelry, both being a positive
evidence of vulgarity. His dress should be studiously neat, leaving no
other impression than that of a well-dressed gentleman.
Well-bred people do not often dress in what is called the "height of the
fashion," as that is generally left to dandies and pretenders. But
still it is undoubtedly a great point gained to be well dressed. To be
fancifully dressed, in gaudy colors, is to be very badly dressed,
however, and is an example of ill taste which is rarely met with among
people of substantial good breeding.
Cleanliness and neatness are the invariable accompaniments of good
breeding. Every gentleman may not be dressed expensively, he may not be
able to do so; but water is cheap, and no gentleman will ever go into
company unmindful of cleanliness either in his person or apparel.
A well-dressed man does not require so much an extensive as a varied
wardrobe. He wants a different costume for every season and every
occasion; but if what he selects is simple rather than striking, he may
appear in the same clothes as often as he likes, as long as they are
fresh and appropriate to the season and the object. There are four kinds
of coats which he must have: a business coat, a frock-coat, a
dress-coat, and an over-coat. A well dressed man may do well with four
of the first, and one of each of the others per annum. An economical man
can get along with less.
Did any lady ever see a gentleman with an embroidered waistcoat, and a
profusion of chains, rings, and trinkets adorning his person?
Avoid affecting singularity in dress. Expensive dressing is no sign of a
gentleman. If a gentleman is able to dress expensively it is very well
for him to do so, but if _he is not able_ to wear ten-dollar broadcloth,
he may comfort himself with the reflection that cloth which costs but
five dollars a yard will look quite as well when made into a
well-fitting coat. With this suit, and well-made shoes, clean gloves, a
white pocket-handkerchief, and an easy and graceful deportment withal,
he may pass muster as a gentleman. Manners do quite as much to set off
a suit of clothes as clothes do to set off a graceful person.
A dress perfectly suited to a tall, good-looking man, may render one who
is neither, ridiculous; as although the former may wear a remarkable
waistcoat or singular coat, _almost_ with impunity, the latter, by
adopting a similar costume, exposes himself to the laughter of all who
see him. An unassuming simplicity in dress should always be preferred,
as it prepossesses every one in favor of the wearer.
Avoid what is called the "ruffianly style of dress," or the _nonchalant_
and _slouching_ appearance of a half-unbuttoned vest, and suspenderless
pantaloons. That sort of affectation is if possible even more disgusting
than the painfully elaborate frippery of the dandy.
Gentlemen never make any display of jewelry; that is given up entirely
to the dominion of female taste. But ladies of good taste seldom wear it
in the morning. It is reserved for evening display and for brilliant
parties.
The native independence of American character regards with disdain many
of the stringent social laws which are recognized in England and on the
continent. Thus, the dress which many of our countryman adopt for the
assembly-room and private parties would subject them to serious
annoyance abroad. A frock-coat would not be tolerated a moment in any
fashionable society in Europe, and whether it be esteemed a prejudice or
otherwise, we are free to confess that in our opinion it is a violation
of good taste, and unsuited either to a ball-room or private assembly.
We should, however, be far from denying the claim of gentleman to any
person, simply because he wore a frock-coat; for the fickle goddess,
Fashion, tolerates it to a certain extent in America; but if the
universal custom among the refined and polished members of society were
to exclude it, as in Europe, its use would manifest a contempt for the
opinion of others, of which no gentleman could be guilty.
If the title of gentleman should depend entirely and solely on one's
conformation to the laws of etiquette, the most unprincipled profligate
or debauchee might successfully wear it; it is, however, but the finish
and polish of the jewel--not the diamond itself.
If we were allowed to say anything to the ladies concerning dress in a
dictatorial way, and were sure of being obeyed, we should order them
generally to dress _less_. How often do we see a female attired in the
height of fashion, perfectly gorgeous in costume, sweeping along the
dusty street, perspiring under the weight of her finery--dressed, in
fact, in a manner fit only for a carriage. This is a very mistaken and
absurd fashion, and such people would be astonished to see the
simplicity of real aristocracy as regards dress.
In our allusions to the dress of a gentleman, we have urged a studied
simplicity of apparel; the same remarks are equally applicable to that
of a lady. Indeed, _simplicity_ is the grand secret of a lady's toilet.
When she burdens herself with a profusion of _bijouterie_ she rather
detracts from than adds to her personal appearance, while all _outre_
fashions and ultra styles of dress, though they excite attention,
neither win respect nor enhance the attraction of the wearer.
Some ladies, perhaps imagining that they are deficient in personal
charms--and we are willing to believe that there are such, although the
Chesterfieldian school of philosophers would ridicule the idea--endeavor
to make their clothes the spell of their attraction. With this end in
view, they labor by lavish expenditure to supply in expensive adornment
what they lack in beauty of form or feature. Unfortunately for their
success, elegant dressing does not depend upon expense. A lady might
wear the costliest silks that Italy could produce, adorn herself with
laces from Brussels which years of patient toil are required to
fabricate; she might carry the jewels of an Eastern princess around her
neck and upon her wrists and fingers, yet still, in appearance, be
essentially vulgar. These were as nothing without grace, without
adaptation, without a harmonious blending of colors, without the
exercise of discrimination and good taste.
The most appropriate and becoming dress is that which so harmonizes with
the figure as to make the apparel unobserved. When any particular
portion of it excites the attention, there is a defect, for the details
should not present themselves first but the result of perfect dressing
should be an _elegant woman_, the dress commanding no especial regard.
Men are but indifferent judges of the material of a lady's dress; in
fact, they care nothing about the matter. A modest countenance and
pleasing figure, habited in an inexpensive attire, would win more
attention from men, than awkwardness and effrontery, clad in the richest
satins of Stewart and the costliest gems of Tiffany.
There are occasionally to be found among both sexes, persons who neglect
their dress through a ridiculous affectation of singularity, and who
take pride in being thought utterly indifferent to their personal
appearance. Millionaires are very apt to manifest this characteristic,
but with them it generally arises through a miserly penuriousness of
disposition; their imitators, however, are even more deficient than they
in common sense.
Lavater has urged that persons habitually attentive to their attire,
display the same regularity in their domestic affairs. He also says:
"Young women who neglect their toilet and manifest little concern about
dress, indicate a general disregard of order--a mind but ill adapted to
the details of housekeeping--a deficiency of taste and of the qualities
that inspire love."
Hence the desire of exhibiting an amiable exterior is essentially
requisite in a young lady, for it indicates cleanliness, sweetness, a
love of order and propriety, and all those virtues which are attractive
to their associates, and particularly to those of the other sex.
Chesterfield asserts that a sympathy goes through every action of our
lives, and that he could not help conceiving some idea of people's sense
and character from the dress in which they appeared when introduced to
him.
Another writer has remarked that he never yet met with a woman whose
general style of dress was chaste, elegant and appropriate, that he did
not find her on further acquaintance to be, in disposition and mind, an
object to admire and love.
The fair sex have the reputation of being passionately fond of dress,
and the love of it has been said to be natural to women. We are not
disposed to deny it, but we do not regard it as a weakness nor a
peculiarity to be condemned. Dress is the appropriate finish of beauty.
Some one has said that, "Without dress a handsome person is a gem, but a
gem that is not set. But dress," he further remarks, "must be consistent
with the graces and with nature."
"Taste," says a celebrated divine, "requires a congruity between the
internal character and the external appearance; the imagination will
involuntarily form to itself an idea of such a correspondence. First
ideas are, in general, of considerable consequence. I should therefore
think it wise in the female world to take care that their _appearance_
should not convey a forbidding idea to the most superficial observer."
As we have already remarked, the secret of perfect dressing is
simplicity, costliness being no essential element of real elegance. We
have to add that everything depends upon the judgment and good taste of
the wearer. These should always be a harmonious adaptation of one
article of attire to another, as also to the size, figure and complexion
of the wearer. There should be a correspondence in all parts of a lady's
toilet, so as to present a perfect entirety. Thus, when we see a female
of light, delicate complexion, penciling her eyebrows until they are
positively black, we cannot but entertain a contempt for her lack of
taste and good sense. There is a harmony in nature's tints which art can
never equal, much less improve.
A fair face is generally accompanied by blue eyes, light hair, eyebrows
and lashes. There is a delicacy and harmonious blending of
correspondences which are in perfect keeping; but if you sully the
eyebrows with blackness, you destroy all similitude of feature and
expression, and almost present a deformity.
We cannot but allude to the practice of using white paints, a habit
strongly to be condemned. If for no other reason than that poison lurks
beneath every layer, inducing paralytic affections and premature death,
they should be discarded--but they are a disguise which deceives no one,
even at a distance; there is a ghastly deathliness in the appearance of
the skin after it has been painted, which is far removed from the
natural hue of health.
The hostess should be particularly careful not to outshine her guests.
We have seen many instances where a lady, fond of dress, (and what lady
is not fond of dress?) and conscious that it is unbecoming to dress to
excess when visitors are invited, yet so unable to restrain the desire
of display, has made the whole of her guests look shabby, by the
contrast of her own gay colors. To dress meanly is a mark of disrespect
to the company, but it is equally so to make a very gay appearance. If
you make a grand display yourself, you are apt to appear as if you
wished to parade your appearance, and it is always safer to be under
than over the mark.
In going out, consider the sort of company you are likely to meet, and
endeavor to assimilate to them as much as possible--for to make a great
display elsewhere is an evidence of bad taste. But here if you miss the
happy medium, dress above the mark rather than below it, for you may
dress more out of doors than you may at home. Where dancing is expected
to take place, no one should go without new kid gloves; nothing is so
revolting as to see one person in an assembly ungloved, especially where
the heat of the room, and the exercise together, are sure to make the
hands redder than usual. Always wear your gloves in church or in a
theater.
We may add a few general maxims, applied to both sexes, and our task
will be done.
"All affectation in dress," says Chesterfield, "implies a flaw in the
understanding." One should, therefore, avoid being singular, or
attracting the notice, and the tongues of the sarcastic, by being
eccentric.
Never dress against any one. Choose those garments which suit you, and
look well upon you, perfectly irrespective of the fact that a lady or
gentleman in the same village or street may excel you.
When dressed for company, strive to appear as easy and natural as if you
were in undress. Nothing is more distressing to a sensitive person, or
more ridiculous to one gifted with an _esprit moqueur_, than to see a
lady laboring under the consciousness of a fine gown; or a gentleman who
is stiff, awkward, and ungainly in a bran-new coat.
Dress according to your age. It is both painful and ridiculous to see an
old lady dressed as a belle of four-and-twenty, or an old fellow, old
enough for a grandfather, affecting the costume and the manners of a
_beau_.
Young men should be _well_ dressed. Not foppishly, but neatly and well.
An untidy person at five-and-twenty, degenerates, very frequently, into
a sloven and a boor at fifty.
Be not too negligent, nor too studied in your attire; and lastly, let
your behavior and conversation suit the clothes you wear, so that those
who know you may feel that, after all, dress and external appearance is
the least portion of a LADY or GENTLEMAN.
INTRODUCTIONS.
The custom which prevails in country places of introducing everybody you
meet to each other, is both an annoying and an improper one. As a
general rule, introductions ought not to be made, except where there is
undoubted evidence that the acquaintance would be mutually agreeable and
proper.
But if you should find an agreeable person in private society, who seems
desirous of making your acquaintance, there cannot be any objection to
your meeting his advances half way, although the ceremony of an
"introduction" may not have taken place; his presence in your friend's
house being a sufficient guarantee for his respectability, as of course
if he were an improper person he would not be there.
It is customary in introducing people, to present the youngest person to
the oldest, or the humblest to the highest in position, if there is any
distinction.
In introducing a gentleman to a lady, address her first, thus: "Miss
Mason, permit me to present you to Mr. Kent;" or, "Mr. Trevor, I have
the pleasure of presenting to you Mr. Marlow." When one lady is married,
and the other single, present the single lady to the matron--"Miss
Harris, allow me to introduce you to Mrs. Martin."
When you introduce parties whom you are quite sure will be pleased with
each other, it is well to add, after the introduction, that you take
great pleasure in making them acquainted, which will be an assurance to
each that you think they are well matched, and thus they are prepared to
be friends from the start.
In introducing parties, be careful to pronounce each name distinctly, as
there is nothing more awkward than to have one's name miscalled.
In introducing a foreigner, it is proper to present him as "Mr. Leslie,
from England;" "Mr. La Rue from France." Likewise when presenting an
American who has recently returned after traveling in distant lands,
make him known as "Mr. Dunlap, lately from France," or "Mr. Meadows,
recently from Italy."
It is very easy to make these slight specifications, and they at once
afford an opening for conversation between the two strangers, for
nothing will be more natural than to ask "the recently arrived"
something about his voyage, or the places he has seen during his
travels.
When presenting a governor, designate the State he governs--as,
"Governor Fenton of New York." In introducing a member of Congress,
mention the State to which he belongs, as "Mr. Sherman of Ohio," or "Mr.
Banks of Massachusetts." Do not forget that Congress includes the two
legislative bodies.
When introducing any of the members of your own family, mention the name
in an audible tone. It is not considered sufficient to say "My father,"
"My mother," "My sister," or "My brother." But say, "My father, Mr.
Stanley," "My brother, Mr. Weston," "My sister, Miss or Mrs. Hope." It
is best to be explicit in all these things, for there may be more than
one surname in the family. The eldest daughter should be introduced by
her surname only, as, "Miss Sherwood," her younger sisters, as "Miss
Maud Sherwood," "Miss Mary Sherwood."
In presenting a clergyman, do not neglect to put "Reverend" before his
name. If he is a D. D. say, "The Reverend Doctor." If he is a bishop,
then the word bishop is sufficient.
When you are introduced to a person, be careful not to appear as though
you had never heard of him before. If he happens to be a person of any
distinction, such a mistake would be unpardonable, and no person is
complimented by being reminded of the fact that his name is unknown.
If by any misfortune you have been introduced to a person whose
acquaintance you do not desire, you can merely make the formal bow of
etiquette when you meet him, which, of itself, encourages no
familiarity; but _the bow is indispensable_, for he cannot be thought a
gentleman who would pass another with a vacant stare, after having been
formally presented to him. By so doing, he would offer a slight which
would justly make him appear contemptible even in the eyes of the person
he means to humble.
What is called "cutting" another is never practiced by gentlemen or
ladies, except in some extraordinary instances of bad conduct on the
part of the individual thus sacrificed. An increased degree of ceremony
and formal politeness is the most delicate way of withdrawing from an
unpleasant acquaintance. Indeed, what is called "cutting" is rarely ever
practiced by well-bred ladies and gentlemen.
On introduction in a room, a married lady generally offers her hand, a
young lady not; in a ball-room, where the introduction is to dancing,
not to friendship, you never shake hands; and as a general rule, an
introduction is not followed by shaking hands--only by a bow. It may
perhaps be laid down, that the more public the place of introduction,
the less hand-shaking takes place; but if the introduction be
particular, if it be accompanied by personal recommendation, such as, "I
want you to know my friend Jones," then you give Jones your hand, and
warmly too.
It is understood in society, that a person who has been _properly_
introduced to you, has some claim on your good offices in future; you
cannot therefore slight him without good reason, and the chance of being
called to an account for it.
LETTERS OF INTRODUCTION.
Letters of introduction are to be regarded as certificates of
respectability, and are therefore never to be given where you do not
feel sure on this point. To send a person of whom you know nothing into
the confidence and family of a friend, is an unpardonable recklessness.
In England, letters of introduction are called "tickets to soup,"
because it is generally customary to invite a gentleman to dine who
comes with a letter of introduction to you. Such is also the practice,
to some extent, in this country, but etiquette _here_ does not make the
dinner so essential as _there_.
In England, the party holding a letter of introduction never takes it
himself to the party to whom it is addressed, but he sends it with his
card of address.
In France, and on the continent of Europe generally, directly the
reverse is the fashion. In America the English custom generally
prevails; though where a young gentleman has a letter to one who is many
years his senior, or to one whose aid he seeks in some enterprise, he
takes it at once himself.
When a gentleman, bearing a letter of introduction to you, leaves his
card, you should call on him, or send a note, as early as possible.
There is no greater insult than to treat a letter of introduction with
indifference--it is a slight to the stranger as well as to the
introducer, which no subsequent attentions will cancel. After you have
made this call, it is, to some extent, optional with you as to what
further attentions you shall pay the party. In this country everybody is
supposed to be very busy, which is always a sufficient excuse for not
paying elaborate attentions to visitors. It is not demanded that any man
shall neglect his business to wait upon visitors or guests.