Part 5 (1/2)

which, being used to denote the gaining of favour by obsequiousness, implies that the sc.r.a.pe was considered a mark of servility--that is, of _serf_-ility.

Consider, again, the uncovering of the head. Almost everywhere this has been a sign of reverence, alike in temples and before potentates; and it yet preserves among us some of its original meaning. Whether it rains, hails, or s.h.i.+nes, you must keep your head bare while speaking to the monarch; and on no plea may you remain covered in a place of wors.h.i.+p. As usual, however, this ceremony, at first a submission to G.o.ds and kings, has become in process of time a common civility. Once an acknowledgment of another's unlimited supremacy, the removal of the hat is now a salute accorded to very ordinary persons, and that uncovering, originally reserved for entrance into ”the house of G.o.d,” good manners now dictates on entrance into the house of a common labourer.

Standing, too, as a mark of respect, has undergone like extensions in its application. Shown, by the practice in our churches, to be intermediate between the humiliation signified by kneeling and the self-respect which sitting implies, and used at courts as a form of homage when more active demonstrations of it have been made, this posture is now employed in daily life to show consideration; as seen alike in the att.i.tude of a servant before a master, and in that rising which politeness prescribes on the entrance of a visitor.

Many other threads of evidence might have been woven into our argument. As, for example, the significant fact, that if we trace back our still existing law of primogeniture--if we consider it as displayed by Scottish clans, in which not only owners.h.i.+p but government devolved from the beginning on the eldest son of the eldest--if we look further back, and observe that the old t.i.tles of lords.h.i.+p, _Signor_, _Seigneur_, _Sennor_, _Sire_, _Sieur_, all originally mean, senior, or elder--if we go Eastward, and find that _Sheick_ has a like derivation, and that the Oriental names for priests, as _Pir_, for instance, are literally interpreted _old man_--if we note in Hebrew records how primeval is the ascribed superiority of the first-born, how great the authority of elders, and how sacred the memory of patriarchs--and if, then, we remember that among divine t.i.tles are ”Ancient of Days,” and ”Father of G.o.ds and men;”--we see how completely these facts harmonize with the hypothesis, that the aboriginal G.o.d is the first man sufficiently great to become a tradition, the earliest whose power and deeds made him remembered; that hence antiquity unavoidably became a.s.sociated with superiority, and age with nearness in blood to ”the powerful one;” that so there naturally arose that domination of the eldest which characterizes all history, and that theory of human degeneracy which even yet survives.

We might further dwell on the facts, that _Lord_ signifies high-born, or, as the same root gives a word meaning heaven, possibly heaven-born; that, before it became common, _Sir_ or _Sire_, as well as _Father_, was the distinction of a priest; that _wors.h.i.+p_, originally worth-s.h.i.+p--a term of respect that has been used commonly, as well as to magistrates--is also our term for the act of attributing greatness or worth to the Deity; so that to ascribe worth-s.h.i.+p to a man is to wors.h.i.+p him. We might make much of the evidence that all early governments are more or less distinctly theocratic; and that among ancient Eastern nations even the commonest forms and customs appear to have been influenced by religion. We might enforce our argument respecting the derivation of ceremonies, by tracing out the aboriginal obeisance made by putting dust on the head, which probably symbolizes putting the head in the dust: by affiliating the practice prevailing among certain tribes, of doing another honour by presenting him with a portion of hair torn from the head--an act which seems tantamount to saying, ”I am your slave;” by investigating the Oriental custom of giving to a visitor any object he speaks of admiringly, which is pretty clearly a carrying out the compliment, ”All I have is yours.”

Without enlarging, however, on these and many minor facts, we venture to think that the evidence already a.s.signed is sufficient to justify our position. Had the proofs been few or of one kind, little faith could have been placed in the inference. But numerous as they are, alike in the case of t.i.tles, in that of complimentary phrases, and in that of salutes--similar and simultaneous, too, as the process of depreciation has been in all of these; the evidences become strong by mutual confirmation.

And when we recollect, also, that not only have the results of this process been visible in various nations and in all times, but that they are occurring among ourselves at the present moment, and that the causes a.s.signed for previous depreciations may be seen daily working out other ones--when we recollect this, it becomes scarcely possible to doubt that the process has been as alleged; and that our ordinary words, acts, and phrases of civility were originally acknowledgments of submission to another's omnipotence.

Thus the general doctrine, that all kinds of government exercised over men were at first one government--that the political, the religious, and the ceremonial forms of control are divergent branches of a general and once indivisible control--begins to look tenable. When, with the above facts fresh in mind, we read primitive records, and find that ”there were giants in those days”--when we remember that in Eastern traditions Nimrod, among others, figures in all the characters of giant, king, and divinity--when we turn to the sculptures exhumed by Mr. Layard, and contemplating in them the effigies of kings driving over enemies, trampling on prisoners, and adored by prostrate slaves, then observe how their actions correspond to the primitive names for the divinity, ”the strong,” ”the destroyer,” ”the powerful one”--when we find that the earliest temples were also the residences of the kings--and when, lastly, we discover that among races of men still living, there are current superst.i.tions a.n.a.logous to those which old records and old buildings indicate; we begin to realize the probability of the hypothesis that has been set forth.

Going back, in imagination, to the remote era when men's theories of things were yet unformed; and conceiving to ourselves the conquering chief as dimly figured in ancient myths, and poems, and ruins; we may see that all rules of conduct whatever spring from his will. Alike legislator and judge, all quarrels among his subjects are decided by him; and his words become the Law. Awe of him is the incipient Religion; and his maxims furnish its first precepts. Submission is made to him in the forms he prescribes; and these give birth to Manners. From the first, time develops political allegiance and the administration of justice; from the second, the wors.h.i.+p of a being whose personality becomes ever more vague, and the inculcation of precepts ever more abstract; from the third, forms of honour and the rules of etiquette.

In conformity with the law of evolution of all organized bodies, that general functions are gradually separated into the special functions const.i.tuting them, there have grown up in the social organism for the better performance of the governmental office, an apparatus of law-courts, judges, and barristers; a national church, with its bishops and priests; and a system of caste, t.i.tles, and ceremonies, administered by society at large. By the first, overt aggressions are cognized and punished; by the second, the disposition to commit such aggressions is in some degree checked; by the third, those minor breaches of good conduct, which the others do not notice, are denounced and chastised. Law and Religion control behaviour in its essentials: Manners control it in its details. For regulating those daily actions which are too numerous and too unimportant to be officially directed, there comes into play this subtler set of restraints. And when we consider what these restraints are--when we a.n.a.lyze the words, and phrases, and salutes employed, we see that in origin as in effect, the system is a setting up of temporary governments between all men who come in contact, for the purpose of better managing the intercourse between them.

From the proposition, that these several kinds of government are essentially one, both in genesis and function, may be deduced several important corollaries, directly bearing on our special topic.

Let us first notice, that there is not only a common origin and office for all forms of rule, but a common necessity for them. The aboriginal man, coming fresh from the killing of bears and from lying in ambush for his enemy, has, by the necessities of his condition, a nature requiring to be curbed in its every impulse. Alike in war and in the chase, his daily discipline has been that of sacrificing other creatures to his own needs and pa.s.sions. His character, bequeathed to him by ancestors who led similar lives, is moulded by this discipline--is fitted to this existence. The unlimited selfishness, the love of inflicting pain, the bloodthirstiness, thus kept active, he brings with him into the social state. These dispositions put him in constant danger of conflict with his equally savage neighbour. In small things as in great, in words as in deeds, he is aggressive; and is hourly liable to the aggressions of others like natured.

Only, therefore, by the most rigorous control exercised over all actions, can the primitive unions of men be maintained. There must be a ruler strong, remorseless, and of indomitable will; there must be a creed terrible in its threats to the disobedient; and there must be the most servile submission of all inferiors to superiors. The law must be cruel; the religion must be stern; the ceremonies must be strict.

The co-ordinate necessity for these several kinds of restraint might be largely ill.u.s.trated from history were there s.p.a.ce. Suffice it to point out, that where the civil power has been weak, the multiplication of thieves, a.s.sa.s.sins, and banditti, has indicated the approach of social dissolution; that when, from the corruptness of its ministry, religion has lost its influence, as it did just before the Flagellants appeared, the State has been endangered; and that the disregard of established social observances has ever been an accompaniment of political revolutions. Whoever doubts the necessity for a government of manners proportionate in strength to the co-existing political and religious governments, will be convinced on calling to mind that until recently even elaborate codes of behaviour failed to keep gentlemen from quarrelling in the streets and fighting duels in taverns; and on remembering further, that even now people exhibit at the doors of a theatre, where there is no ceremonial law to rule them, a degree of aggressiveness which would produce confusion if carried into social intercourse.

As might be expected, we find that, having a common origin and like general functions, these several controlling agencies act during each era with similar degrees of vigour. Under the Chinese despotism, stringent and mult.i.tudinous in its edicts and harsh in the enforcement of them, and a.s.sociated with which there is an equally stern domestic despotism exercised by the eldest surviving male of the family, there exists a system of observances alike complicated and rigid. There is a tribunal of ceremonies. Previous to presentation at court, amba.s.sadors pa.s.s many days in practising the required forms. Social intercourse is c.u.mbered by endless compliments and obeisances. Cla.s.s distinctions are strongly marked by badges. The chief regret on losing an only son is, that there will be no one to perform the sepulchral rites. And if there wants a definite measure of the respect paid to social ordinances, we have it in the torture to which ladies submit in having their feet crushed. In India, and indeed throughout the East, there exists a like connection between the pitiless tyranny of rulers, the dread terrors of immemorial creeds, and the rigid restraint of unchangeable customs: the caste regulations continue still unalterable; the fas.h.i.+ons of clothes and furniture have remained the same for ages; suttees are so ancient as to be mentioned by Strabo and Diodorus Siculus; justice is still administered at the palace-gates as of old; in short, ”every usage is a precept of religion and a maxim of jurisprudence.”

A similar relations.h.i.+p of phenomena was exhibited in Europe during the Middle Ages. While all its governments were autocratic, while feudalism held sway, while the Church was unshorn of its power, while the criminal code was full of horrors and the h.e.l.l of the popular creed full of terrors, the rules of behaviour were both more numerous and more carefully conformed to than now. Differences of dress marked divisions of rank. Men were limited by law to a certain width of shoe-toes; and no one below a specified degree might wear a cloak less than so many inches long. The symbols on banners and s.h.i.+elds were carefully attended to. Heraldry was an important branch of knowledge. Precedence was strictly insisted on. And those various salutes of which we now use the abridgments were gone through in full. Even during our own last century, with its corrupt House of Commons and little-curbed monarchs, we may mark a correspondence of social formalities. Gentlemen were still distinguished from lower cla.s.ses by dress; people sacrificed themselves to inconvenient requirements--as powder, hooped petticoats, and towering head-dresses; and children addressed their parents as _Sir_ and _Madam_.

A further corollary naturally following this last, and almost, indeed, forming part of it, is, that these several kinds of government decrease in stringency at the same rate. Simultaneously with the decline in the influence of priesthoods, and in the fear of eternal torments--simultaneously with the mitigation of political tyranny, the growth of popular power, and the amelioration of criminal codes; has taken place that diminution of formalities and that fading of distinctive marks, now so observable. Looking at home, we may note that there is less attention to precedence than there used to be. No one in our day ends an interview with the phrase ”your humble servant.” The employment of the word _Sir_, once general in social intercourse, is at present considered bad breeding; and on the occasions calling for them, it is held vulgar to use the words ”Your Majesty,” or ”Your Royal Highness,” more than once in a conversation. People no longer formally drink each other's healths; and even the taking wine with each other at dinner has ceased to be fas.h.i.+onable. The taking-off of hats between gentlemen has been gradually falling into disuse. Even when the hat is removed, it is no longer swept out at arm's length, but is simply lifted. Hence the remark made upon us by foreigners, that we take off our hats less than any other nation in Europe--a remark that should be coupled with the other, that we are the freest nation in Europe.

As already implied, this a.s.sociation of facts is not accidental. These t.i.tles of address and modes of salutation, bearing about them, as they all do, something of that servility which marks their origin, become distasteful in proportion as men become more independent themselves, and sympathise more with the independence of others. The feeling which makes the modern gentleman tell the labourer standing bareheaded before him to put on his hat--the feeling which gives us a dislike to those who cringe and fawn--the feeling which makes us alike a.s.sert our own dignity and respect that of others--the feeling which thus leads us more and more to discountenance all forms and names which confess inferiority and submission; is the same feeling which resists despotic power and inaugurates popular government, denies the authority of the Church and establishes the right of private judgment.

A fourth fact, akin to the foregoing, is, that these several kinds of government not only decline together, but corrupt together. By the same process that a Court of Chancery becomes a place not for the administration of justice, but for the withholding of it--by the same process that a national church, from being an agency for moral control, comes to be merely a thing of formulas and t.i.thes and bishoprics--by this same process do t.i.tles and ceremonies that once had a meaning and a power become empty forms.

Coats of arms which served to distinguish men in battle, now figure on the carriage panels of retired grocers. Once a badge of high military rank, the shoulder-knot has become, on the modern footman, a mark of servitude. The name Banneret, which once marked a partially-created Baron--a Baron who had pa.s.sed his military ”little go”--is now, under the modification of Baronet, applicable to any one favoured by wealth or interest or party feeling.

Knighthood has so far ceased to be an honour, that men now honour themselves by declining it. The military dignity _Escuyer_ has, in the modern Esquire, become a wholly unmilitary affix. Not only do t.i.tles, and phrases, and salutes cease to fulfil their original functions, but the whole apparatus of social forms tends to become useless for its original purpose--the facilitation of social intercourse. Those most learned in ceremonies, and most precise in the observance of them, are not always the best behaved; as those deepest read in creeds and scriptures are not therefore the most religious; nor those who have the clearest notions of legality and illegality, the most honest. Just as lawyers are of all men the least noted for probity; as cathedral towns have a lower moral character than most others; so, if Swift is to be believed, courtiers are ”the most insignificant race of people that the island can afford, and with the smallest tincture of good manners.”

But perhaps it is in that cla.s.s of social observances comprehended under the term Fas.h.i.+on, which we must here discuss parenthetically, that this process of corruption is seen with the greatest distinctness. As contrasted with Manners, which dictate our minor acts in relation to other persons, Fas.h.i.+on dictates our minor acts in relation to ourselves. While the one prescribes that part of our deportment which directly affects our neighbours; the other prescribes that part of our deportment which is primarily personal, and in which our neighbours are concerned only as spectators. Thus distinguished as they are, however, the two have a common source. For while, as we have shown, Manners originate by imitation of the behaviour pursued _towards_ the great; Fas.h.i.+on originates by imitation _of_ the behaviour of the great. While the one has its derivation in the t.i.tles, phrases, and salutes used _to_ those in power; the other is derived from the habits and appearances exhibited _by_ those in power.

The Carib mother who squeezes her child's head into a shape like that of the chief; the young savage who makes marks on himself similar to the scars carried by the warriors of his tribe (which is probably the origin of tattooing); the Highlander who adopts the plaid worn by the head of his clan; the courtiers who affect greyness, or limp, or cover their necks, in imitation of their king; and the people who ape the courtiers; are alike acting under a kind of government connate with that of Manners, and, like it too, primarily beneficial. For notwithstanding the numberless absurdities into which this copyism has led the people, from nose-rings to ear-rings, from painted faces to beauty-spots, from shaven heads to powdered wigs, from filed teeth and stained nails to bell-girdles, peaked shoes, and breeches stuffed with bran,--it must yet be concluded, that as the strong men, the successful men, the men of will, intelligence, and originality, who have got to the top, are, on the average, more likely to show judgment in their habits and tastes than the ma.s.s, the imitation of such is advantageous.

By and by, however, Fas.h.i.+on, corrupting like these other forms of rule, almost wholly ceases to be an imitation of the best, and becomes an imitation of quite other than the best. As those who take orders are not those having a special fitness for the priestly office, but those who see their way to a living by it; as legislators and public functionaries do not become such by virtue of their political insight and power to rule, but by virtue of birth, acreage, and cla.s.s influence; so, the self-elected clique who set the fas.h.i.+on, gain this prerogative, not by their force of nature, their intellect, their higher worth or better taste, but gain it solely by their unchecked a.s.sumption. Among the initiated are to be found neither the n.o.blest in rank, the chief in power, the best cultured, the most refined, nor those of greatest genius, wit, or beauty; and their reunions, so far from being superior to others, are noted for their inanity. Yet, by the example of these sham great, and not by that of the truly great, does society at large now regulate its goings and comings, its hours, its dress, its small usages. As a natural consequence, these have generally little or none of that suitableness which the theory of fas.h.i.+on implies they should have. But instead of a continual progress towards greater elegance and convenience, which might be expected to occur did people copy the ways of the really best, or follow their own ideas of propriety, we have a reign of mere whim, of unreason, of change for the sake of change, of wanton oscillations from either extreme to the other--a reign of usages without meaning, times without fitness, dress without taste. And thus life _a la mode_, instead of being life conducted in the most rational manner, is life regulated by spendthrifts and idlers, milliners and tailors, dandies and silly women.

To these several corollaries--that the various orders of control exercised over men have a common origin and a common function, are called out by co-ordinate necessities and co-exist in like stringency, decline together and corrupt together--it now only remains to add that they become needless together. Consequent as all kinds of government are upon the unfitness of the aboriginal man for social life; and diminis.h.i.+ng in coerciveness as they all do in proportion as this unfitness diminishes; they must one and all come to an end as humanity acquires complete adaptation to its new conditions. That discipline of circ.u.mstances which has already wrought out such great changes in us, must go on eventually to work out yet greater ones. That daily curbing of the lower nature and culture of the higher, which out of cannibals and devil wors.h.i.+ppers has evolved philanthropists, lovers of peace, and haters of superst.i.tion, cannot fail to evolve out of these, men as much superior to them as they are to their progenitors. The causes that have produced past modifications are still in action; must continue in action as long as there exists any incongruity between man's desires and the requirements of the social state; and must eventually make him organically fit for the social state. As it is now needless to forbid man-eating and Fetis.h.i.+sm, so will it ultimately become needless to forbid murder, theft, and the minor offences of our criminal code. When human nature has grown into conformity with the moral law, there will need no judges and statute-books; when it spontaneously takes the right course in all things, as in some things it does already, prospects of future reward or punishment will not be wanted as incentives; and when fit behaviour has become instinctive, there will need no code of ceremonies to say how behaviour shall be regulated.

Thus, then, may be recognised the meaning, the naturalness, the necessity of those various eccentricities of reformers which we set out by describing. They are not accidental; they are not mere personal caprices, as people are apt to suppose. On the contrary, they are inevitable results of the law of relations.h.i.+p above ill.u.s.trated. That community of genesis, function, and decay which all forms of restraint exhibit, is simply the obverse of the fact at first pointed out, that they have in two sentiments of human nature a common preserver and a common destroyer. Awe of power originates and cherishes them all: love of freedom undermines and periodically weakens them all. The one defends despotism and a.s.serts the supremacy of laws, adheres to old creeds and supports ecclesiastical authority, pays respect to t.i.tles and conserves forms; the other, putting rect.i.tude above legality, achieves periodical instalments of political liberty, inaugurates Protestantism and works out its consequences, ignores the senseless dictates of Fas.h.i.+on and emanc.i.p.ates men from dead customs.

To the true reformer no inst.i.tution is sacred, no belief above criticism.

Everything shall conform itself to equity and reason; nothing shall be saved by its prestige. Conceding to each man liberty to pursue his own ends and satisfy his own tastes, he demands for himself like liberty; and consents to no restrictions on this, save those which other men's equal claims involve. No matter whether it be an ordinance of one man, or an ordinance of all men, if it trenches on his legitimate sphere of action, he denies its validity. The tyranny that would impose on him a particular style of dress and a set mode of behaviour, he resists equally with the tyranny that would limit his buyings and sellings, or dictate his creed.