September 1, 1888.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



249 



probably be deterred, unless it be that the seed has some 

 strange power of retaining its vitality for a long period after 

 its burial in the flesh of a sheep. It can hardly be supposed 

 that the seeds are intended to grow there, or we should be 

 presented with the strange spectacle of the sheep growing 

 their ftivourite food on their own bodies! But this is too 

 absurd. It may, perhaps, be that the simple and beautiful 

 piece of mechanism possessed by the seed of Stipa spartea 

 is simply to enable it to bury itself securely in the ground 

 where it may take root — to sow itself, in fact ; but, if so, 

 what shall be said of the plant which uses such a power for 

 such murderous purposes as have been described ? The whole 

 matter is not yet quite cleared up. 



RUDE CENSURES ON BRITISH RUDENESS. 



X the American monthly Forum for July there 

 is a paper on English and American manners, 

 by an American rejoicing in the name of T. W. 

 Higginson, the object of which is to show that 

 English breeding is entiiely inferior to the 

 American article. Mr. Higginson relates 

 several stories of Englishmen who have been 

 wanting in courtesy, either to himself personally or to other 

 Americans, some of these stories certainlj' indicating con- 

 sidei'able rudeness, though one would like before condemn- 

 ing to know something more of the facts — for it is not 

 absolutely impossible that the discourtesy of the Britisher 

 may have been provoked by equal or greater discourtesy on 

 the part of the American. For instance, a certain lord to 

 whom ]Mr. Higginson refers may have been wanting in 

 politeness ; but when we find the American who undertakes 

 to teach Englishmen manners deliberately naming this loi'd 

 in his article, telling us how he spoke of his rudeness to an 

 English lady, and quoting her reply that the manners of that 

 family (naming it again) are proverbial, we begin to lecog- 

 nise the extreme probability that the American who thus 

 shows himself ignorant of the essential principles of pro- 

 priety may have moved the Englishman to be sharp and 

 abrupt with him. In like manner he tells us that a well- 

 known novelist spoke offensively at the table of an American 

 whom he names, and goes on to say that " he took the 

 liberty to sound the Englishman on the subject." The 

 reply suggests pretty clearly that the Englishman had had 

 no thought of offending, but had merely expressed when 

 invited his opinion on some custom approved in America, 

 but not liked elsewhere. " I give you my word of honour," 

 he said, " that I have often felt it my duty to make remarks 

 which were much more offensive to my host than anything 

 I can possibly have said here " — meaning obviously (though 

 I expect the wording of the reply has been altered) that in 

 England he would give his opinion much more decisively, 

 without in any way oflending — since in England, when a 

 man's opinion is invited, he is expected to give it truthfully, 

 and no offence is taken if it chances to be unfavourable. 

 But Mr. Higginson, who has offended grossly against pro- 

 priety in relating the story, and by his own account took a 

 great liberty on the occasion itself, confidently interprets 

 the Englishman's reply to mearl that he took pleasure in 

 causing annoyance, and " measured his merit by the degree 

 of annoyance he caused." He adds to the ofi'enco by imply- 

 ing that what he charges (unfairly in all probability) against 

 this particular Englishman, all Englishmen are always 

 doing. 



Mr. Higginson's whole article is in fact a gross offence 

 not only against manners, but against the principles on 

 which good manners depend. Apart from the rudeness 



shown to our people, the article is full of oflensive and quite 

 unjustified brags about Americans. Mr. Higginson must 

 know that American public schools, whatever other excel- 

 lent qualities they may have, are not scenes where absolutely 

 perfect manners are displayed (even in the East, while in 

 the West they might be often described in much stronger 

 terms). He must be well aware, also, that if any English- 

 man cared to follow Mr. Higginson's offensive course and 

 present carefully selected examples of ill manners as correctly 

 indicating the character of a race, he need not look beyond 

 the very circles which Mr. Higginson chooses to describe as 

 trained to perfect manners — the secret societies, with their 

 lodges, chapters, and circles, their gaudy trickery of dress, 

 their preposterous titles, and the rest of their trumpery. 

 It would be most unfair to say that because among the 

 members of these orders you may meet examples of gi-oss 

 rudeness, therefore they are all ill-mannered and dis- 

 courteous — though not more unfair than it is for Mr. 

 Higginson to attribute to the whole of the English aristo- 

 cracy the bad manners which he ascribes (probably falsely, 

 since even if he is striving to be fair he is obviously a very 

 poor judge of manners) to one or two whom he has met or 

 heard of. But if one were disposed to be as unfair and as 

 offensive as he seeks to be, one might repeat a sentence of 

 his most effectively (with a slight change in its significance) : 

 " Much of the habitual politeness with which Americans of 

 all classes treat one another, in travelling and in business, 

 comes doubtless from the friction and the examples of the 

 lodge-room." Ninety-nine Englishmen of the more cul- 

 tured classes out of one hundred, who have tiuvelled or 

 done business in America, would be rather disposed to 

 recognise the reverse of politeness as habitual among 

 Americans in business and in travelling — only the hundredth 

 remembering that this is because all classes travel and do 

 business together in America, whereas in England the 

 better bred keep apart from the rougher membei-s of the 

 community. But cei'tainly if an explanation of the " polite- 

 ness" (negative), that is, of the rough and uncivilised ways 

 very often to be observed among Americiins, were to be 

 sought, the rea.son assigned with another meaning by Mr. 

 Higginson would probably serve. 



For my own part, I will frankly admit that I am often 

 exceedingly annoyed with my fellow-countrymen in America, 

 because of what seems to me unnecessary fault-finding. 

 But although I have not been unready to protest against 

 it, both in public and privately, even when it has not been 

 unfair, I must confess that the English fault-finding 1 have 

 heard about things American has not been comparable for 

 virulence with the American fault-finding I have heard 

 about things English. The ways of (too many) Americans 

 in this respect are well illustrated by Mr. Higginson's 

 article. He rebukes English manners because of a few 

 cases in which, according to his account. Englishmen have 

 not sufficiently admired American ways ; and he shows how 

 much he really objects to such want of consideration for 

 American feelings by insulting and abusing England and 

 Englishmen. 



Mr. Higginson enters into details to show his sensitive- 

 ness. He tells us that no time can reconcile his American 

 ear to the heartiness with which an otherwise well-bred 

 English lady will talk frankly of " tubbing" and "cleaning 

 herself." (One can judge from this in what classes Mr. 

 Higginson has sought for samples of English manners. I 

 wili undertake to say that no English lady ever speaks, in 

 social converse, about " tubbing"- -I doubt if any English 

 \&Ay ever uses the expression — while a woman who should 

 speak of "cleaning herself" would be set down by an' 

 Englishman a.s undoubtedly a servant-girl, charwoman, or 

 the like. He would not be deceived either into regarding 



