20 PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON. 
are not the result of deliberate invention or convention, and in their 
present shape clearly exhibit the laws of evolution, though not always 
in the directions set forth in text-books and treatises on sociology, 
Comment was made upon the topics of social etiquette, precedence, 
titles, grammatical forms of personalty, the address and signatures 
of letters, forms and practices relating to written invitations and to 
social visits, and formularies of oral greeting, with examples or 
illustrations under each topic. 
Fashion was distinguished from custom as being imitative and 
transitory, although in some few instances genuine merit in a fashion 
led to its permanent adoption under the same law with which the 
convenient and useful portions of old customs have survived in 
modifications. 
Two points on which the paper specially declared disagreement 
with Herbert Spencer relate to the bow in salutation and to the 
hand-shake or grasp. The bow Mr. Spencer regards as but modi- 
fied from the natural expressions of physical fear and bodily subjec- 
tion noticed among sub-human animals and the lowest tribes of men, 
originating in actual prostration and groveling to which crawling 
and kneeling succeed, and the bow is but a simulated and partial 
prostration. A large class of obeisances doubtless had their origin 
in the attitudes of fear, and several were adduced in addition to 
those mentioned by Mr. Spencer, but it was contended that the sub- 
ject of the bow is much more complex than as presented by him, 
a separate and independent course of evolution being suggested. 
Evidence was collected from many sources, and especially from ges- 
ture speech, relating to the concepts of, and expressions for, higher 
and lower, superior and inferior, assent, submission and respect, all 
connected with the forward and downward inclination of the head 
in salutation. Regarding the uncovering of the head as a part of 
the masculine bow, the paper offered to Mr. Spencer a new illustra- 
tion of militancy, too often insisted upon in his Synthetic Philosophy 
but not definitely in this connection. The voluntary deprivation of 
removable head gear—once defensive—is often a mark of defeat and 
subjection. The modern formal military and naval salutes contain 
the same idea that the saluter is actually or symbolically powerless. 
Therefore the action of the removal of the hat, the present repre- 
sentative of the casque, helmet, or morion, is better"adapted to a 
“surrender” theory than to that of pretended “beggary” advocated 
by Mr. Spencer. 
