hitches, pulls-up and stoppages which occur in
society result from Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so's
taking umbrage at proceedings on the part of
Mr. and Mrs. Such-a-one, which Mr. and Mrs.
Such-a-one never dreamt would give offence.
They have unintentionally violated some rule of
politeness, on which their neighbours insist,
while they make light of it, or perhaps are
ignorant, of its existence.

Unfortunately, no universal Code of Etiquette
exists. The rules vary in various countries.
What is sufficient for the occasion here, is
insufficient there. What is polite amongst Turks,
is the reverse amongst Christians. Even on the
north and the south shores of the Channel there
are decided shades of difference to which it is
worth while calling attention. We cannot doubt
that our countrymen abroad are often accused of
deficient amiability, when they are simply
unaware of what is expected from them; and in
order to prevent similar mistakes and
misapprehensions, we will cite a few maxims of French
politeness, as laid down by the French
themselves. There are several treatises which discuss
this important topic, some for the use of children,
others for persons out of leading-strings. On
the present occasion, our text book shall be "LA
POLITESSE FRANÇAISE, PAR E. MULLER," with
a few additions of our own.

With politeness, as with everything else, too
much of a good thing is good for nothing. "Est
modus in rebus," saith Horace. There is reason
in the roasting of eggs. To overdo any
observance is wearisome, when it is not ridiculous.

The world which is especially ruled by
etiquette—the world of courts—affords plentiful
examples of the absurdity of overstraining
conventional rules. A king, surrounded by
attendants, may yet have to wait barefoot, in
consequence of the absence of the officer whose
right it is to shoe royal feet. When Cardinal
Richelieu was negotiating with the English
ambassadors the marriage of Henrietta of France
with our Charles I., the match was nearly broken
off on account of two or three additional steps
in advance to meet them, which the said
ambassadors exacted. Richelieu got over the difficulty
by taking to his bed.

Philip the Third of Spain, seriously ill, was
sitting in his arm-chair before a fire on which an
unnecessary quantity of wood was piled. As the
heat became uncomfortably fierce, the king
requested the Dons who were present to remove
a few blazing brands from the hearth. But the
grandee of Spain who enjoyed the sole privilege
of laying a finger on the royal fire was absent
and had to be sent for. The king's arm-chair
might have been drawn back. But the grand
chamberlain alone possessed that prerogative;
and the chamberlain was in default, as well as
the stoker. Moreover, it is forbidden, under
pain of death, to touch the person of Spanish
royalty. Consequently, in virtue of court
etiquette, and in the presence of his courtiers, the
king was done so thoroughly brown that he died
of the roasting the very next day.

Thank Heaven, in ordinary society things are
not carried to such extremes. Nevertheless, it
is possible for politeness to be exaggerated into
affectation. Thus, it is a mark of respect to
yield the precedence at the threshold of a door;
but to insist too long and obstinately, becomes
ridiculous. A dramatic writer concludes an act
of a comedy by the entrance of two old ladies
who come to call at the same house. They
mutually refuse to go in first with such
persistence, that the drop-scene closes on them
before either will assume the precedence. Ten
minutes afterwards, when the drop-scene rises,
the dowagers are still at their struggle of
ceremony, and it is only after a debate of several
seconds that one of them makes up her mind to
enter.

Certain rules of court etiquette may, perhaps,
appear ridiculous, and a repugnance may be felt
to conforming to them. But it is wise to pluck
up courage under adverse circumstances, and to
do at Rome as they do at Rome. Napoleon—
whom no one will accuse of being wanting in
dignity himself, or of wishing his representatives
to be wanting in dignity- is reported to have
said to an English envoy, who had been refused
an audience by the Emperor of China because
he would not prostrate himself in the manner
required, "Monsieur, I should request my
ambassador, if necessary, to lie a couple of hours
on the flat of his stomach, but at any price to
succeed in his mission."

The first condition of presentability in society
is cleanliness. Personal neatness and mental
propriety ought to march together side by
side. Intellectual ability is no excuse for
personal negligence. Voltaire and Cicero—a
curious brace to couple—both insist on
cleanliness, and both urge that it be without
affectation—not carried so far as the Dutch dame's
neatness, who refused to let her house be shown
to Charles the Fifth, "because," she said, "he
won't take off his shoes." Uncleanliness implies
low-mindedness. We say of a man, "He has too
much self-respect to commit a low action;" the
same self-respect has its outward manifestation
in personal neatness. The ancients raised it to
the dignity of a virtue, under the name of self-
worship, as if it were revealed by a secret
religious instinct. Henry the Fourth said, "I
wonder how anybody can dispense with
neatness and politeness; since you can be clean with
a glass of water, and polite with a lifting of the
hat." His allowance of fluid is economical. A
propos of the hat, be it stated that the French
mode of saluting, gentlemen as well as ladies
(except amongst the military), is not merely to
touch the hat or cap, but to remove it completely
from the head.

You ought to salute all persons of your
acquaintance wherever you happen to meet them.
It is bad taste to refrain from saluting an
inferior until he has first saluted you. Not to
return a salute, out of pride, is the proof of a
silly and narrow mind. In out-of-the-way places,
and in the country, it is customary to salute
unknown persons whom you chance to meet.
If you are walking with a friend, and he is