STICKLERS.
WE have lately seen letters in the papers from indignant elderly persons complaining of the modern want of deference. They have been addressed, so they say, by omnibus conductors and other unmannerly persons as " Ma " and " Dad." There does not seem at first sight very much reason for their annoyance, since so many quite young people are already fathers and mothers, but we suppose that they see in this description an infer- ence that they are already old enough to be the parents of the person speaking who may, of course, himself be middle-aged. " Make haste, Ma," does perhaps sound rather rude, but "Grandma" would sound far worse. After all, there is an obvious explanation of the familiarity. If two or three people are getting into a 'bus, it is probable that it is the eldest who is slow and obstructs the rest. Or if, for instance, an old man and a boy are climbing the stairs together, it is probably " Dad " and not " Sonny " who requires advice to " hold tight." The conductor wishes to bring his words home in the right direction, not to offend the passenger. But where titles are concerned human nature is skinless. Most people would rather miss the 'bus altogether than do without due deference—or even its outward show.
After all, this anxiety about modes of address is not confined to one class. Think how vexed we all are if we suddenly remember that we have omitted to put " Esq." after a friend!s name. It is most important, nowadays, to address even a little boy at school according to his conven- tion. A great many people, though they would not perhaps like to confess it, have worried all day because they have discovered that they have improperly directed a letter to a person of title. Even a man who never misses an opportunity of scoffing at honours may be ready to tear his hair because he has done so. It once occurred to the present writer to be under the necessity of directing a letter to an Archbishop Designate. He still remembers his anxious search after instruction. Do the recipients of misdirected letters very much mind ? They certainly do where " Esq." is concerned. Not many subordinates now say "Sir" to their employers. "Sir," as a mode of address, seems to be not so much going out as going up. A Northum- berland farmer lately told the present writer that all his labourers had ceased to use it, while his son naturally used it to any elderly guest in his father's house. Very few maid servants now allude to their employer as " the Master," though they will request an errand boy to call them "Miss," and let their Christian names alone, at the same time refusing to say " Miss " unaccompanied by a name to the daughters of the house. In England at present the question of titles even outside legal, and what are technically called courtesy titles, is all very complicated, and must seem to a stranger quite incomprehensible. There seems to be a movement in the colonies against accepting English distinctions, but they are increasingly anxious to prefix a distinction of native origin to their names. Many high Anglican clergymen now desire to be called "Father" instead of "Mr.," though there are always members of their flocks who are angered by what they rather illogically regard as an assumption, and every Nonr conformist minister insists upon " the Rev." on his envelope or his door plate, and many wear " dog collars " lest their title to reverence might be forgotten. It is not so many years ago since army doctors insisted upon the courtesy of army rank, though the demand resulted in inconvenience to themselves and others. A few young socialists want " Comrade " to be written before their names even on a postcard, and to be legally allowed the title of " Dame " is a privilege greatly valued by a few women. It will soon come to this, that no one except middle-sized boys can be addressed by their names tout court. If we write to a little boy we must put "Master," and a grown-up boy requires " Esq." It will soon be true to say that man is a titled animal, in spite of all the nonsense talked about equality. In fact if we ever attain to that sublime condition, we shall have to get to it the wrong way round, and submit, as it were to a. universality of distinction. Then we suppose we may start fresh and plain names will be an honour, or r ue haps in certain instances the definite article might be . ed as The John Smith or The Mary Jones. There might still be humble though aspiring• persons who would rather have the indefinite article than their bare cognomen. Our grand- children may be saying fifty years hence : " We must write to congratulate Uncle John he has got an A." We do not pretend to any exact understanding of French titles or to know how the practice of to-day is brought into correspondence with the principles of the Revolution. To a great extent no doubt the French, whose social talent more than outshines our political genius, have found a modus vivendi in bits of ribbon. So far as plain people are concerned we understand that "Mademoiselle " is beginning to be used only to young women, and really old maids are addressed by all polite people as "Madame." In France all shortened forms of address are regarded as rude, and woe betide the hurried person who scribbles " Mme." or" Mlle." on an envelope. The other day an educated French woman asked an English girl staying in her house to tell her how to spell " Mistress. It happened that she was addressing a letter to the girl's mother, and could not bring herself to commit what she thought the discourtesy of writing " Mrs."
Logically speaking, there is something awfully absurd about all this question of technical deference, just as there is about the customary " dear " at the beginning of a letter to a stranger. But you cannot rule Society by logic, and if it is absurd to mind about titles, it is horribly small to grudge them. If they are " nothing," we can surely be at the trouble to please by a word. Besides, are they nothing ? Is anything nothing for which human nature so plainly craves 2 Half Christendom still gives posthumous titles to the pre-eminently good, ansi the other half, while conferring no new honours, retains a few of the oldest and most renowned. This summer we heard a clergyman rebuke a little boy for speaking of Peter and Paul without prefixing the word "Saint." " Either of them would have boxed your ears had he heard you," said he. Obviously it was a joke, rather a. cynical one, perhaps, sacrificing an essential to an ostensible dignity. For all that the remark was humorous, and.showed an understand- ing of human nature with its self-imposed rules about deference which saints are and little boys ought not to be above.
If democracy means anything, it means a deference towards and a belief in the " Masses." But who can believe in or defer to an abstract mass of humanity ? What is the good of a misty idea which can have for each of us as individuals no practical existence ? It must be represented by individual men. A great deal of modern scoffing at new distinctions, whether it come from above or below, and whether the titles are in all cases deserved or not, is very much like spite. It is human nature to desire distinction, even to desire it inordinately, but it is not human nature in any good sense to grudge it, but just simply " common-minded " in the worst sense of that disgracefully misused expression.
Previous page
