Character and temperament / by Joseph Jastrow.

  • Jastrow, Joseph, 1863-1944.
Date:
1915
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Character and temperament / by Joseph Jastrow. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    606/624 (page 582)
    from the idea of consideration to others; it counsels a low voice and a modest address, and makes any assumption a rudeness Whether and when it goes too far is not for the moment relevant Ihe Anglo-Saxon ideal is consistent with a desire for privacy and a regulation of social contacts, just as obvious in the manners of the street or the arrangements of house and garden, in the develop¬ ment of a public cafe-life in one country and its total uncon- geniality to the ideals of another. If one considers such customs as the giving of fees, the prominence of the dowry and the ar¬ rangement of marriages by parents, the respect for old age and the attitude of young to old, the dread amongst women of becom¬ ing old maids, the (American) habit of “treating,” one has ample opportunity to note the varieties and the vagaries of fashion, yet ever with a consistent reference to a system of appreciations es¬ tablished or highly regarded in the one milieu and less so or differ¬ ently m another. Inconsistencies are not absent: it seems strange to the American, sharing so many ideals with the Englishman, that the latter should permit and even expect his guests to pay his private servants. That economic conditions are responsible for oome of the differences in attitude and observance just cited is obvious; that they move with as well as reflect the spirit of the community in which they are observed, is equally so. No more suggestive index to such standards and the principles underlying t lem is available than in the minor infringements of propriety The freedom of speech permits the German to say, “Ach Gott!’> or the Frenchman, “Mon Dieu” to express mild consternation. A similar appeal in English would be warranted only by tragic despair. Note 12, page 450. The utility of convention will readily be understood. Mere uniformity is useful, as in determining the fule. of tile road> or the adjustment of the fittings of the table to right-handed usage. It dispenses with the need of initiative and settles once for all in modern society how a man may dress lor formal appearance. So usage determines good form in speech and manners. The tendency for such obvious utility-in such instances perfectly consistent with a dictatorial finality—to encroach upon weightier and more disputable matters is one of the serious dangers of convention. When thus extended, far rom being a utility, convention may become a millstone and