he would be placed below one or two whom he thought he ought to be above,

and who, he therefore considered, would be usurping his rightful position.
In disgust he refused to attend the dinner, which, excepting for what

he imagined was a breach of manners, he would have been very pleased
to have attended. Americans are much more sensible.

They are not a bit sensitive, especially in small matters.
Either they are broad-minded enough to rise above worthy" target="_blank" title="a.不值得的；不足道的">unworthy trifles,

or else their good Americanism prevents their squabbling
over questions of precedence, at the dinner table or elsewhere.

Americans act up to their Declaration of Independence,
especially the principle it enunciates concerning the equality of man.

They lay so much importance on this that they do not confine its application
to legal rights, but extend it even to social intercourse. In fact,

I think this doctrine is the basis of the so-called American manners.
All men are deemed socially equal, whether as friend and friend,

as President and citizen, as employer and employee, as master and servant,
or as parent and child. Their relationship may be such

that one is entitled to demand, and the other to render,
certain acts of obedience, and a certain amount of respect,

but outside that they are on the same level. This is doubtless a rebellion
against all the social ideas and prejudices of the old world,

but it is perhaps only what might be looked for in a new country,
full of robust and ambitiousmanhood, disdainful of all traditions

which in the least savor of monarchy or hierarchy, and eager to blaze
as new a path for itself in the social as it has succeeded

in accomplishing in the political world. Combined with this
is the American characteristic of saving time. Time is precious to all of us,

but to Americans it is particularly so. We all wish to save time,
but the Americans care much more about it than the rest of us.

Then there are different notions about this question of saving time,
different notions of what wastes time and what does not,

and much which the old world regards as politeness and good manners
Americans consider as sheer waste of time. Time is, they think,

far too precious to be occupied with ceremonies which appear
empty and meaningless. It can, they say, be much more profitably filled

with other and more useful occupations. In any discussion of American manners
it would be unfair to leave out of consideration their indifference

to ceremony and their highly developed sense of the value of time,
but in saying this I do not forget that many Americans are devout ritualists,

and that these find both comfort and pleasure in ceremony,
which suggests that after all there is something to be said for the Chinese

who have raised correct deportment almost to the rank of a religion.
The youth of America have not unnaturally caught the spirit of their elders,

so that even children consider themselves as almost on a par
with their parents, as almost on the same plane of equality;

but the parents, on the other hand, also treat them as if they were equals,
and allow them the utmost freedom. While a Chinese child

renders unquestioning obedience to his parents' orders,
such obedience as a soldier yields to his superior officer,

the American child must have the whys and the wherefores
duly explained to him, and the reason for his obedience made clear.

It is not his parent that he obeys, but expediency and the dictates of reason.
Here we see the clear-headed, sound, common-sense business man in the making.

The early training of the boy has laid the foundation for the future man.
The child too has no compunction in correcting a parent even before strangers,

and what is stranger still the parent accepts the correction in good part,
and sometimes even with thanks. A parent is often interrupted

in the course of a narrative, or discussion, by a small piping voice,
setting right, or what it believes to be right, some date, place, or fact,

and the parent, after a word of encouragement or thanks, proceeds.
How different is our rule that a child is not to speak until spoken to!

In Chinese official life under the old regime it was not etiquette
for one official to contradict another, especially when

they were unequal in rank. When a high official expressed views
which his subordinates did not endorse, they could not candidly

give their opinion, but had to remain silent. I remember that
some years ago some of my colleagues and I had an audience

with a very high official, and when I expressed my dissent
from some of the views of that high functionary, he rebuked me severely.

Afterward he called me to him privately, and spoke to me somewhat as follows:
"What you said just now was quite correct. I was wrong,

and I will adopt your views, but you must not contradict me
in the presence of other people. Do not do it again."

There is of course much to be said for and against each system,
and perhaps a blend of the two would give good results.

Anyhow, we can trace in American customs that spirit of equality
which pervades the whole of American society, and observe the germs

of self-reliance and independence so characteristic of Americans,
whether men, women, or children.

Even the domestic servant does not lose this precious American heritage
of equality. I have nothing to say against that worthy individual,

the American servant (if one can be found); on the contrary,
none is more faithful or more efficient. But in some respects he is unique

among the servants of the world. He does not see that there is any inequality
between him and his master. His master, or should I say, his employer,

pays him certain wages to do certain work, and he does it,
but outside the bounds of this contract, they are still man and man,

citizen and citizen. It is all beautifully, delightfully legal.
The washerwoman is the "wash-lady", and is just as much a lady

as her mistress. The word "servant" is not applied to domestics,
"help" is used instead, very much in the same way that Canada and Australia

are no longer English "colonies", but "self-governing dominions".
We of the old world are accustomed to regard domestic service

as a profession in which the members work for advancement,
without much thought of ever changing their position.

A few clever persons may ultimately adopt another profession,
and, according to our antiquated conservative ways of thinking,

rise higher in the social scale, but, for the large majority,
the dignity of a butler, or a housekeeper is the height of ambition,

the crowning point in their career. Not so the American servant.
Strictly speaking there are no servants in America. The man, or the woman

as the case may be, who happens for the moment to be your servant,
is only servant for the time being. He has no intention

of making domestic service his profession, of being a servant
for the whole of his life. To have to be subject to the will of others,

even to the small extent to which American servants are subordinate,
is offensive to an American's pride of citizenship, it is contrary to

his conception of American equality. He is a servant only for the time,
and until he finds something better to do. He accepts a menial position

only as a stepping stone to some more independent employment.
Is it to be wondered at that American servants have different manners

from their brethren in other countries? When foreigners find
that American servants are not like servants in their own country,

they should not resent their behavior: it does not denote disrespect,
it is only the outcrop of their natural independence and aspirations.

All titles of nobility are by the Constitution expressly forbidden.
Even titles of honor or courtesy are but rarely used. "Honorable" is used

to designate members of Congress; and for a few Americans, such as
the President and the Ambassadors, the title "Excellency" is permitted. Yet,

whether it is because the persons entitled to be so addressed do not think
that even these mild titles are consistent with American democracy,

or because the American public feels awkward in employing such stilted
terms of address, they are not often used. I remember that on one occasion

a much respected Chief Executive, on my proposing, in accordance with
diplomatic usage and precedent, to address him as "Your Excellency",

begged me to substitute instead "Mr. President". The plain democratic "Mr."
suits the democratic American taste much better than any other title,

and is appliedequally to the President of the Republic and to his coachman.
Indeed the plain name John Smith, without even "Mr.", not only gives

no offense, where some higher title might be employed, but fits just as well,
and is in fact often used. Even prominent and distinguished" target="_blank" title="a.卓越的，著名的">distinguished men

do not resent nicknames; for example, the celebrated person
whose name is so intimately connected with that delight

of American children and grown-ups -- the "Teddy Bear".
This characteristic, like so many other American characteristics,

is due not only to the love of equality and independence,
but also to the dislike of any waste of time.

In countries where there are elaborate rules of etiquette
concerning titles and forms of address, none but a Master of Ceremonies

can hope to be thoroughly familiar with them, or to be able
to address the distinguished" target="_blank" title="a.卓越的，著名的">distinguished people without withholding from them