Salutations

Salutations are customary forms of address at meeting or at parting, or of ceremonial on religious or state occasions, including both forms of speech and gestures. Through the influence of heredity and habit many of these have become reflex irpressible actions, their observance fortified with all the sanctity of moral or religious obligation. For although it is true that etiquette is entirely a matter of relative, and not absolute, obligation, and that such a feeling as modesty itself is mainly a question of latitude, yet the average modern European dreads the unfavourable judgment of society upon a solecism more than the condemnation of his own conscience on some breach of the weightier matters of the law. And it seems to be a general rule among races of men, not to speak of individuals, that extremes of ceremonious salutation stand in inverse ratio to their moral value. The ceremonious politeness of modern Europe has descended in great measure from the unworthy regime of the Lower Roman Empire, and its traditions, now as well as then, are incapable of being taken literally, its metaphors translated into fact. It is a complete mistake to suppose that savages are at all informal or extemporaneous in their salutations and ceremonies. Salutations tend to become less elaborate in progressive civilisation, the tendency being toward the preservation only of those which help to soften the asperities of social intercourse. Savages are much more given to gesticulation than civilised men. Yet it is unsafe to say that this depends solely upon degrees of culture, for there is a wide difference at the present day between the Neapolitan or Tarasconese and the German or Scotchman. No race has neglected the use of gesture more than the English—only among our deaf-mutes do we see what the capability of gesture is, and of what a wealth of expression we have deprived ourselves. Many of the natural gesture-signs, used as occasion arises, do not fall under the head of salutations, as involving nothing ceremonial, such as beckoning with the hand, thrusting out the tongue, snapping the fingers, or such vulgarisms as 'taking a sight'—itself a mark of respect among the Todas—and the like; nor yet such natural but significant outward expressions of inward emotion as weeping or trembling for fear, grief or joy, or yet blushing, which Darwin calls 'the most peculiar and the most human of all expressions.'

One of the most ancient and wide-spread, as well as natural, forms of salutation by gesture is the embrace in testimony of affection, as we find it in the Old Testament and in Homer. The kiss was at no time universal, being unknown among Fuegians, New Zealanders, Papuans, Australians, and Eskimos. It was used by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, and among the early Christians was adopted as a sign of fellowship, survivals of which are the Eastern kiss of peace at the Eucharist and the Western modified use of the osculatorium or pax. In England it was formerly the custom to kiss at the beginning and end of a dance, as well as on meeting a lady or taking leave of her; and the favourite game among the lower orders of 'kiss-in-the-ring' is the last survivor among many similar old English pastimes. As a general form of salutation, however, it appears to have been a custom peculiarly English; Æneas Sylvius describes the Scottish women of his day as 'giving their kisses more readily than Italian women their hands'; Erasmus, in a letter to a friend, describes it as a custom never sufficiently to be praised, and Bulstrode Whitelocke describes his satisfaction in teaching the English mode to Queen Christina's ladies at the court of Sweden. The Puritans objected strongly to it, but its disuse was really the result of the French airs that came in with Charles II., and it lingered among honest country-folk till the times of the Spectator. It is still used ceremoniously between royal personages, and still on the Continent even between men at parting or meeting again after an absence, as well as in the more servile forms of kissing the hand of a royal personage or the foot of the pope. The custom of grasping or shaking hands is now widely spread over the world, either in the English method, with its many gradations of heartiness, or the Moslem variety of pressing the thumbs against one another as well; but it is not really a primitive custom everywhere, and is by no means, as Dr Tylor has shown, to be explained with Herbert Spencer as a compromise between a simultaneous effort of two persons to kiss each others' hands in token of submission.

Its real origin lies deeper in the universal gesture-language of mankind, the essential act being a joining of hands to express compact, union, peace, or friendship. The Roman dextrarum junctio, in making a contract of marriage, preserved by ourselves, and the early Christian 'right hand of fellowship,' point to the real origin of what has become a mere salutation with us as with the Romans themselves. Other forms of salutation that recall the civilities observed among dogs, cats, and other animals are forms of bodily contact, as the rubbing of noses of the Laplanders and New Zealanders; the patting of each other's arms, breasts, or stomachs, by North American Indians; the Polynesian stroking of one's own face with another's hand or foot; the clapping of hands and leaping backwards and forwards in Loango; the snapping the fingers in Dahomey; the Batongan rolling on the back along the ground, slapping the thighs the while; the blowing with the breath upon another, described by Du Chaillu, in Africa; or Sir Samuel Baker's description of the Abyssinian custom of holding another's hand and pretending to spit upon it. The Polynesians and Malays always sit down when speaking to a superior; a Chinaman puts on his hat instead of taking it off; on the Congo and elsewhere in Central Africa it shows respect to turn the back upon a superior in addressing him. The Tongans reserve the use of certain words for the king alone, and they employ the third person in token of respect. Still more marked is the difference between ceremonial and common speech in Samoa, and here also they use the plural in speaking to a superior. In Fiji if a great man slips or falls every one of inferior rank must at once do the same.

Other groups of ceremonial salutations are the prostrations before a superior of ancient Egypt and Assyria, as well as of modern Dahomey, and of regular Moslem divine worship; the lying with the face in the dust of China and Siam; the ancient Malagasy custom of a wife crawling on all fours before a husband and licking his feet; the Arab refinement of putting the hand upon the ground and then lifting it to the lips and forehead; the kneeling on one knee to express homage to a European sovereign, as on both in divine worship; the turning toward the east, the genuflection before the host, or bowing at the pronouncing of the name of Jesus in Christian churches. These are all originally signs of submission or of inability to resist, meant to deprecate the majesty or the wrath of superior power. We find falling on the face before a potentate in the Old Testament, and in China at the present time among the eight kinds of obeisances, increasing in humility, the first is putting the hands together and raising them before the breast; the second, bowing low with the hands joined; the third, bending the knee; the fourth, actual kneeling; the fifth is kneeling and striking the head on the ground; the sixth, kneeling and thrice knocking the head, which again doubled makes the seventh, and trebled, the eighth—the famous kotow which Lord Amherst refused in 1816: this last being due to the emperor and to heaven. Among the Hebrews repetition had a kindred meaning—'Jacob bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.' Survivals amongst ourselves of ancient more abject forms are the curtsy in the one sex, and in the other the scrape till lately accompanying the bow, made by a backward sweep of the right foot. From the profound bow, expressive of great respect, our usage shades away to the modern curt nod, in which respect has degenerated into mere recognition.

Uncovering, again, is a characteristic symbol of submission in presence of a superior (Isa. xx. 2-4), whether to the waist, as in Tahiti, or of the entire clothes, as in the case of the female attendants upon the king of Uganda. In Europe we only uncover the head, and this in many cases is minimised to a mere touching of the hat. In the Coptic and Abyssinian churches the Semitic custom of uncovering not the head but the feet is still preserved. We find the same ceremonial uncovering of the feet in ancient Peru and Mexico; and in Burma it was long a point of dispute whether foreigners should comply with the native custom on approaching the king.

Again, as for the words and phrases which accompany the gestures of salutation, we find the widest variety in form and nature. The oriental forms, both scriptural and modern, are full of grave dignity and religious character. Mohammed took advantage of this characteristic, and made the use of certain forms rigorous as religious passwords; exactly like the once common Spanish form, 'Ave María purísima,' which had to be answered by 'Sin pecado concebida.' The Eastern phrases, 'The Lord be with thee,' 'Be under the guard of God,' 'Blessed be thou of the Lord,' have degenerated into the Spanish 'Vaya con Dios, Señor,' the French 'Adieu,' and our own 'Good-bye,' abridged from 'God be with ye.' The Basque verb has distinct inflectional forms for use in addressing a man, a woman, a superior, or an equal. Our familiar abridged forms, 'Bless you,' 'Mercy me,' 'Save you, sir,' show an English reticence in a light and familiar use of sacred names which is not seen in the familiar French 'Mon Dieu,' the German 'Mein Gott' or 'Herr Je.' The citoyen and citoyenne of the French revolution was but one of a hundred childish attempts to obliterate the natural growth of ages, and it is not a little striking that 'Merci, monsieur,' was the phrase that came to the lips of the wretched Robespierre a moment before his end. The familiar sir, signor, señor, mon-sieur are of course ultimately referable to the Latin senior expressive of the reverence due to age; madame, mademoiselle lead up to Latin dominus, 'the master of a house.' The use of 'sir' may convey a sense of scorn, just as the archaic sirrah always implied anger or contempt. And even 'madam' and 'mistress' are not without an odious sense. The Greek phrase, both at meeting and parting, was χαῖρε ('be joyful'); the Romans usually said 'Salve' at the one and 'Vale' at the other. These words express wishes for cheerfulness, peace, health; specialised forms of the same are the Pauline χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ('grace and peace') and the ecclesiastical 'Pax vobiscum' and 'Benedicite.' Such ceremonial forms as 'Let the king live for ever,' 'Long live the king,' by their hyperbole betray an oriental origin; 'good-day,' 'good-night' are obviously natural salutations everywhere, as are also the Italian 'Felicità,' the German 'Gesundheit,' the Roman 'Sit fanstum ac felix.' Such phrases as 'Serene Highness,' 'Grace,' 'Lordship,' 'Excellency,' 'Eminence,' 'Transparency,' 'Right Honourable,' 'Most Noble,' 'Honourable,' 'Right Reverend,' 'Very Reverend,' 'Venerable,' 'Father,' 'Reverend,' like 'my learned brother' between counsel, and 'the gallant officer' of a soldier across the floor of the House of Commons, are conventional terms that must on no account be omitted, as omission could mean nothing but intentional disrespect. Quakers alone possess an immunity, the ground of their objection being recognised as a difficulty of conscience. A special salutation is due, as everybody knows, to any one who has just sneezed, perhaps as a tribute of respect to a sign of mortality. The English 'How do you do?' the French 'Comment vous portez-vous?' the German 'Wie geht's?' are mere forms that one uses without waiting for or thinking of the answer, just as the Spanish custom of offering to a visitor anything he happens to admire in one's house is expected to be answered by a ceremonious form of refusal. Many phrases are used which may have once expressed inferiority, but are now mere forms without meaning. The Chinese in particular have an elaborate vocabulary of complimentary epithets for the person addressed, and deprecatory terms for themselves. A wife calls herself 'a mean concubine;' the speaker's opinion is 'the stupid opinion,' his house 'the tattered shed;' your father is 'the honourable grey-beard,' 'the honourable severity;' your mother, 'the good gentleness.' Even a simple question takes a ceremonious and complimentary form, as, for example, 'To what sublime religion do you in your wisdom belong?'

An interesting chapter in the study of salutations is the history of the pronouns of address in the modern European languages. In English the use of the plural for the singular form was established as early as the beginning of the 14th century. In old English ye was always used as a nominative, and you as a dative or accusative—a distinction carefully observed in the Authorised Version of 1611. In Shakespeare's time, as Abbott points out, thou was proper from superiors to inferiors, and as expressing companionship, affection, permission, or of contempt and anger towards strangers; ye and you, again, are proper from a servant to a master, and as expressing compliment, submission, or entreaty. Thus, says Schmidt, the constant address of Venus to Adonis is thou, of Adonis to Venus you. Tarquin and Lucrece, being both in a state of extreme emotion, constantly address each other with thou. The swaggering host in Merry Wives uses thou to everybody, as long as he is in his pride, but you when he is crestfallen. In a solemn style even princes are addressed with thou, whereas Falstaff uses you even to Jove. But already thou had fallen somewhat into disuse, and being archaic was naturally adopted in the elevated language of poetry and prayer.

Similarly in German usage du ('thou') is no longer used in address, save in domestic or familiar intercourse, or sometimes to convey the deliberate familiarity of insult or contempt; ihr ('ye') in modern usage is only employed in addressing more than one of such persons as may singly be addressed by du. The singular pronouns of the third person, er ('he'), sie ('she'), once used in customary address, are now proper only from a superior to an inferior. At present the pronoun of the third person plural, sie ('they'), and its possessive ihr ('their') are alone allowable in the sense of 'you,' 'your,' whether in addressing one person or more. When thus used they are written with capital letters, and the verb with Sie is always in the third person plural, whether one person or more is intended, although a succeeding adjective is singular or plural according to the sense.

In Italian the personal pronoun Tu is used only in poetry, or in addressing persons of the lowest rank. To inferiors or to equals it is proper to use voi; but when respect is to be implied, vossignoria, or the feminine pronoun ella, which is always referred to it either expressed or understood.

In Roumanian conversation it is usual, instead of using the direct personal pronouns tu ('thou') and voi ('you'), to use the compound words dumneata, dumneavôstră, derived from domnia ta ('thy lordship'), domnia vôstră ('your lordship'). These words have thus become personal pronouns, and the latter is also used for the singular.

In Spanish tú is used only to the nearest relatives, dear friends, little children, and menials. Vos, once generally used, is now confined to persons of high rank or office, addressing their inferiors. Public speakers use the form Vosotros; and where the audience is entitled to it, Usias ('your Lordships'). Usted (contr. from Vuestra Merced, 'your Honour' or 'your Worship') is the only word used in common polite intercourse. Usted and its plural Ustedes are common to both genders, and agree with the verb in the third person singular or plural, according to the number. At present Usted in writing is represented by V., Ustedes by VV. or Vs.

See the articles ADDRESS (FORMS OF), KISS, KOTOW, TOASTS, &c.; also chapters on 'Gesture-language' in Tylor's Early History of Mankind (1865); Herbert Spencer's Ceremonial Institutions (1879); the Cornhill Magazine for November 1879; and E. B. Tylor in Macmillan's Magazine for May 1882; and generally such books as Waitz's Anthropologie der Naturvölker.