formal of all the nations. Yet the one is the stiffest and
most distant; the other, the easiest and most social.

"We may define politeness," says La Bruy,re, "though we
cannot tell where to fix it in practice. It observes received
usages and customs, is bound to times and places, and is not
the same thing in the two sexes or in different conditions.
Wit alone cannot obtain it: it is acquired and brought to
perfection by emulation. Some dispositions alone are
susceptible of politeness, as others are only capable of
great talents or solid virtues. It is true politeness puts
merit forward, and renders it agreeable, and a man must have
eminent qualifications to support himself without it."
Perhaps even the greatest merit cannot successfully straggle
against unfortunate and disagreeable manners. Lord
Chesterfield says that the Duke of Marlborough owed his first
promotions to the suavity of his manners, and that without it
he could not have risen.

La Bruy,re has elsewhere given this happy definition of
politeness, the other passage being rather a description of
it. "Politeness seems to be a certain care, by the manner of
our words and actions, to make others pleased with us and
themselves."

We must here stop to point out an error which is often
committed both in practice and opinion, and which consists in
confounding together the gentleman and the man of fashion. No
two characters can be more distinct than these. Good sense
and self-respect are the foundations of the one--notoriety