FLATTERY

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume IV, Issue 383, 13 May 1876, Page 3

FLATTERY

It- is oflen sai-i that, tlio love of flattery is a ini.rk of nlu,r, ]Wr Swinbuinn lias not unhappily teruud fiarvanirnity. According to this cut-runt view, it- is one of Hip surest signs of a holier moral and intellectual culture to dislike fktteiy, and to feel contempt for those who proffer it. But though this admirable theory is bo frequently advocated in words, we much doubt whether many persons even among the more refined classes of society consistently hold by it in practice. Although it is doubtless true that certain forms of naked adulation have long since become distasteful in good society, a close observer will still be able to detect traces of a refined appreciation of this easy kind of lip-service. Very few, we Buspect, even of the polite classes are wholly unsusceptible to the charms of a gracefully executf d stroke of flattery, and it seems to be rather an affectation of extraordinary moral severity to denounce the flatterer's art as something radically vicious. Perhap: a common-sense investigation of the matter may show that, after all, there is nothing so very terrible in this fondnes3 for the sweets of artfully arranged adulation 5 that although it is to be classed among the frailties of human nature, it is not the vulgar and despicable vice which our fine maxims appear to represent it as being. Flattery may for our prosent purposes be roughly defined as a bestowal of praise by compliment .ry word or action to a degree not actually supported by the giver's deliberate conviction. There are obviously two things to be distinguished here, the desire to praise, and the insincerity of the laudatory action. Now praise itself is clearly a pleasant thing universally desired, and it is only a suspicion of r genuineness which nt'xea it of doubtful value. If, in any way, »'l grounds for this suspicion can be removed or hidden from sight, it is evident that tho flatterer' may f .riy on his soothing avt with perfect Euccess. As a matter of fact, we find many persons of undoubted character and intellectual ability who are extremely slow to detect the hollow ness of any piece of praise accorded to them. More especially, we may observe, among men of a certain renown in art or science, and among public officials, there are many who appear to t-.ke all kinds of adulation quite as a matter of course, and who, so far from rigidly scrutinising tho nature of the sweets thus tendered, seem to count on a certi-io. amount of flattering attention as a perquisite of their elevated p itiou. It is only necessary that a man bo deeply impressed with a sense of his own merits in order to derive this amount of gratification from the unsifted praises of others. Biographies of eminent persons abundantly illustrate the facility- with which even penetrating minds allow themselves to be hoodwinked when flatterers present their fuU-fiavored cup. Il looks as if Such minds were so readily agitated by the plcsant excitement of amour propre as to have no space for tho intrusion of critical doubts. They are so accustomed to indulge in a gentle admiration of their own personal excellence that all external praise, by harmonising co well with their own sentiments, finds easy acceptance.

Eufc a^gin, even when people are not thus habitually uucritical in receiving praise, but show a fair amount of skill iv discriminating the genuine coin from ila counterfeits, they do not neceisavily lose their relish for flattery. All who look cicely into human nature must wonder at its capacity for living on half" recognised illusions. It is quite possible for a person to go on drawing comfort from a pleasing supposition, as, for instance, that he is in possession of a certain moral dignity, and yet to bo fully awure that the eupposifon is extremely doubtful. Those psychology s who lay stress on grades of distinct and indistinct consciousue?s might probably find an illustra* tion of their favorite theory in this sirnullam ous play of a feeling and a critical suspicion of its legitimacy. If only lie particular senfment can s<. cure a firm footing within the boundaries of clear consciousness, it will not soon be disturbed by any number of unwelcome reflections which flit around the belt of obecure onflciousnfß'. Thus, it is, thtit we cannot but like tlio graceful compliment even when there is a nascent recognition of its partial insincerity, and when only a moment's unfettered reflection would assure us of the fact. Iv tbo rapid flow of conversation there ib little time for such reflection. The wellinserted alluMon has just time to awaken a pleasurable glow of satisfaction, and is then expelled by new subjects before it can have been submitted (o critical analysis. It would be a very lofty style of mind indeed which could execute this duty of critical investigation before indulging for an instant in the pleasurable sensations which such pretty allusions immediately awaken.

There scenic, then, reason to suppo9O that flattery in certiiin of its forms is not necessarily revolting even to generally truthful persons, but thut it may find a place among tho customs of the most refined forms of society. A.s the quality of veracity grows in delbacy and intensity, tho province of flattery will of course be limited, but the consideration^ hero dwelt on seem to favour the supposition that it will not soon grow out of date. It would be interesting, had -we tho space, to trace out (ho pneise changes which intellectual and moral progress effects both in tho dimensions and in the form of flattery. Culture seems to do for flattery what ifc does for one of its oppo°ites, ridicule ; it limits its sphere, and partially disguises it by softening its expressions. If flattery is to bo grateful to a sensible and truth-loving man or woman, it must clearly conform to several conditions. As we have remarked, it must not bo too broad, wholly setting at defiance tho bounds of truth, but must bo recognizable as an approximation to the truth. Thus tho compliment bcslowed should clearly point to a meritorious quality having an undisputed existence. Further, it should never be forced on a person in an obtrusive way. It should bo couched in modest language, and not break violently on our attention in bald eulogistic opithete. And it should not be kept before our minds so as to arouse a full and embarrassing consciousness of the speaker's meaning, but rather appear as a transient element in a fugitivo conversation. It is always better to let the praise be inferrod from the language used, than it iB to declare it in direct terms. In this way, it will be appreciated by a swift movement of feeling, while there will bo no time for its arousing a painful self-conscious-ness. Oi co more, flattery is always more acceptable when it seems to be the product of the moment, and not the result of premeditation, for in this case it has a greater appearance of. reality. Or, if the speaker distinctly

i' tends to indicate a deliberale wish to grntify, iiml so to show tho exercise ot forethought, thi! praiae should be tendered with certain delicate skill so oa to assure the recipient of the giver's anxiety to make the offering as graceful as possible. The indirect ways of flattery are also worth attending to: One may flatter a person by saying to bis intimate friend— for instance, his wife— something highly eulogistic, which it would be difficult to say to himself directly. Another; and 'still more useful method, is to flatter by action instead of by words, that is, by treating people as if- they had a certain kind of merit or excellence. Thus, we may studiously consult the ta;-te of a lady whose aesthetic judgment we wish to extol, or may enlist the cooperation of a person in a benevolent scheme, and thus indireotly attribute to him a generous disposition. The advantage of this last mode of flattering is that it escapes the necessity of even a slight verbal untruthfulness. To appeal to a person's opinion is not the same thing as to declare him to be wise, even though he may be readily dispc .ed to conjecture from the former, that we mean the latter too. — Saturday Review.