YOUR OBEDIENT SERVANT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 416, 28 December 1932, Page 2

YOUR OBEDIENT SERVANT

T. Card.

Ebor.

H ISTORICAL LETTERS INTERESTING DISCUSSION ON THE CORRECT TERMINATION. "CONCESSIONS T00 SLOVENLY" Und'er the pseudonym "Victorian," a correspondent of The Times raised the question of the proper beginning and ending of a letter to the editor, and the result was a long and interesting correspondence, and one of th'ose bright and witty third leaders which in reeent years have fully redeemed that paper's reputation for heaviness, and have well deserved their occasional reappearance in hook form. On the ground that to have a letter in The Tifnes was "frequently felt to be the duty of the distinguished" and was "ever the ambition of the obscure," but that duty and ambition alilce are subject to yonr veto," "Victorian" argued for humility and dignity on the part of any correspondent approaching the angust presence. He entered a strong protest against the growing habit of writing "yours, etc.," in the subscription. It is a deplorable concession to the slovenly made by tho&e who are not slovenly, he continued. Haste cannot be the excuse, for letters so subscribed are often learned dissertations expressed in impeccable syntax. This evil can oifly be wrought by want of thought. "Victorian's" letter accordingly j opened with "Sir" without the familiarity of an endearing epithet, and it concluded with "Always your obedient servant, Victorian." Challenge Given. A day or two later "Victorian's" challenge was well taken up by a correspondent whose letter bore the heading, "Your obedient servant," but was subscribed "yours faithfully"- — Sir, — Like your correspondent "Victorian" I do not address you as "Dear Sir," because you are not dear to me, unless you print my lettei'. But I decline to accept "Victorian's" dictum that I must sign myself "always" (or even for a moment) "your obedient servant." I cannot tell a lie, with any chance of success, and I am not your obedient servant. I do not believe that "Victorian" would remain your obedient servant if you told him not to write to you any more. "Your, etc.," is horrible; "yours sincerely" is insincere; "yours truly" is untrue. "Yours faithfully" seems to hit the mark. We obscure persons who write to you are full of Faithj so full, in fact, that there is no room for Plope. In its leading article on the same day The Times pointed, though with no more seriousness than a subject which had been opened in this cheerful fashion deserved, to the elaborate formulae of old-fashioned politeness and to the impossibility of reviving a ceremonial which was obviously being felt to be hollow and irksome as long as two centuries ago. If the printed books are to be ti'usted, said The Times, Mr. Pope himself would sign letters "Yours, etc." Prior would write Believe me, ever with the greatest truth, dear Sir, yours, etc., etc.," and, most strange of all, Johnson would address Miss Boothby as "My Sweet Angel," and end up: "I am, Madam, yours, etc." Shelley ends the famous letter to Lord Ellenborough: "My Lord, yours, etc." If the printed books are to be trusted, the "etc." was like the "after compliments" in the precis of an Oriental letter. It scarcely bears that meaning what courtly phrases it has ousted. nowadays, wben few people could say It is a touch of the cap, even a curt nod, to save the trohble of bowing. It is a confession of boredom with all the worn and battered terms — the sincerely, faithfully, truly — which are counters now, not coins. And in this unceremonious era "it is useless to hope for the return of compliment into private correspondence. Better to search, as some have done in all ages, for an original and expressive turn. Siearch iii History. Taking the editorial hint, other correspondents of The Times took a very wide range. Some of th'em went centuries hack in quest of precedents, practice of contemporary royalty in their own letter writing to subjects while others were ahle to cite the favour of simplicity. King Edward, in whom the freedom of a man of the world contrasted strangely with a punctiliousness inherited from both his parents, was quoted by Major Ricardo as saying when Prince of Wales: — I cannot think why people writing to their intimate friends begin the letter with "Dear John," or whatever the name is. They do iiot put it on postcards or 011 telegrams. J never do it, and I end my letters "A.E." only. Another correspondent was able to refer to Sir Sidney Dee's life of "King Edward VII," II, 446, for the text of a letter which, while inconsistent with Major Ricardo's testimony on the first poirit, showed that on both the King asserted just the same freedom that he had as Prince of Wales. This letter, which was addressed to Lord Carrington, an old and intimate friend, began "My dear Charlie," and ended "Ever yours very sincerely, Edward R." No light is shed on the practice of the early Kings in the matter of their private correspondence by Mr. Robert Steele's collection of "Kings' Letters; From the Days of Alfred to the'Coming of the Tudors." But it is interesting to find several letters addressed by the Prince of Wales in 1404 to Henry IV which breathe a very different spirit from that of Shakespeare's Prince Hal, and begin — My very dread and sovereign Lord and Father, in the most humble and obedient maxiher that I know or am able, I commend myself to your High Majesty. A letter from a ehurch dignatory to King Henry IV. sees the prelate describe himself as "your lowly creature and continUal orator'' and( eoncludes as — Your lowly creature, Richard Kyngeston,' Archdeacoii of Hereford. The Eiizabethan Mailner,

the Sovereign exactly fits the view taken by one of Henry IV's successors, even of ecclestiastical dignatories, standing higher in the hierarchy than an archdeacon, if the letter which Queen Elizabeth has heen supposed to have written to Dr. Cox, Bishop of Ely, could be accepted as authentic: — Proud Prelate. — ^You know what you were before I made you what you are now. If you do not immediately comply with my request I will unfrock you, by God! — Elizabeth' R. This gem is so exquisite that one may hope that it will continue to hold its place in the anthologies, but it seems to have be'en rejected as a forgery by the historians. The Perfect Signature. What The Times describes as the "one perfect signature" is: — I have the honour to be, James McNeill Whistler. But the conclusion to Johnson's letter to Lord Chesterfield in which, after attacking him for withholding his help till it was too late to be of any use, he gave the normal formula of humility a bitter turn by a contradictory context, runs it close: — Having carried on my work thus far with so little obligation to any favourer of learning, I shall not he disappointed though I should conclude it, if less be possible, with less; for I have been long wakened from that dream of hope, in which I once boasted myself with so much exultation, my Lord. Your Lordship's most humble, most obedient servant, Sam. Johnson. And for sheer pathos the conclusion of the letter in which Wolsley, once perhaps the liaughtiest, wjealthiest, and most powerful man in England, pleaded with Steph'en 'Gardiner as a heartbroken invalid for the bare necessaries of life — Rememher, Good Mr. Secretary, my poore degre, and what servys I have done, and how nowe approachyng to deth I must begyn the world ageyn. I besech you therfore, movyl with pity and compassyon soker me in thys my calamyte, and to your power wych' I lcnowe ye gret, releve me; and I with all myn shal pot onely ascrybe thys my relief unto you, but also praye to God for the increase of your honor, and as my poure shall increase, so I shal not fayle to requyte your kyndnes. Wrytten hastely at Asher, with a rude and shackyng hand of Your dayly bedysman And assuryd friend,