George Washington’s Rules of Civility

John Adams, in a letter dated April 22, 1812, confided to Benjamin Rush his belief  that George Washington was “too illiterate, unlearned, unread for his station and reputation.” This was not the first time that the often-aggrieved Adams had lashed out at the man who towered over him both in height and in the esteem of their countrymen. In an earlier letter, dated November 11, 1807, Adams cataloged Washington’s “Talents,” which accounted for “his immense elevation above his Fellows.” 

 Adams listed ten, presented in the following order: “an handsome Face . . .a tall Stature . . . An elegant Form . . . graceful Attitudes and Movements . . . a large imposing Fortune . . . a Virginian . . . favorable Anecdotes . . . the gift of Silence . . . great Self Command . . . Whenever he lost his temper, either Love or fear in those about him induced them to conceal his Weakness . . .” To be fair to Adams, this list is not simply a collection of sour grapes by one who believed the world never gave him his due, but the application of one of Adams’ general principles of how the world works to the case of Washington. In a letter to another of his pen pals dated September 2, 1813, Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “The Five Pillars of Aristocracy, are Beauty, Wealth, Birth, Genius and Virtues. Any one of the three first, can at any time over bear any one or both of the two last.” In his famous response of October 28, 1813, Jefferson agreed that there is a “natural aristocracy” founded on “virtue and talents.” Jefferson identifies both wealth and birth as foundations for an “artificial aristocracy,” and consigns beauty to “but an auxiliary ground of distinction.” Perhaps Adams was so bound by conventional thinking that he was unable to consider the possibility that Washington was one of Jefferson’s natural aristocrats, regardless of Washington’s lack of higher education.

 If Washington was, from Adams’ perspective, the ultimate overachiever, what was the engine of his success? In his widely read essay, “Fame and the Founding Fathers,” Douglass Adair lumps Washington in with others of his generation. “Driven ceaselessly by ambition,” writes Adair, Washington “was also obsessed with his ‘honor’ and reputation.” These concerns can be seen in 23-year-old Washington’s reply to Warner Lewis’ encouragement to accept the position of commander of a newly formed regiment in Virginia. In his letter dated August 14, 1755, Washington lists among the reasons he is hesitant to put himself forward his belief that present circumstances present the “unhappy Dilemma that no man may gain any Honour by conducting our Forces at this time; but will rather loose in his reputation if he attempts it.” Near the end of this letter, he emphasizes this concern: “I am very apprehensive I shou’d loose what at present constitutes the chief part of my happiness, i.e. the esteem and notice the Country has been pleased to honour me with.”

 Evidence suggests that Washington was motivated by a thirst for honor throughout his life. His retirement from the army after besting Cornwallis on the battlefield turned him into a world-renowned figure. In The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Gordon Wood writes, Washington “had earned his reputation, his ‘character,’ as a moral hero, and he spent the rest of his life guarding and protecting it.” 

How was he able to tame and direct this driving force of ambition? Near the end of Adams’ list of Washington’s talents are two that may provide a clue. “He possessed the Gift of Silence. This I esteem as one of the most precious Talents. He had Great Self Command. It cost him a great Exertion sometimes, and a constant Constraint, but to preserve so much Equanimity as he did, required a great Capacity.”

Washington’s formal education ended at age eleven, when his father died. Unlike John Adams and other of his compatriots during the Revolution, he never attended college and read and spoke only English. Among his papers are geometry lessons and a compilation of rules of conduct that may have served as an exercise in penmanship—its exact purpose is unknown. What is known is that Washington did not draft these rules. They originated in a book of etiquette created by French Jesuits in 1595 and published in English translation in 1640. 

Washington’s “Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation” contains 110 rules selected from the 173 rules contained in Youths Behaviour, Or Decency in Conversations Amongst Men, translated from the French by Francis Hawkins. At times, Hawkins’ rules are severely edited. Among the things we do not know is whether Washington himself had a copy of Hawkins’ translation and made the selections himself, or whether he was given an edited version of Hawkins to copy. In either case, Washington was presented not only with an exercise in penmanship but also lessons in etiquette and morality. 

Some of the rules provide insight into the living conditions of Washington’s time. Rule 13 begins, “Kill no Vermin as Fleas, lice ticks &c in Sight of Others.” Some deal with personal grooming: Rule 15—“Keep your nails clean and short . . .” and Rule 51—“Wear not your clothes foul, ripped or dusty, but see that they be brushed once every day, at least . . .” Others point to deeper levels of human action. Rule 110: “Labour to keep alive in your breast that little celestial fire called conscience.”

Washington’s Rule 44 particularly struck me: “When a man does all he can though it Succeeds not well blame not him that did it.” This reminds me of a line from a play Washington admired, Joseph Addison’s Cato: A Tragedy. Cato’s son Portius says, “ ‘Tis not in mortals to command success, but we’ll do more; we’ll deserve it” (act I, scene ii). This connection is even clearer in the complete Hawkins’ translation: “When a man doth the uttermost he can, and ought, although it succeedeth not to thy wishes, take heed to blame him, for in it, he rather deserveth praise.” 

Finally, a few of Washington's rules provide guidance for public speaking. Rule 40: “Strive not with your superiors in argument, but always submit your judgment to  others with modesty.” 41: “Undertake not to teach your equal in the art himself professes, it savours of arrogance.” 48: “Wherein you reprove another be unblameable yourself, for example is more prevalent than precepts.” Washington applied these rules throughout his life, and when his nephew, Bushrod Washington, was elected to the Virginia house of delegates, he offered only one piece of advice: “Never be agitated by more than a decent warmth, & offer your sentiments with modest diffidence—opinions thus given, are listened to with more attention than when delivered in a dictatorial stile. The latter, if attended to at all, although they may force conviction, is sure to convey disgust also” (letter of November 9, 1787).

Copies of Washington’s Rules are readily available online or in print; often collections of Washington’s writing begin with this document (this is true of the Library of America and the Liberty Fund volumes). I recommend the edition edited by Charles Moore and printed for Houghton Mifflin by the Riverside Press of Cambridge in 1926. It contains a brief essay on the origin of the rules, reproduces Washington’s handwritten manuscript, and provides a side-by-side printing of Washington’s rules along with the rules from Hawkins’ original translation.

The first of the rules in Washington’s hand is, “Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those who are Present.” This precept seems to have guided his behavior. As Richard Brookhiser wrote in Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington, “When the company for whom decent behavior was to be performed expanded to the nation, Washington was ready. Parson Weems got this right, when he wrote that it was ‘no wonder every body honoured him who honoured every body’.”