In making it illegal to use cellular telephones at the movies, in concert halls, at museums and galleries, in the theater and at other public performances, the New York City Council is following a very old American tradition.

As Miss Manners recalls, the Puritans also believed in using the authority and force of the law to punish common and trivial forms of rudeness. Gossiping, swearing, flirting, defying one's parents and making fun of others were illegal under their rule.

You can see how well that worked. Except for playing video games, these "vices" pretty much cover how Americans now spend their time.

It also helps to explain why those who drew up the new country's government were wary of legislating against rudeness. It is not that they considered etiquette unimportant; on the contrary, Gen. Washington, Dr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson all had thriving sidelines as etiquetteers. How citizens in an egalitarian society should treat one another was of enormous interest to them throughout their lives.

But they were also freedom fighters, and therefore opposed to unnecessary restrictions on matters that civilized people could be presumed to settle for themselves. So -- unlikely as it may seem -- is their modest colleague, Miss Manners.

However, the rest of the population, sharing this enthusiasm for freedom but misunderstanding the trade-offs necessary to ensure it, has worked itself up to denouncing the gentle rule of etiquette. If the awesome law didn't mind annoying its fellow citizens, the public was not going to be restrained from this pleasure by silly old etiquette.

Did they imagine that their fellow citizens would give up and resign themselves to being annoyed? Not likely.

You want law? OK, these fellow citizens have been snarling back, we'll give you law.

The cellular telephone legislation is the latest example of that reaction. Like other such attempts, the end result is less freedom than if the matter had remained under the rule of etiquette. And although the rationale for using law is that etiquette is unenforceable, even supporters of this new legislation admit that it is just as unenforceable.

So how do you get people to shut up at public performances?

It is not easy, Miss Manners admits, but etiquette did accomplish this once.

The history of audience behavior was characterized by rowdiness, not restraint. The young Mozart groused about it to his father. Only in the 19th century did the idea arise that it would be more considerate of other audience members, as well as of performers, if everyone stopped yapping and sat and listened.

American impresarios blamed low-class toughs for the problem, and removed some of the cheap seats to discourage their presence. French impresarios blamed high-class toffs and put in more cheap seats to encourage a nonaristocratic presence. Then, as now, written and oral pleas for orderliness were delivered.

What finally worked, at least for the better part of a century, was that great weapon of supposedly defenseless etiquette -- shame. Conductors and soloists started shaming audiences by stopping their performances to scold or walk out. Audiences took this up, and began shaming miscreants among themselves.

Among some audiences, glares outshine the spotlights, and vigilantes took the position that one cough was enough to justify forced exile. It may have been strict, but it worked better than legal action. A telephone ringing in a concert hall is indisputably disruptive, but not as disruptive as the police trooping in to arrest the offender.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When an invitation to a party is received, is it proper or improper to call other people and ask them if they received an invitation?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is charitable enough to presume that your intention is to offer a ride, rather than to brag that you are on a guest list that they might not be, or to insult the host by talking over whether it would be worth attending. Nevertheless, the effect would be the same, so the answer is that it is improper.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a busy hairstylist, and I run a tight ship where clients are seldom kept waiting. However, I am frequently kept waiting by clients who feel that it is their God-given right to be on their cell phones during their whole appointment. They are too busy talking to even greet me.

I had one such client, who walked in on the phone, talked DURING her color application, the entire processing time, her shampoo (I had to signal for her to change ears so I could properly rinse the color out), the conditioning, the final rinse and her bang trim. When I turned my blow dryer on, she snapped her fingers at me and pointed in the most imperious manner possible.

I was so flummoxed by her rudeness that I meekly turned the dryer off. I am a person who is seldom at a loss for words, but this left me speechless.

I also decided that I would no longer put up with this kind of behavior, so I wrote to her and "fired" her. I sent her check back as well and kept a copy of the letter, just in case.

I want the message to get out: Clients, do not be rude to your stylists, we are people, too, and are highly sensitive, as most artistes are!! We love to visit with our clients, and become part of their lives, so please do not treat us as nonentities by spending the bulk of your appointment chatting on your cell phone. Please limit cell use for REAL emergencies ONLY.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners was with you, even through the part about being a sensitive artiste, which she believes to be an oxymoron. Conducting business with you must take priority over whatever else the client is doing to pass the time. It is rude for her to fail to greet you, to be unable to comply with directions, to keep you waiting and, most certainly, to snap her fingers and point. If she were committing the common offense of talking too loudly, that, too, would be rude.

But when you declare that the opposite of being treated as a nonentity is to be part of your clients' lives, and you resent their visiting with others because you want them to visit with you, you and Miss Manners part company.

You perform a professional service. No matter how many people choose to confide in their hairdressers, you cannot consider that politeness demands that all clients do so. Miss Manners would imagine that others in your business would be relieved to be allowed to go about theirs.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Today my boss told me that while I was at lunch, my daughter called twice and wanted me to return her call on her cell phone. My boss often offers her unsolicited opinions and enjoys scolding people. She said that she almost asked my daughter if she was driving while talking on her cell phone.

While I also do not approve of driving while talking, I would never reprimand my adult daughter for doing so, and it is not illegal (yet) in our area. What assertive response could my daughter make if my boss scolds her in the future?

GENTLE READER: You mean such as "Mind your own business," which, in this case, would apply literally?

Miss Manners is afraid that polite people are never permitted to use this phrase. Instead, they pronounce "How very kind of you to take an interest" so coldly as to create the same effect.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am 23 and about to move in with my boyfriend, "Greg." My mother, with whom I am close, likes Greg very much. The problem? Greg smokes cigarettes -- as I have, but do not any longer. Mom is vehemently opposed to smoking, which is understandable and her right. She is now threatening to write Greg and inform him that if he doesn't quit immediately, she "can't approve" of our plans to cohabitate -- and my mother's disapproval, even the threat thereof, is a sharp and icy thing indeed.

I understand that she is worried about secondhand smoke (Greg does not smoke in the house) and about me taking up the habit again (I have no interest whatsoever in doing so). However, I maintain that it is presumptuous and rude for an unrelated individual to tell a grown man what he can and can't do in his own home (or on his own front porch, as is the case here). Mom says that "when it comes to deadly addictions, manners don't apply."

I do not object to Mom's opinions. I do object to her horning in and bullying my beloved. What does Miss Manners think?

GENTLE READER: Oh, Miss Manners is only thinking how little the world changes. The same scene could have taken place 50 years ago, except that your mother would not have dared criticize an adult's smoking, and would have instead poured that emotion into the issue of cohabitation.

Whatever upsets her, she should not be invoking that clause about suspending manners in an emergency, which only applies to immediate emergencies. For example, if Greg were to set the house on fire, she could override the rule against shouting orders and scream, "Get out!"

But Miss Manners notices that you are overlooking another clause that does apply, which is that a mother may voice her worries about a child of any age.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: It is your 19th birthday, and your boyfriend of one month is taking you out for dinner. When the check comes, he pays in cash. As you glance in the direction of the tray with the bill, you see that he has mistakenly put in too little money.

Do you point out the mistake, although you are not supposed to be peeking at the bill, or let the waiter do it?

I kept silent, but I can't help wondering if there was a way of subtly indicating the problem that would have saved him from the situation of the waiter returning and asking for the rest of his payment while preserving my facade of innocence.

GENTLE READER: If you are not paying the bill, Miss Manners is afraid that you will have to trust the young gentleman to do it. And you will have to trust the waiter to say, "Excuse me, sir, would you check that total again, please?"

Anyone can make a mistake. But not everyone wants to go around with someone who is looking over his shoulder to catch him at it.

: