GIVING AND RECEIVING.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 December 1924, Page 5 (Supplement)

GIVING AND RECEIVING.

THE FIRST CHRISTMAS PRESENTS. Research has revealed the fact that the earliest Christmas gifts were proffered nearly two thousand years ago, and were received probably with the utmost perplexity. They consisted principally of gold and frankincense and myrrh, and were laid at the feet of a tiny baby lying in a manger in a stable in Judae, the givers being three wise men —some say even kings—from the East —Melchoir, Caspar and Balthasar. The baby can have had nothing to say,

and how its mother, who had been in a state of surprise for some months, and her husband, who also had not a few thoughts to carry, behaved, we shall never know. But those were the first Christmas presents and for over nineteen hundred years the custom of giving them has been growing; but whether the art of giving them is any nearer perfection is a question.

All children born since then on December 25 have felt it to be a injustice that their birthday and Christmas Day, by coinciding, should deprive them of half their proper meed of presents; but a witty and fanciful friend of mine makes the

startling suggestion that in selecting thia day to be born on Christ gives yet another proof of His unselfishness. As to what He thought as the grave strangers laid the offerings at His feet we also are in ignorance; but we know that later, at any rate, He gave some attention to the question of gifts, for did He not bewilder all children (especially at Christmas) and puzzle not a few of their elders by enunciating that astonishing proposition that it is more blessed to give than to receive? CARELESS GIVERS. Even those, however, who require time to lake in the full significance of this saying will readily agree that giving is usually simpler—so much simpler indeed that there is almost no comparison between the two actions. Giving can be -so easy as to be almost automatic, whereas receiving can make demands on every nerve. Givers, particularly careless ones—and most givers think too little-—can survive to a great age, and never have to practice any of the facial contortions and the tactful verbal insincerities which recipients of their generosity must be continually calling to their aid ; whereas if the art of giving were rightly understood and practised, the only expression to be seen on the features of the receiver .of presents should be one of surprise and joy mingled, and that phrase, which is almost as common at this time of year as “Same to you”—“Oh, thank you so much; it’s exactly what I wanted,” should ring with the bell-like tones and vibrations of gen- ; (fineness. As it is—wholly because giving is so simple; an affair of a shop-assist-ant’s advice —of the writing of a cheque— ’ as it is, most elephants are white. WHERE HISTORY IS SILENT. Profane as well as sacred history tells us more of the giving of presents than of their reception. In fact, to enumerate the offerings of king to king is one of the historian’s simple pleasures. But we have, as a rule, no information either as to the remarks made by the recipient whose appraising eye checks off the apes and the ivory and the peacocks or the consultations of the Ministers of State as th e consignment of generosity is being made up. Only one can see them in committee: “Don’t you think,” (the Chancellor of the Exchequer is speaking) “two hundred milk-white steeds excessive? Wouldn’t one hundred do?” “Or even fifty?” “Yes, or even fifty. It isn’t as if we were visiting a really first-class Power” —and so with the bars of gold, the precious stones, the spices (such as the Queen of Sheba carried tQ Solomon-), all would

have to be carefully measured according to the importance of the other monarch or the need of his friendship. And then there is his side of the transaction: “Well I must say I think they might have been a little less mingy. Only five hundred bales of silk! Not enough for more than half the ladies of the Court; for you can’t expect any two to wear the same colour. And only thirty palfreys! Distinctly on the mean side.” One may have forgottbn what Henry the Eighth gave Francis the First at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, but the odds are that not a little criticism resulted. And yet the odds also are that Francis, in excellent French, said that it was exactly what he had been wanting.

In those old days the first thought of the receiver of a present was to return it in kind; which has a. certain crudity, and indeed imports an elemant of calculation into the act of giving at all. It was impossible for the visiting monarch not to speculate on what he was going to receive on his departure; and that is bad. A small child intently preparing, under

what she conceives to be conditions of profound secrecy, a gift for another is one of the prettiest of sights. It would lose half its charm at least if it were the rule that on presenting it she was instantly to be handed one for herself. UNWELCOME GIFTS. Proverbial philosophy warns us not to look gift-horses in the mouth; but the lessons of the past point in the other direction. Troy would still be standing had the advice of the old saw been disregarded. None the less, it might do a world of good if one Christmas we all decided to tell the truth and say exactly what we thought of our presents. “Thank you for nothing. I can see where you’ve erased j r our own name and put mine in.’* “Surely I was worth more than three* and-elevep! I ssw fliese at Harker’s last week and noted the price.” “What’s the use of giving me a diary when you must know I never keep one? M “Good heavens, you don’t really expect me to wear a tie of that colour?”