Etiquette and Agony Aunt Advice

“Once upon a time two women went room hunting in a lodging house at a certain summer resort...” Not these two, but two others. – Ruth Cameron was a no-nonsense, “Agony Aunt” who had and advice column called “The Morning Chit-Chat” in early 20th century newspapers.

Sensitiveness May Be Cowardice

ONCE upon a time two women went room hunting in a lodging house at a certain summer resort. At one house they were shown a very pleasant room, neat, attractive, well furnished and fairly reasonable in price, and the woman for whom the search was being conducted seemed almost persuaded. “I like this room immensely.” she said to the hostess, who had been unusually agreeable and courteous in showing the room. “I am almost sure I will take it, but I must consult my husband. I’ll let you know by Thursday.” 

That was Tuesday. On Wednesday another house hunter came to this house and fairly fell in love with the room in question. She was told that another party had the refusal of it. She urged the hostess not to mind that. “If you will only let me have the room, I'll take it today for the whole summer,” she promised. But the hostess, being new at the business, and having an unusual sense of honor, said she must wait until she heard from the other party. Whereupon the applicant, not being in a position to wait, went elsewhere. That was two months ago. The woman who had the refusal of the room has not telephoned yet. Needless to say, she never meant to. Indeed, she was scarcely out of earshot before she confided to her companion: “I knew that room wouldn’t be big enough, but she was so pleasant that I didn’t want to tell her that. I am so sensitive.”

“But won't you hate to telephone?” inquired the companion. “Oh, my dear, I shan’t telephone her. If she doesn’t hear by Thursday, she’ll know I’m not coming. I wish I wasn’t so sensitive (with a smile that showed how proud she was of just that), but I simply can’t bear to hurt people’s feelings.” Do you know what that woman reminds me of? Of the kind of folks who are so sensitive that they can't bear to chloroform or otherwise dispose of their pet cats, but are quite willing to leave the poor creatures to shift for themselves and probably be killed by dogs or die of starvation or rabies. 

You don’t see the parallel between the two? I do. They both display that peculiar kind of tenderheartedness which makes its possessor cruel instead of kind. Do you know whose feelings that woman was really afraid of hurting? Simply her own. She didn't want to make the effort of saying a firm, decided “No,” so she shiftlessly slid out of the situation in that cowardly way. When the fear of hurting anyone’s feelings makes you deceitful and blind to their best interests, you may be pretty sure that it’s your own feelings that you are really guarding. 

Suppose a surgeon should look at a mortifying finger and say, “I know I ought to cut that off, because, if I don’t, the trouble will spread to the whole arm, but I can't bear to hurt the patient.” Suppose a doctor should say, “I know that’s the only medicine that will cure the patient, but it’s so bitter I hate to ask him to take it.” The tenderneartedness that is straightforward, honest and cruel to be kind, if necessary, is certainly a virtue, but the sentimental, deceitful tenderheartedness that is kind, and thereby cruel, is very much nearer a vice. — By Ruth Cameron, 1912 

On Emily Post, "Postisms" and Etiquette

Whenever I train a new instructor and she asks what books she should have on hand for research, I usually will recommend any book by Amy Vanderbilt, Lillian Eichler, Judith Martin or Letitia Baldridge.  I stress that the books should be the original versions, not 'revised-by-so & so' editions.  In fact, the older the book the better.  Books from the 1800s are also ideal.  They cover the basics.  The 'nuts and bolts' of what etiquette and manners are truly all about.

  

When trainees invariably mention Emily Post, I cringe a bit.  Her book from 1922 is not one I recommend.  Now Elizabeth Post, who followed in her footsteps, did author some great books, back in her day.  She was someone I could relate to, as are the other authors whose books I recommend.

I don't dislike Emily Post. Quite the contrary. She was a pioneer in her time.  Not necessarily regarding etiquette in my mind, but in divorcing her husband after helping out in a New York D.A.'s Office sting operation of the merchant of tabloid sleaze of that era, one Colonel Mann.

  

Mann was trying to blackmail Emily Post's philandering husband and Emily got involved rather than have her husband pay up to save her humiliation.  So it is in that regard, that I really have to give her kudos.  It took guts to do what she did in that time and in that society which she lived!  She divorced her cheating man, and forged a new path for herself.  I simply don't care for her early etiquette books.

Emily Post made some pretty strong declarations in her first book on etiquette. Reading it in comparison to other etiquette books of the day, Emily comes off sounding a bit, well... haughty. Some of her advice reads like a joke.  Take, for example, this line on what should not be set at a dinner table; "Saucers for vegetables are contrary to all etiquette."  In what weird universe?  I can think of a thousand things that would be contrary to all etiquette.  Saucers for vegetables is not one that comes to mind. Even then, if a dinner guest of mine thought me gauche for having vegetable saucers on the table, I would not invite them back.  

No, the authors of the etiquette books I truly cherish, generally do not have such pronouncements in them, such as Emily's.  Those books are meant to be helpful.  They are not meant to instill fear in some poor newlywed hosting a dinner party.  Take for example these gems of Emily's-"If your house has a great Georgian dining-room, the table should be set with Georgian or an earlier period English silver. Furthermore, in a “great” dining-room, all the silver should be real! “Real” meaning nothing so trifling as “sterling,” but genuine and important “period” pieces made by Eighteenth Century silversmiths, such as de Lamerie or Crespell or Buck or Robertson, or perhaps one of their predecessors."  Okay Emily, so my sterling isn't 'real' it is 'trifling'?

And Emily certainly would not consider the dining-room set I inherited from my grandmother to be sitting in an 'important' dining-room.  My apologies!  "In a very “important” dining-room and on a very large table, a cloth of plain and finest quality damask with no trimming other than a monogram (or crest) embroidered on either side, is in better taste than one of linen with elaborations of lace and embroidery." 

Though she did write of more humbler dining-rooms and homes, she always spoke of these 'important' & 'real' items, homes and luxuries, as if they were the only ones to consider.  They were first and foremost in her book chapters.  They are not first and foremost in so many other books.  Other writers spoke to the majority of women and men.  The very formal, was usually the last of the subjects to be tackled in the books, and those writers didn't give these people who lived in 'important' homes, the catty monikers that Emily gave them.

She seemed to relish writing on these subjects, yet at the same time seemed to hold these people in a very low regard; "Mrs. Worldly" , "the Oldworlds", "the Eminents", "the Learneds", "the Wellborns", "the Highbrows", and "the Onceweres".

On the upside, Emily did seem to tackle some advanced thinking for the time period, like when she slyly covered the subject of gay men as dinner party guests and who should sit next to them; "Don’t, when you know that a young man cares little for feminine society,  fine-tooth-comb the neighborhood for the dullest or silliest young woman to be found." So to summarize, don't seat your gay male friends with dull or silly women. Seat them with the straight guys? Straight, entertaining women? Moving on...

Or when she addressed dinners of fewer courses, dieting and WWI, nicely making allowances for food shortages or even economic challenges? ; "It may be due to the war period, which accustomed everyone to going with very little meat and to marked reduction in all food, or it may be, of course, merely vanity that is causing even grandparents to aspire to svelte figures, but whatever the cause, people are putting much less food on their tables than formerly."  

All in all though, Emily Post had good intentions, even if she was a bit on the eccentric or even haughty side with regard to her books.  After all, this was the woman who, according to one biographer, never uttered her husband’s name again after divorcing him for his affairs, and had set an extra place at the dining table for him every evening for the rest of her life, though she dined alone, asked of Emily,  

"Fine manners, or something else? " 

For more real Emily Post quotes, check out this twitter feed- @Postisms

Video of Emily Post talking table manners in 1947