Politician Profits Off Terrapin’s Backs

With terrapin’s popularity on dining tables and on restaurant menus, the turtles became popular motifs, patented for everything from flatware to soup tureens in the gilded age.  

“Green turtle is the epicurean soup, par excellence.” - Eunice C. Corbett in Good Housekeeping Magazine, March 1894

“Send the terrapins to the table hot in a covered dish, and the sauce separately in a sauce tureen, to be used by those who like it, and omitted by those who prefer the genuine flavor of the terrapins when simply stewed with butter. This is now the usual mode of dressing terrapins in Maryland, Virginia, and many other parts of the South, and will be found superior to any other.” —From The Whitehouse Cookbook, 1887

United States Senator Dennis, of Maryland, has about twelve acres of land put down in a pond, that is fed by salt water. This pond makes the largest terrapin farm probably in the world, and is the source of a heavy income. In it, terrapins are raised for the market, and it is said that over 12,000 “count” have been sold from it in one year. It may be noted, for the benefit of the uninitiated, that a “count” is a terrapin over seven inches in length; and that “counts” sold by number—bringing from $10 to $14 a dozen, or about a $1 each. 

In market they retail for about $20 per dozen—and in the fashionable restaurants are served at $1.50 a plate —one terrapin filling about three plates. Smaller terrapins are sold at lower figures, but all bring good figures and are “diamond” backs in fact, as well as name. There are several terrapin ponds in Maryland, and they grow in importance as “terrapin stew, Maryland style,” is becoming more and more popular among high livers. The thriving city of Crisfield, in Maryland, ships terrapins by the thousands, along with its millions of oysters. — Napa County Reporter, 1884

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Frogs Divide England and France

“Now a terrapin, a turtle, a clam or an oyster is subject to all the same natural repulsion as a frog, and an oyster is particularly objectionable in appearance and slimy suggestiveness.” —  Eight “Delmonico” pattern oyster forks 

— Photo source, Etiquipedia private library  

 

Gilded Age Frog Legs...

Money Can Be Made by Raising Them —

If You Do Not Like a Frog Dinner There Are Plenty of Others That Do

Crispy frog legs are a delicacy in many countries ~ “... the bones of frogs’ legs may be eaten in part with the fingers when the legs... are so small as to defy all but the most expert trencherman.” Such small bones are held in the fingers by one end while the other end is placed directly in the mouth. The impression of gnawing the bone must be avoided. It is no shame, by the way, for a lady confronted with a squab or half a broiled chicken to ask assistance from the gentleman with her in dissecting it unless perhaps she’s at a formal dinner. This is better than running the risk of having the meat land in her lap or, on the other hand, going hungry, if she is really inept.- Amy Vanderbilt etiquette for eating small birds or frog’s legs

Did you ever eat a frog dinner? Never, you will say. Then you have missed something. “Nasty things! The idea!” may be the exclamation of a young housewife who would not shrink from a terrapin stew, a turtle steak, a clam fry or a half-dozen oysters raw on the half shell. Now a terrapin, a turtle, a clam or an oyster is subject to all the same natural repulsion as a frog, and an oyster is particularly objectionable in appearance and slimy suggestiveness. 

Frogs are supposed to divide England and France, gastronomically speaking, as sharply as the English Channel does geographically. One of the first things which sensible Americans did after the colonies had thrown off the yoke was to disembarrass themselves of all silly insular prejudices. They began eating frogs, French fashion. In many of the Eastern States, frogs are as common as chickens or chops in the windows of restaurants.

It takes quite a number of frogs to furnish a square meal, because only the hind legs are eaten. A frog dinner comes high. It is comparable in price only to reed birds on toast, or quail in the first of the season. Fried in batter a dozen frog’s legs would tempt any epicure. A very dainty spring chicken is the best suggestion, but the frog is tenderer than that. Yes, there is money in frogs if the work of raising them is set about in the right way.— San Francisco Call, 1893

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

A Healthy 1930 Etiquette Suggestion

While finger bowls, and finger bowl usage, have fallen in and out of fashion over decades and centuries, clean fingers at the dining table have always been fashionable.

Finger Bowls First

Though it is contrary to the book of etiquette, finger bowls ought really to be served at the beginning rather than at the end of a meal. The present practice serves an aesthetic end, the recommended one would serve as a measure of better personal hygiene. But there is nothing very novel in this suggestion. In fact, it is an old idea. The Mosaic law which includes so many good rules for the protection of health, forbids an orthodox believer to touch food before his hands have been washed. 

Keen observation had no doubt impressed the author of those sanitary laws that unclean hands are a source of, and a means of, transmitting disease. Indeed, the observations need not to have been so very keen to appreciate the point, for in the course of an hour the hands come in contact with a vast multitude of things which in themselves had previously been touched by scores if not hundreds of others, and each contact represents a possible source of danger. 

Now the matter is simple and yet! A large number of our schools have lunch rooms for their pupils, or cafeteria services, where those that cannot, or will not go home for their midday meal, may eat. How many among these schools provide washing facilities? How many shops, factories, or offices have a place where the workers might wash their hands before eating, without having to stand in line for half the lunch period? And also how many parents insist upon having their children come to the dinner table with hands freshly washed? 

Consider the care we bestow upon our foods, how we protect our milk, our meat and our water from contamination and pollution, and then consider how all of the precautions bestowed upon our food substances turn to naught by the soiled hands that transport the victuals from table to mouth. – Edited by Dr. lago Galdston for the N. Y. Academy of Medicine, 1930

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette and Gilded Age Pressures

The present custom of serving a number of fine wines with dinner, makes away with a very large amount of money. Giving

 four or five dinners a week, means an outlay easily of $1000.00!

Dining One’s Way to the Poor House in the Gilded Age

“Nothing is more expensive than modern dinner giving. The viands that go in to making up a modern dinner are all costly, the decorations demand a considerable expentiture and the present custom of serving a number of fine wines makes away with a very large amount of money. 

Four or five dinners a week means an outlay easily of $1000.00 and this sort of thing, taken in connection with the maintenance of an establishment at Newport and the other legitimate expenditures of a family in society, to carry it through the year, knocks very large holes in $60,000.00 and soon sweeps it away. The case here referred to is valuable as illustrating the extravagant tendencies of the times and the legitimate outcome.” – N. Y. World, 1890

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Etiquette of a Later Dinner Hour

“A marked change has taken place in the fashion. The evening dinner has for years been steadily gaining in popularity, and promises to become even more common than it is now. Thoughtful men and women recognize the wisdom of eating lightly at midday, when they are in the full tide of business, and reserving the heartiest repast for an hour when it can be discussed leisurely and digested peacefully.” – 1890

The New Fashionable Time to Dine

Twenty or thirty years ago the late dinner was not nearly so popular as it is now. The majority of people dined in the middle of the day, and not a few of them considered a six-o'clock dinner as an effort after fashion, that was unworthy the imitation of sensible men and women. Even in the large cities, servants rebelled against an alteration of the time-houored custom of serving the principal meal of the day at, or near noon, while in small towns the late dinner was so unusual that it was almost impossible to persuade domestics to consent to it.

A marked change has taken place in the fashion. The evening dinner has for years been steadily gaining in popularity, and promises to become even more common than it is now. Thoughtful men and women recognize the wisdom of eating lightly at midday, when they are in the full tide of business, and reserving the heartiest repast for an hour when it can be discussed leisurely and digested peacefully. Mistresses have learned that there is a gain in keeping the morning free for housework, instead of devoting most of it to the preparation of the dinner.The light lunch eaten in most homes demands much less time in cooking and eating than does a dinner, and leaves those who have partaken of it more fit for work than they would be, were their stomachs burdened with the task of digesting soup, meat, vegetables and dessert.

The late dinner is a more dignified meal than can possibly be made of a similar repast eaten at noon. The festal appearance imparted by the gleam of candles, lamps, or gas upon silver, china and glass, cannot be acquired by daylight. The pleasant harmony around the board of the members of the family, whose positions and interests have been divergent since morning, the happy consciousness that the work of the day is done, the knowledge that there is no toil waiting at the door of the diningroom, all bear their share in rendering the meal cheerful and care-free. 

More ceremony can and should be preserved at the evening dinner than is feasible at noon. The orderly sequence of courses and the careful serving have a part in adding to the dignity of the meal. These suggestions should not frighten the house-keeper who contemplates introducing the late dinner into their household. Very little extra work is involved in bestowing the touch of state referred to, and, after all, it consists chiefly in a slight additional care in waiting and serving, and to these the mistress can readily accustom the maid.— Christine Terhune Herrick, in Harper's Bazaar, 1890

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Table Etiquette Customs Explained

Table etiquette is not, as is often alleged, merely a matter of fashion, although some things that were in vogue a generation or two ago, are no longer deemed polite.The reason is that manners and table furniture have undergone so many changes, have really so much improved, as to require a mutual adjustment. 

While certain forms of table etiquette may seem altogether conventional, even fantastic, the forms usually observed are founded on good sense, and adapted to general convenience. Table etiquette is not, as is often alleged, merely a matter of fashion, although some things that were in vogue a generation or two ago, are no longer deemed polite. The reason is that manners and table furniture have undergone so many changes, have really so much improved, as to require a mutual adjustment. 

For example, everybody was accustomed, twenty or thirty years since, to use the knife to carry food to the mouth, because the fork of the day was not adapted to the purpose. Since the introduction of the four-tined silver fork, it has so entirely supplanted the knife, that the usage of the latter, in that way, is not only superfluous, but is regarded as a vulgarism. Another example is the discontinuance of the custom of turning tea or coffee from the cup into the saucer. Although small plates were frequently employed to set the cup in, they were not at all in general use; and even when they were used, the tea or coffee was likely to be spilled upon the cloth. The habit, likewise, of putting one’s knife into the butter arose from the fact that the butter-knife proper had not been thought of. Such customs as these, once necessitated by circumstances, are now obviously inappropriate. 

Certain habits, however, are regulated with good taste and delicacy of feeling, and the failure to adopt them argues a lack of fine perception or social insight. One of these is eating or drinking audibly. No sensitive person can hear any one taking his soup, coffee or other liquid, without positive annoyance. Yet those who would be very unwilling to consider themselves ill bred are constantly guilty of such breaches of politeness. The defect is that they are not so sensitive as those with whom they come in contact. They would not be disturbed by the offence; they never imagine, therefore, that any one else can be. It is for them that rules of etiquette are particularly designed. Were their instinct correct, they would not need the rule, which, from the absence of instinct, appears to them irrational, and purely arbitrary. To rest one’s elbow on the table is more than a transgression of courtesy, it is an absolute inconvenience to one’s neighbors. 

All awkwardness of position, such as sitting too far back from, or leaning over the table, are reckoned as rudeness, because they put others ill at ease through fear of such accidents as are liable to happen from any uncouthness. This and kindred matters are trifles; but social life is so largely composed of trifles, that to disregard them wholly is a serious affront. We can hardly realize to what extent our satisfaction of dissatisfaction is made up of things in themselves insignificant, until their observance or nonobservance is brought directly home to us. —Scribner’s Monthly, 1875

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia  

Etiquette and Francatelli's Legacy

"At Windsor Castle, Francatelli, and then the royal chefs who followed him during Victoria’s long reign, had at least two Yeomen of the Kitchen and 24 assistant chefs to prepare these meals, and then, of course, all kinds of servers and lackeys were involved in washing, table-setting, serving and clearing away." —M.F.K. Fisher 

"Her Majesty’s (Queen Victoria's) French? Italian? English? chef, Charles Edme Francatelli, wrote ''The Modern Cook'' in 1846, and it sold almost as well in America as in England. Few kitchens here could follow all its directions for the light Gallic dainties Francatelli introduced to counteract the basic heaviness of royal dining habits, but gradually his style of making two courses of a meal, with a predominance of sweet dishes in the second, was adapted by our housekeepers to shape the way we now eat lunch and dinner.

In the Queen's menus, there were often three soups, three fishes, a kind of savory (for instance, marrow patties with a fines-herbes sauce), four dishes and eight entrées in the first course, all served at once. In the second there were three roasts and poultry and game, three sweet desserts, two more side desserts of pastry, and 12 entremets, including vegetables, aspics and fruit tartlets.

At Windsor Castle Francatelli, and then the royal chefs who followed him during Victoria’s long reign, had at least two Yeomen of the Kitchen and 24 assistant chefs to prepare these meals, and then, of course, all kinds of servers and lackeys were involved in washing, table-setting, serving and clearing away. 

Nonetheless, American housewives as far west as Iowa and then beyond, helped by one or two immigrant servants, read ''The Modern Cook'' and its lesser imitators and gradually changed the accustomed pattern of one long hodge-podge of dishes served together, even in a plain Family Meal, to two courses, with sweets alone finally constituting the second course. This might consist of two kinds of pies or tarts, a cool pudding, a jelly and a tall layered cake, but at least these did not appear side by side with roast pigeons, asparagus soup and a haunch of venison flanked by boiled vegetables." — From Food: The Arts (Fine and Culinary) of 19th Century America
By M. F. K. Fisher

Dining Style Etiquette History

“For Americans, it is more proper to eat American-style and it looks silly to eat European-style if you were not born in Europe. I'm a firm believer, for which I get a great deal of hate mail, that the American style is more dignified, slower, more complicated, as opposed to a quick shove-it-in method. People who use the European style point out that it is more efficient. But I say efficiency is not a virtue when it comes to stuffing food in your face. It is not proper etiquette or good for your health. Doctors don't ever say: ‘You're not eating fast enough.’ I am a great believer in American etiquette for Americans on all counts. Our forefathers wanted an American etiquette that would reflect the egalitarianism of America and not Europe, that was based on court life. My feelings get stirred up when I hear people arguing vehemently for aping European ways when we have a much more sophisticated and aesthetically pleasing American standard of our own. I agree with Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who wrote that Americans should have a dignified American etiquette.”– Miss Manners

Continental Dining  vs American Dining  

I admit, I am part of the American minority that refuses to juggle my eating utensils. I cut, hack and slash with the knife in my right hand and sling the food to my gaping mouth with the fork in my left hand. This makes me both a no-nonsense and continental kind of guy. Or so I've been told by no less an authority than myself. But what do the professional etiquette experts say about the conflicting techniques– the American way and the way the rest of us chow down? Before I get into that, I have learned that being a professional etiquette arbiter is a tougher job than it used to be.

Listen to Letitia Baldrige, the renowned author of eight etiquette books, who says: “Social manners have changed dramatically. Kids today and for the last 20 years have held the fork and knife in unbelievable ways. They hold the fork with a fist and the knife like a saw and they shovel it in. It doesn't matter to them which way they hold their knife and fork. They eat every which way. I'm amazed they get food into their mouths at all.” As for Ms. Baldrige's personal preference, she's on my side and prefers the labor-efficient continental approach.

“It is a much easier way to eat. It is much neater and there is no banging of flatware. Eating American-style, you put the knife down and clang. Continental is silent and efficient. But some people think it is faddish and elitist. We're the only people in the world who eat this way, putting the knife down and changing the fork from the left to the right hand.” Why do we do it? The custom of American eating was the way everyone ate until about 1840. In 1852 it came out in a French etiquette book that if you wanted to eat in a more fashionable manner, you would not switch the fork to the other hand. Before long, Europeans of all classes started using that style. In certain business sectors, if you don't eat continental-style, you look as if you just got off the cabbage truck. A strong believer in the American style is Judith Martin, who has written the Miss Manners column since 1978 and is author of four Miss Manners books.

“For Americans, it is more proper to eat American-style and it looks silly to eat European-style if you were not born in Europe. I'm a firm believer, for which I get a great deal of hate mail, that the American style is more dignified, slower, more complicated, as opposed to a quick shove-it-in method. People who use the European style point out that it is more efficient. But I say efficiency is not a virtue when it comes to stuffing food in your face. It is not proper etiquette or good for your health. Doctors don't ever say: ‘You're not eating fast enough.’ I am a great believer in American etiquette for Americans on all counts. Our forefathers wanted an American etiquette that would reflect the egalitarianism of America and not Europe, that was based on court life.

“My feelings get stirred up when I hear people arguing vehemently for aping European ways when we have a much more sophisticated and aesthetically pleasing American standard of our own. I agree with Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who wrote that Americans should have a dignified American etiquette.” Well, thanks a lot, Ms. Martin. Here we are, talking about how to get grub from the plate to our chompers, and you make me feel like a subversive. 

The final comment I leave for Ms. Baldrige, who offered this nugget of indisputable wisdom: “It is most important to eat neatly. You are a dining success if you don't get food on your clothes.” The next time we consider etiquette, we will look into the question of the proper way to share table scraps with our dog. Do you let it get up on the table, as I prefer? Or do you just toss the tidbits over your shoulder and let the lively little creature make a leaping catch, as my wife enjoys doing? No, no, I meant that the dog makes a leaping catch, not my wife. See? I just can't avoid conflict. - From a 1996 article by Mike Royko for the Chicago Tribune

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia