Showing posts with label Margaret Visser Dining History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Margaret Visser Dining History. Show all posts

Thursday, October 9, 2025

Royal Seating Arrangement Etiquette

‘Eating together is a sign of friendship and equality, and yet people have always used the positioning of the “companions” as an expression of the power of each in relationship to the others.’ — The old Latin root word for “companion” meant to break bread with another person or people.
⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️
“A 17th century French print shows the well-marked squares on the tablecloth made by the linen press.” From Patricia Easterbrook Roberts,’ “Table Settings, Entertaining and Etiquette... A History and Guide”

A 2nd Debut Article

Eating together is a sign of friendship and equality, and yet people have always used the positioning of the “companions” as an expression of the power of each in relationship to the others. Hierarchical seating arrangements make up one of the most intricate aspects of protocol, for placing guests at a table is a deeply political act. Where diners are not ranked, a political, or social and religious, statement is just as surely being made. 

A great and deliberate distinction is always created between meals that are formal and carefully structured, and those that are casual and relaxed. Intimacy can be fostered by “breaking the rules” (though one of the apparent paradoxes of social communications is that some level of formality must be maintained or relationship among dinner companions will be forfeited.) Seating arrangements are made to be rigidly adhered to, kept only in part, or rejected; in every case they are important.

Hierarchy at dinner is usually enforced when a group comes from a mixture of social backgrounds. we hear a good deal about what seems to us the outrageously discriminatory practices at medieval banquets. (One source of frustration for the scholars who research the history of medieval food is that the text of the period — and the Middle Ages are not unique in this — seldom describe the food served at a banquet in any detail; but they do make clear everything to do with precedence in the seating arrangements. This is because food was regarded as beneath literary consideration, whereas the seating was fascinating enough to be recorded.) 

Special guests and the host of the banquet sat at the raised “high table,” upon which stood a huge silver salt cellar, marking the place of the host or of an outstandingly important guest; the other people sat therefore “below the salt,” and the further away from it, the lower. The high-ups were deliberately given better food, and more of it. 

Seventeenth-and-eighteenth century aristocrats in Europe, on the other hand, increasingly ate together in small groups, and would not hear of hierarchical seating; their host decided who would be a compatible group to invite, and guests sat down near the people they preferred. Tables were often quite small and, significantly, round. What had in fact happened at these “intimate suppers” was that the people who sat “below the salt” had simply been banished from the party. 

During the course of two centuries, the lord of the manor had gradually removed himself, during dinner, from the side of his retainers, to eat with chosen companions in a room set apart from his great hall. It is easy— and so very modern— to be egalitarian once the lower orders have been placed in a totally different sphere, out of sight and out of mind, and certainly not invited to one's table. — From Margaret Visser, The Rituals of Dinner, 1992


🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Monday, February 7, 2022

Etiquette, Cancel Culture and Rudeness

This was only written in 1991, but do some of Margaret Visser’s final words from the post script in her marvelous book, “The Rituals of Dinner,” still ring true? With the current climate of “cancel culture” and the rudeness often seen in the gleeful joy of “taking someone down,” due to what is most often differences in opinion, Etiquipedia is, sadly, not so sure…
 🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹🔹
 “One of the guiding principles of modernity is mobility — the opportunity to move up the social scale, as well as to flee from any social “scene” we find uncomfortable and unaccepting... We have greatly reduced the likelihood that anyone need play a predetermined role on a ‘stage’ dominated from the start by people born to power... None of us need tolerate surveillance and adverse judgements from people who have set themselves up as arbiters of elegance. We can move away if they disapprove or try to put us down.”

How Rude Are We? 


Are we ruder than other societies are? Are we ruder than we were in the past? There is increasing concern for manners in the modern West: newspaper articles protest about the lack of them; the number of books telling people how to behave and their enormous sales attest to an anxiety on this score which rivals that experienced in the nineteenth century; and a new and expanding business is the etiquette industry, where people formally, and for a fee, teach protocol and the arts of the dinner table to ambitious business men and women. It is realized, in the commercial world at least, that bad manners might actually spoil a corporate image, hamper a deal, impede mobility; good manners might make a competitive difference. Since bad manners can be corrected, the demeanour of the staff is one of the things a careful company can try to polish and control.

The idea is to pinpoint trouble spots, moments where even we, with our insistence on informality, set up specific expectations which could trip up the unwary or the simply ignorant. We must know, for example, that at a formal meal served by waiters, serving dishes are likely to appear, silently and without warning, from the left; the serving spoon and fork must be used in a correct and unobtrusive manner to remove a portion of the food presented (do not take too long choosing your portion!); when eating is done, plates will be removed from the right. Most people are right-handed, and this rule is for their convenience. 

If plates should be presented already loaded with food, however, they are set down from the diner's right, and taken away from the left. The need to be prepared for such moments is heightened because formal meals are unusual, and important for reasons that go beyond eating for nourishment; and because etiquette involving the presence of servants is not everyday experience. We do eat out at restaurants, however, where practice in old-fashioned formality is available to us, as is the surveillance of our manners by people outside our families.

One of the guiding principles of modernity is mobility— the opportunity to move up the social scale, as well as to flee from any social “scene” we find uncomfortable and unaccepting. Physical movement facilitates social mobility; it is possible to live in an inexpensive neighbourhood, for instance, and still drive to a job in a smart area of the city. We have greatly reduced the likelihood that anyone need play a predetermined role on a “stage” dominated from the start by people born to power. Modern cities set out to offer many alternatives-a choice of “stages” upon one of which a person may hope someday to shine, and plenty of escape routes from unwanted constraints. None of us need tolerate surveillance and adverse judgements from people who have set themselves up as arbiters of elegance. We can move away if they disapprove or try to put us down. — Margaret Visser, 1991


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

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Profiles in Etiquette — Margaret Visser

“The Rituals of Dinner” is a compendium of information about the world at table, from the Sherpas who send a child to summon guests to a dinner party (thus reducing the number of rejections, since the child knows neither the exact time nor the reason for the party, and is too young to be trusted with a reluctant guest’s contrived excuse) to the London hostess of the 1920s who sent handwritten invitations, again and again, until an elusive invitee, exhausted, gave in.
— Photo, Etiquipedia’s private library


Review of “The Rituals of Dinner: The Origins, Evolution, Eccentricities and Meaning of Table Manners,” By Margaret Visser

Author Margaret Visser writes on the history, anthropology, and mythology of everyday life. Born in 1940 in South Africa, she attended school in Zambia Zimbabwe, in France at the Sorbonne and the University of Toronto Canada where she earned a PhD in Classics. She now spends her time at homes in Toronto, Paris, and South West France.
— Photo, Etiquipedia’s private library



The memory is about five years old, but vivid: A woman takes a table for one at a trendy Italian restaurant, orders a Caesar salad, and proceeds to eat it with her fingers. She picks up one long leaf of silvery green Romaine after another, always grasping the stem end, and then chews her way from the top of the leaf to her fingers.
The only thing more remarkable than her choice of utensils was the other diners’ reaction to it. All of us watched her. It was impossible not to. In a room full of people who were eating in the accepted manner, with a lot of gnashing flatware, this woman was breaking the unspoken rules. We were titillated and appalled. Who was this stranger, and how had she gotten in?
Food rules are a reassuring discipline, a way to prove who we are or to demonstrate who we’d like to be, a societal shorthand that betrays broad cultural attitudes. You are not only what you eat, but when, where, why, how and with whom. Margaret Visser may be a professor of classical literature at the University of Toronto by trade, but she is at heart a journalist, determined to answer the five W’s and an H that are the bedrock of that profession. To her credit, and to the reader’s unending, startled delight, she has succeeded.
“The Rituals of Dinner” is a compendium of information about the world at table, from the Sherpas who send a child to summon guests to a dinner party (thus reducing the number of rejections, since the child knows neither the exact time nor the reason for the party, and is too young to be trusted with a reluctant guest’s contrived excuse) to the London hostess of the 1920s who sent handwritten invitations, again and again, until an elusive invitee, exhausted, gave in.
Visser is a partisan of ritual, an admirer of structure at a time when newspaper stories herald the end of the family meal, and the at-home dinner party seems likely to become a museum diorama. She is aware that manners can be constraining, as in the story of the 15-year-old boy who humiliated his father by eating spaghetti with his hands at a business dinner, and was packed off to boarding school as a result. 
She knows etiquette can be foolish, as she shows in a wickedly insightful section called “Learning to Behave,” in which she examines how we cope with our children’s heinous crime of not being miniature adults. But she acknowledges the more important freeing aspects of ritual, of feasts that are “celebrations of relationship among the diners, and . . . expressions of order, knowledge, competence, sympathy and consensus at least about important aspects of the value system that supports the group.”
Manners have belonged to the masses of the Western World since 1530, when Erasmus published de civilitate morum puerilium (On the Civility of the Behavior of Boys), which offered instruction on everything from table manners to behavior in the bedroom; before that, manners were the province of the social elite.
We have managed, in the intervening centuries, to act as though we made up the eternal rules of this game, and one of the best things about Visser’s book is the way she deftly skewers Western pretentiousness. She need only explain the genealogy of the chopstick--called kuai-tzu (fast fellows) by Chinese boatmen, and hashi (bridge) by the Japanese, since they close the small gap between the lifted bowl and the mouth--to make the reader realize the idiocy of trying to transport rice from a flat plate, at table level, as we do.
She is as sharp as the knives that symbolize, to her, the violence that lurks just beneath the service of every meal, and requires the imposition of manners to keep one of us from slicing up the lout who refused to pass the potatoes.
The wry tone of “The Rituals of Dining” is reminiscent of the scene in the Japanese film “Tampopo” in which a group of proper young women are being taught to eat pasta properly. Their instinct is to lift the dish and slurp appreciatively, but their teacher cautions them to swirl with a fork, lift, and chew silently, a discipline that dissolves quickly because it makes no sense to them. The same foodstuff but different cultures— and Visser has seemingly endless permutations with which to enlighten the reader. A dining room chair (or a stool, or a dirt floor, or whatever the seat of choice happens to be) is a wonderful vehicle for a trip around the world, and through time.
Is there anything missing? It seems a quibbling question. Visser’s range of knowledge is so broad that it’s impossible to know what to ask for: Since I never knew it was acceptable behavior to place bitten pieces of meat back in the boiling pot for warmth at an Inuit feast, I could hardly have faulted Visser had she omitted that morsel of information. There may be a detail out there that escaped her, but I defy anyone to name it. Having been served a sumptuous meal, the sated reader would be perverse to inquire if there was anything left in the literary kitchen.
The only thing that Visser does leave to the reader’s imagination is the deep emotional component of some of the rituals she describes. Yes, a seating arrangement might have everything to do with power, but some food rituals spring from a more intimate source, from the link between food and the life we share with the people who eat at our tables. Take, for example, the use of candles. “Candles last their predestined, visible length,” writes Visser. “They represent spans of time for us: a lifetime, with the flame as life itself, fragile but still alight (they become, with this meaning, potent symbols during political demonstrations); or a significant period of time, as when candles on a birthday cake mean ‘years lived.’ ”

That brief, lyrical passage, with its imitations of mortality, of the delicate ways in which we both celebrate and deny our temporary status, was almost shocking to read, sandwiched in between so many other bits of information. Perhaps the best way to approach “The Rituals of Dinner” is as thought were a meal shared with a remarkable friend— slowly, reflectively, savoring every exchange, not just for what it says but also for what it implies. — By Karen Stabiner, 1991



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

Wednesday, September 2, 2020

Dining History, Politics and Power

An individual fish knife and fish fork... Telltale signs that your host or hostess is a parvenu!

Where besides “The Rituals of Dinner” would you learn that by setting out silver fish knives you give yourself away as a sorry parvenu? Visser reports that fish knives were introduced long after the other components of a table service had taken hold.
“Laying one’s table with them was a sign that one had bought the family silver, instead of inheriting it and the ancient ways that it was meant to serve,” she writes. True aristocrats eat fish with forks.
 — Photo, Etiquipedia’s private library



Forklore, Food Fights and the Politics of Placecards : Manners: Margaret Visser has spent years studying the way we eat— and what it says about us.





Margaret Visser estimates that humanity has been meeting for dinner for two million years. That gives the author of “The Rituals of Dinner,” a humane and learned meditation on why people eat the way they do, plenty of sociology and history to examine— lots of pots and pans and burps and toasts and food fights. Visser deconstructs them all, telling us a very great deal about ourselves in the process. 

Visser never intended to become the world’s leading authority on the folkways of the table. Fifteen years ago, having completed her doctoral studies in ancient Greek religion, she was living in Toronto, making do by writing the occasional academic article and accepting the odd teaching appointment. One day a friend mentioned that she had just done a radio talk show and that Visser really ought to try “doing” radio herself. 

Radio talk shows were not Visser’s idea of an edifying expenditure of time; she barely recognized the name of the show her friend cited: CBC’s “Morningside,” which in fact is the best-known radio show in all Canada. She looked up the number and dialed, having no idea that doing so was comparable to an unknown American calling up Ted Koppel and proposing to stop in for a chat on “Nightline.” 

“What do you want to talk about?” asked the dubious voice at the end of the line. 

“Ancient Greek mythology,” Visser replied with the utter certainty of vocation. 

The booker told her they’d be in touch and tried to hang up. But before he could cut her off, Visser got in a parting remonstration, advising him that he couldn’t possibly understand life in contemporary Toronto if he didn’t understand the ancient Greeks.
The remark was to be Visser’s great beginning, though she didn’t know it at the time.

Months after the kiss-off, “Morningside” had a last-minute cancellation. Visser’s phone rang, and there was the CBC booker on the line, now with a desperate tone in his voice. 

“Aren’t you the lady who said we couldn’t understand life in Toronto if we didn’t know about the Greeks?” he asked. 

“Yes,” Visser said. 

“Well, we want you to go on the radio and prove it,” he said.
Visser, seldom at a loss for something to say, came right over and delivered an authoritative and captivating recitation on just why it is that North Americans don’t eat insects. She happened to have well-developed views on the subject, having grown up in Zambia (when it was still called Northern Rhodesia), a part of the world where people do, in fact, eat bugs. 

The many thousands of Canadians who tune in to “Morningside” each day loved it. The CBC called her back. And back again.
The essay on insect-eating was the prototype for what would ultimately become Visser’s stock-in-trade: Learned but accessible explanations of commonplace items and practices that most North Americans take for granted. 

Visser says she sees these things, and asks questions about them, because she is something of a cultural orphan. 

“I was brought up by nuns in the jungle,” she reminds an interviewer. “I’ve got the classics, and I’ve got Africa and I’ve got the Victorians--it’s all part of my life.” 

In any case, Visser was soon making regular performances, and “Morningside” listeners were writing in to ask where they could buy her book. Visser hadn’t written a book, but she decided it was high time she did. 

She settled on food, she says, because “everybody’s interested in food.” Her first book, “Much Depends on Dinner: The Extraordinary History and Mythology, Allure and Obsessions, Perils and Taboos, of an Ordinary Meal,” published in 1986, is an exhaustive social and economic history of eating, organized around the courses of a simple North American dinner. 

“A wonderfully learned, intelligent book about food; in every few lines one learns something one did not know before, about something important,” Robertson Davies, probably Canada’s greatest living man of letters, offered in a review. 

Inviting Visser to dinner is a daunting prospect. In person, she is . . . imposing. Tall and vital, with a strong head of auburn hair, she is the daughter of an English father and Irish mother who raised her (in Visser’s estimation) in a high Edwardian manner. 

And then there is the book. “The Rituals of Dinner” is, for all its good-naturedness, a scary work, devoted as it is to the mystery and menace of entertaining, the politics that underlie each decision confronting a host, the risks borne in each seemingly innocent gesture of hospitality. 

Faced with all this, I went ahead and asked Visser to dinner . . . and found myself worrying. 

Consider, for example, the seating plan. “Placing guests at table is a deeply political act,” insists Visser. Even “where diners are not ranked, a political, or social and religious, statement is just as surely being made.” 

Visser’s sub-chapter on seating plans opens with an account of a Han dynasty dinner where the party-givers planned to assassinate one Liu Pang at table, but relented when Liu graciously took what was considered the worst seat in the house and foiled the schemes of his would-be assailants. 

What prospective hostess would not be unnerved reading this?
Setting the table for Visser is equally unsettling. Where besides “The Rituals of Dinner” would you learn that by setting out silver fish knives you give yourself away as a sorry parvenu? Visser reports that fish knives were introduced long after the other components of a table service had taken hold. 

“Laying one’s table with them was a sign that one had bought the family silver, instead of inheriting it and the ancient ways that it was meant to serve,” she writes. True aristocrats eat fish with forks.
Then there’s the matter of the tablecloth. Visser reports that the best came from Damascus--hence “damask"--and were of “pure white twilled linen with only a discreet woven white pattern.”
” '(The correct tablecloth) must be washed and pressed every time it is used, and a single stain ruins it,’ ” my husband read aloud from Visser’s lengthy passage on linen. “See? That’s Visser talking. I think she means it.” 

And what about a centerpiece? Visser writes, I would say approvingly, of the Roman emperor Nero, who fitted out his ceiling with ivory panels that could swing open and shower his guests with flower petals. The ancient Egyptians preferred to wear their own decorations, “large cones of scented fat fixed to the tops of their heads; these were designed to melt during the feast, and drizzle deliciously down over the diners’ faces and bodies.” 

Visser also seems to have a daunting appreciation of manners, good and bad. “The ruin of states, the destruction of families, and the perishing of individuals are always preceded by their abandonment of the rules of propriety,” she warns, quoting from Li Chi, the 1st-Century Chinese “Book of Rites.” 

With all this, the mere making up of a menu seemed easy--wild mushroom soup, beef tenderloin, salad, fruit ices and plenty of wine. The seating arrangements I left to my husband (Visser notes that this chore is traditionally left to the woman of the house, who is supposed to arrange and rearrange her guests’ calling cards around a plan of her table, “very much as though playing solitaire”). 

“People have always longed to fling food at each other, and to smash the crockery,” Visser writes. Even Louis XIV (“he who ruled over the etiquette of Versailles”) turns out to have thought it fun to flick soup at his brother’s wig. The Greeks had a sport called kottabos, which involved flinging wine-dregs at a bronze target. And in the 17th Century, European nobles, at a banquet’s end, would step aside and let hoi polloi move in to smash what was left of their gaudy table arrangements. 

There was somewhat less excitement at our dinner, although when I saw my guests falling upon an hors d’oeuvre of fresh shrimp, I realized I was guilty of what Visser calls “The Great American Rudeness”: I had forgotten to put out a receptacle for the tails.
So: Nine well-dressed adults are sitting with the shrimp tails concealed in their hands, trying to look as though they were paying attention to the conversation when in fact they were thinking only how they might rid themselves of their debris. Beneath the sofa? But the smell might give them away. What to do, what to do? 

Visser to the rescue. “The host gives,” she said, waving her shrimp tail unashamedly, “and the guest receives. That’s hospitality. The Chinese took this to such an extreme that if your host offered you a prune, you didn’t throw away the pip; you put it down your bosom and took it home, as a sign of his largess.” 

As I excused myself and headed down the hall to get a dish for the shrimp tails, I could hear Visser regaling the guests with a note about the insouciant Byron, whose mistress, she said, would swan along the canals of Venice in a gondola with polenta in her bosom to keep warm. 

When the meat was ready, my husband urged the guests on to the dining room. Visser, of course, has devoted no fewer than 27 pages to the ritual (none dare call it ordeal) of a group entrance into a dining room, a maneuver pregnant with meaning, politics and near-operatic complexity. 

‘ “After you” is manners,’ a 16th-Century English proverb has it,” she states. “Begging someone to precede oneself indicates attention being paid and a desire to respect others. . . .” 

“Chinese and Japanese etiquette is perhaps the most full-blown example. Dinner in China begins, B. Y. Chao tells us, with a fight over yielding precedence on entering the dining room: ‘Among familiar friends, it may come to actual pushing, though never to blows.’ ” 

At our house everyone went through the dining room door with touching displays of self-abnegation that resulted, briefly, in a sort of gridlock. My husband held his seating chart aloft and sent the guests to their places— until I realized as he directed me to the farthest chair from the kitchen that he was holding his floor plan upside-down. 

Everyone got up and changed chairs, “Chinese-fire-drill-style.”
As we ate, Visser explained that she keeps a running list of topics she feels qualified to lecture on. One item was the Roman cult of the “vestal virgins,” the four maidens of antiquity consecrated to tending an eternal flame in the temple erected to Vesta, the Roman goddess of the hearth. For reasons known only to them, the Inuit (Eskimos) of Iqaluit invited Visser to their village on remote Baffin Island— closer to Greenland than to anywhere in Canada except the northern tip of Quebec— to talk about vestal virgins. 

Whatever Visser told the Inuit was evidently a big hit, because at the end of her talk, a shaman came up to say that he wanted the Vissers to come home with him so he could perform a dance for them. The Vissers knew it would be a great affront— and spiritually risky— to turn down a shaman’s invitation. So they canceled all plans for the evening and arrived chez shaman at the agreed-upon hour. 

The shaman’s house turned out to be nothing more provocative than a prefab box, much like a suburban tract house, with broadloom carpeting. The Vissers sat on the rug and waited. The shaman emerged from a side room, dressed in a business suit and a pair of Dr. Scholl’s sandals. He brought with him a zippered plastic case, like something you might put around a tennis racquet, only larger. From it, he took a drum. 

“He asked us whom we would like him to conjure,” Visser recollected. “We said, ‘Why don’t you conjure our grandmothers?’
“And then he started beating on his drum, and bounding around the room, yelling, ‘Hooo! Hooo! Hooo!’ ” 

So vigorously did Visser imitate the shaman’s cries that the steel strings of my guitar, propped in the corner, began to vibrate of their own accord. “And all our grandmothers were now there,” she said.
“My strict Presbyterian grandmother didn’t appreciate being conjured on Baffin Island,” huffed Colin Visser, in accents at least as Rhodesian as Visser’s. I laughed somewhat warily, mindful of a Visser passage on the parallels between dinners, wars and murders:
“Table manners commonly forbid what we call belly-laughs, partly because uproarious mirth is expressed by the baring of teeth. Erasmus (of Rotterdam) advises that ‘if something so funny should occur that it produces uncontrolled laughter . . . the face should be covered with the napkin or with the hand.’ ” 

At the end of Egyptian meals, Visser reminded us, a servant would bear in a skeleton and present it to the master’s guests, to remind them that they were all mortal. 

Not me. Our party finished with fruit ices and cookies; coffee and brandy waited on the sideboard. And Visser talked about her next book. 

“It will be on Fate,” she said. “The Greek word for fate is moira , which also translates as slice— what you are meted out in life. . . .” 

—
By Mary Williams Walsh, Times Staff, 1992



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

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Etiquette, Emily Post and BBQ


On Martha's Vineyard, Emily Post was accused of “losing it” when she served members of the Garden Club barbequed meats, rather than the anticipated tea sandwiches. When town members gossiped about her social gaffe, she responded that grilled meats seemed more festive for the occasion than “old-fashioned ladies food.”

Make sure your barbecued meats are festive, especially if you are serving it with tea. After all, who really wants “old-fashioned ladies food” at a garden tea party?


Since the time when men were hunters and gatherers, the meat of their hunts was cooked or roasted over an open fire for family members and others of their tribes to enjoy, so barbecues are nothing new. 

According to Margaret Visser, “The word ‘barbeque’ is derived from the word ‘barbacoa,’ a word used by the Taino Indians in the Caribbean to describe an elevated wooden rack on which they slow-smoked fish, lizards, alligator, and other game.”

A Sampling of Taino Etiquette 

Etiquette, respeto and educación are important components of Taino Indian social structure and interaction. People believe that directness is rude and use a variety of euphemisms and dodges to avoid it, making indirection an important strategy. 

Friends customarily greet by kissing each other, and engaging in animated conversation is viewed as a social asset. Close friends are allowed a certain directness, but try to maintain the boundaries of respect, preferring people who are publicly expressive, but not excessively so. Social drinking is acceptable, but drunkenness is not.


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