Japan's Etiquette and Customs— A Victorian View

A wealthy Japanese man and his servant.

The following describes the contents of a letter from 1859 in New York, detailing to someone, the "peculiar" etiquette and customs of the Japanese people.

"In some respects they appear to be more virtuous than people boasting of a higher civilization. Malversation by a functionary, embezzlement of public funds, extortion, bribery of officials, coining of false money, murder, and robbery, are punished with death, and not only of the guilty person, but of his father, children, and even all of his male relatives, who are executed at the same moment, however distant they may be from one another. This system, which is repugnant to European notions, and to sound principles of justice, appears to be adopted by the Japanese from the belief that crime is owing to bad education.

The modes of punishment adopted in Japan are of different sorts, but all are horrible. The principle is crucifixion, and is reserved for traitors, murderers and incendiaries. The culprit is fastened on the cross head downwards, and is left to die, unless he obtains the favor of being dispatched by stabs from a poignard. For parricide and adultery, culprits are plunged into boiling oil. Petty robberies, insults, calumny, fraud, even at play, and false testimony before magistrates, are punished by hanging or beheading. If the offenders be a gentleman or soldiers, their bowels are opened -- they have even the privilege of performing the operation on themselves. Pecuniary fines are almost unknown. The corporal punishment of the whip and the bastinado are reserved for slaves and servants, and are inflicted by their masters, not by public executioners. The Japanese consider corporal punishment so degrading that mothers never strike their offspring.

Depiction of a young Japanese woman, being dressed by her servants.

The climate is enervating, yet children are brought up hardily. They are made to bear hunger, thirst, cold, pain, excess of labor, and the rigor of the seasons. Horror of falsehood and fraud, and love of modesty, justice, and virtue are diligently inculcated. One of the results of the system of education is to inspire the Japanese with a passion for books which causes surprise in European visitors.

The bookselling trade in Japan is subjected to no restriction, and they're everywhere, even in towns of small population, numerous bookshops. Great parts of literature of the Japanese is Chinese; and their knowledge of arts and agriculture is derived from the same people. The language commonly employed is every year becoming more Chinese in character. And yet the Japanese despise the Chinese; they do so because from their early age they have been taught that the Chinese are not soldiers; that in ancient times a Japanese army defeated an immense Chinese army in the Corea; and that Coxinga himself, who is the scourge of the sea and the terror of the Chinese Empire, it was a Japanese -- as were also the greater part of his companions."

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

Etiquette and Europe’s Dining History

At the head table, the most important people sat in the middle, at center stage as it were, and the lesser people toward either end.

In Western Europe in the late Middle Ages, at great formal banquets, both the diners and the dinner were the show. The host and his special guests would sit along one side of the table set at the head of the great hall of the castle. This allowed the other diners to view the actions of the great and powerful. At the head table, the most important people sat in the middle, at center stage as it were, and the lesser people toward either end. At some point down the table were placed great salt holders, or salt cellars. This evolved into a natural delineation of status among the diners at the head table. One was either above the salt, that is, close to the important people, or below the salt, with the "hoi polloi."

The French made Burghley Nef salt cellar, circa 1527-1528. It is nautilus shell with parcel-gilt silver mounts, raised, chased, engraved and cast, and pearls, and is on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum. The proximity to which the nef as a salt cellar was placed next to a guest was indicative of their status. Some nefs held not only salt, but expensive spices and even napkins. Nefs were a tour de force for silversmiths and consequently, highly desirable objects for royal and noble households.

In accounts of medieval dinners a great deal of attention is paid to who sat where. The host sat in the middle of the "high table," so called because it was often placed on a platform. The table was set up on the stage so that the others could watch what their "betters" were doing and how they behaved. This custom is still followed today in some of the old college dining rooms at Cambridge University, England, and at public banquets.

During the Middle Ages, the set-up of the tables, and table manners themselves, were very important. Diners were seated according to their social class at tables of varying heights. Reserved for members of the clergy or, if no clergy were in attendance, the highest in the social class such as the king and queen, were the highest tables. Steel knives, silver spoons, dishes for salt, silver cups, and "mazers." Mazers were shallow, oftentimes silver-rimmed, wooden bowls that soups were drunk from.            

The tables for the other diners were often placed at right angles to the main table. These diners were so far off the social scale, they did not merit being ranked as above or below the salt. Women were even further off the social scale. At first, the wives of the nobles when not even allowed at great banquets and were relegated to a spectators' gallery. Later, they were allowed to sit at the table in a group well below the salt. 

Entertainments were given between the "mets," a medieval term for main course of the dinner. The entertainment might be short plays, songs by troubadours, animal acts, dancing, jesters, or juggling. Many dinners were for political show, and on really special occasions, pageants were performed.  Several of these were so noteworthy that they are mentioned in some history books. One such dinner was the Banquet of the Vow of the Pheasant, given by the Duke of Burgundy in 1453. 

Footman brought out a pheasant for each knight in attendance and placed before him. Each knight vowed by the pheasant and before God to abstain from whatever action his imagination conjured up-- to sleep in a bed, to change his clothes, and so on-- until Constantinople had been reconquered from the Ottoman Turks, who had captured it that year.

An anonymous painting of the Banquet du Voeu du Faisan, (aka "Banquet of the Oath of the Pheasant) was a banquet given by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy on February 17, 1454 in Lille, now in France. Its purpose was to promote a crusade against the Turks, who had taken Constantinople the year before, though the crusade never took place. The knights had come to their senses in the days following the meal and did not try to take back Constantinople.

The vow created a sensation as Constantinople had been thought to be impregnable, and all Christians were humiliated and terrified of the idea of the city in Muslim hands.

Unfortunately for Christendom, the knights came to their senses in the days following the meal and did not try to take back Constantinople.

Guests were given light tidbits to eat while watching the shows. In time, such dishes came to be called “entremets,” literally meaning “between the Mets.” The dinner itself was full of pageantry to entertain and impress those in attendance. The food was brought in in a procession, often with flute players leading the way. The less important foods, called “entrees” came in and were laid out first, building up to the presentation of the piece de resistance, which might be a full roasted ox or a roasted pheasant with its skin and feathers still attached.

A pheasant in flight, as opposed to on one's table.

In time, kings and other nobility found it rather wearisome to be on display. They just wanted to eat with other important people, their friends and allies, in privacy. These intimate meals moved from the great hall to the lord's private living areas. The table changed from a long, relatively narrow strip of wood with seating on only one side, to a square or oblong table where people could sit on all sides. Status was still gained, however, by sitting close to the lord or other notables, and the women were grouped either at another table or the end of the table away from the host.

The wider tables allowed more food to be put on the table itself. This in turn permitted far greater displays of food. The table would almost crack under the weight of joints of meat, fish, fouls, and side dishes. With diners on all sides of the table, however, it was not possible to bring each dish in after people sat down. The table had to be largely set before the diners arrived, which meant that the food would get cold while the diners filed in to take their places. Essentially, the nobles gained the ability to talk and dine intimately with their companions at the expense of hot meals. This was not as great a loss as it might appear to us today.

17th century Dutch, steel-bladed knife and steel-tined fork, with carved ivory handles.

Up until the 19th century, the cooking area was always set well away from the main part of the house lest a cooking fire get out of control and burn everything down. Thus the food lost a good bit of heat while being carried to the dining room.

Over time, what it started out a small private meals grew into pageants in their own right. This came about in the 17th century, when absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. 

In keeping with the ethos of the era, every aspect of the king's life was made a display. Vast an elaborate meals were one way to assert power, wealth, and status, and they once again moved back into public view. But, this time, women fully participated as the bold innovation of alternating men and women at the dinner table took hold. This practice arrived in England from Holland in the 1600s and was known as the Dutch style of seating. The practice of alternating men and women at the dinner table, arrived in England from Holland in the 1600s and was known as the “Dutch” style of seating.

The last ingredient in the evolution of formal Victorian dining came about the early 1800's, as the combined weight of England and Russia was defeating the military genius of Napoleon. Ironically, even as the French were losing on the battlefield, they were about to emerge victorious on the culinary front. They developed a highly sophisticated culinary style, drawing in large part upon what they learned from the Italians.

Catherine de Medici of Florence, the great granddaughter of Lorenzo the Magnificent, married the future King of France, Henry II in 1533.

Italian cooks and courtiers came to France in 1533 when fourteen year old Catherine de Medici of Florence, great granddaughter of Lorenzo the Magnificent, married the future King of France, Henry II. Their arrival helped transform French cooking and manners. New tastes and flavors were introduced, along with new dishes, such as sweetbreads, truffles, and artichoke hearts. Prior to this, the Italians had looked down on the French. It has been said that before Catherine's arrival, “all the French had was raw military power. Afterward, they were on their way to haute cuisine.”

Numerous sources were used for this post, including Site Editor, Maur J. Graber, Demita Usher, the books “The Rituals of Dinner,” “Forgotten Elegance,” and Lillian Eichler’s books on etiquette.

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

Etiquette for a Variety of Foods

Corn on the Cob

An 1833 patent design for a corn scraper, or corn stripper, for corn on the cob

This is only for informal eating and, unless one's teeth will not permit, is best eaten on the cob, with the fingers of each hand firmly in control on each end. A long ear may be broken in half, but only a row or so at a time is buttered and seasoned, never the whole ear at once. Salt already mixed with butter, pepper, and perhaps paprika and shaped in little pats or balls may be provided by the considerate hostess, but a mixture of salt, butter, and pepper may be made, unnoticeably, on the side of one's plate, then smeared a little at a time on the corn as you are eating it. If the corn is to be cut off the cob, the cob is held on one end with the left hand and the kernels cut off a few rows at a time with the dinner knife (which had better be sharp for the purpose). The kernels are then seasoned and eaten a forkful at a time, as one eats peas. There are small silver spears for holding corn, but if they are provided you are quite free to ignore them for the more trustworthy fingers-directly-on-corn technique.

Fish
    

Small sardines were popular as tinned items in the Victorian Era. Many silver items were made for serving them.

Small fish, fried, are usually served whole (though cleaned) with head and tail (smelt, sunfish, butterfish, etc.). The head is cut off first, then the fish is held in place with the fork and slit with the tip of the knife from head to tail and laid flat. The tip of the knife is then inserted under an end of the backbone, which with the help of the fork in a serving motion is gently lifted out, bringing with it many of the tiny bones in the fish. This skeletal material is laid on the side of the plate or possibly on the butter plate. The balance of the fish is then cut with the fork, or with the knife, if need be, for manageable portions. Any tiny bones still in the fish when it gets into the mouth, after being thoroughly cleaned in the mouth, are taken in thumb and forefinger, and are laid on the edge of the plate or on the butter plate if there is one. There is no objection to anyone hardy enough eating the head, and very tiny fish, such as whitebait (too small to clean), are eaten head and all in one bite. Never one for enjoying the sight of a fish-eye on my plate or in my chowder, I prefer to have even boiled fish (cod, haddock, salmon) come to the table with the head removed, but it is quite proper to serve it whole, with a lemon filling the gaping maw.

Pickles and Radishes
 

An antique relish fork makes a perfect server for pickled cucumber slices.

Whole pickles are taken with the fingers, as are radishes. These are never conveyed from the serving plate directly to the mouth (nor is anything else where a serving plate is provided) but are laid on the side of the dinner or lunch plate or butter plate. (And see "Salt.")
 

Potatoes

Potato Serving Forks

Baked-

These should be rubbed with fat before baking and be presented immediately on coming from the oven, a cross having been cut neatly on the top to allow the escape of steam and to permit the pre-service insertion of a lump of butter, plus a sprinkling of salt and paprika. Then it is simple to hold the potato with the left hand while one explores its innards with the fork. But if a baked potato is presented whole it is taken from the dish with serving fork and spoon, then broken apart with the fingers for buttering and seasoning. It is then eaten with a fork, and if one wishes the skin may be cut up with a knife and eaten (never cutting it up in pieces all at once, any more than one would meat). If the skin is unwanted, the mealy part of the potato is eaten right from the skin with each portion seasoned just before entering the mouth. Except for a child, do not scoop out all the potato, set the skin aside and mash the contents all at once with butter and seasoning.
 

Chips- 

Originally called “Saratoga Chips,” potato chips had a special scoop or server, designed especially to serve them.

Are eaten with the fingers.

French Fried-
  

British fish and chip shoppe wooden “chip forks” for fries, with one done in silver.

Eaten with the fork after being halved with the fork, if necessary. It's poor manners to hold a piece of food with the fork and nibble off a manageable mouthful.

Shoe String- 

If really dry and impossible to eat with fork, may be eaten with the fingers.

Salad    

Victorian lettuce serving forks

A quarter of iceberg lettuce may be eaten with knife and fork, though gourmets and nutritionists both frown on the cutting of lettuce in salad preparation. Lettuce for mixed salad should be broken in bits and mixed at the last minute to preserve the vitamin content.
 

Salt- 

Early Victorian salt cellar, long salt spoon and pepper shaker

 If there is only one saltcellar on the table (as there is when a condiment set is used or when there is a master salt), the salt is always sent down the table to the honored guest, if there is one, or to the hostess before making the rounds of the family. If salt is needed for dipping radishes or celery or for corn on the cob it is placed on the edge of the plate, never on the table cloth. If open salts are used and no salt spoon provided, use a clean knife to take salt from a common container. If individual open salts are at each place, salt may be taken between thumb and forefinger.

All photos courtesy of Maura Graber of the RSVP Institute of Etiquette and much of the text is from “Amy Vanderbilt's Complete Book of Etiquette”

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

Etiquette for Lobster and Shellfish

How to Eat a Lobster Boiled or Broiled-

Andy (Andrew) Warhol's artwork added to “Amy Vanderbilt's Complete Book of Etiquette,” as well as her wonderful cookbook

1. Holding the body of the lobster on the plate with the left hand, twist off the claws with the right. Lay on side of plate.

2. Holding the lobster steady on plate, if necessary, lift up tail meat with fork. Cut into manageable segments with knife, dip in melted butter or mayonnaise.
3. Break off small claws and gently suck out meat from severed end.

4. Crack big claws, extract meat with seafood fork or nutpick, dip in melted butter or mayonnaise.

5. With seafood fork, pick out the good meat in the body, including the tamale, the green liver (and in females, the scarlet roe). Real lobster lovers unhinge the back and open the body of the lobster to extract the remaining sweet morsels.

A collection of seafood forks and cocktail forks, along with one splayed-tine lemon fork. 

Seafood 

Steamed Clams -
The steaming process is supposed to open the shell completely but sometimes doesn't. If a shell is not fully open, take it up and bend it back with the fingers. If this doesn't work, forget that one. Do not use a dinner knife or fork as an opener. With shell fully open, take the shell in left hand just over the dish and with the right hand lift out the clam by the neck. Holding the neck with the right hand, pull the body of the clam from it and discard the neck sheath. Holding the clam by the neck with the right hand, place the whole clam first in melted butter or broth, or both alternately, then in the mouth in one bite.

As empty shells collect, remove to butter plate or shell plates provided (and as clam-eating of this kind is always informal, it is an excellent idea for the hostess to provide platters or bowls for empty shells as well as finger bowls with hot soapy water afterward). Do not spoon up remaining liquid in soup plate- it may be sandy, but drink the broth separately provided in a bouillon cup or small bowl (but not if it is in a little dish). If clams are fried, eat with fork after breaking into two pieces if necessary. As these are greasy they should not be taken in the fingers, even by the neck.

Lobster and Hard-Shelled Crabs (Broiled or Boiled)-

Lobster picks, seafood forks and rare, silver, Victorian lobster tongs. 

The claws of both of these require dexterous handling. They should be cracked in the kitchen but further cracking at table (with a nutcracker) may be needed. Then the shells are pulled apart by the fingers and the tender meat extracted carefully so, if possible, it comes out whole. A nut pick is useful for this, but an oyster fork may do it, too. The claw meat, if small and in one piece, is dipped in melted butter or, with cold crab or lobster, in mayonnaise, then put all at once into the mouth. Larger pieces are first cut with a fork. The green material in the stomach cavity, called the "tamale," along with the "coral" or roe in the female, are delicacies and should be eaten with the fork. The small claws are pulled from the body with the fingers, then the body-ends placed between the teeth so the meat may be extracted by chewing (but without a sucking noise). The major portion of meat is found in the stomach cavity and the tail and is first speared, one side at a time, with the fork, then with the help of the knife, if necessary, lifted out and cut as needed into mouthfuls, then dipped in sauce or mayonnaise with the fork.

Mussels-

An odd fact ~ Watch what you serve if you are hosting any of the British monarchy. British Royals are never served shellfish in order to avoid poisoning. 

Served pickled or smoked on toothpicks as cocktail titbits and are thus taken via toothpick directly to the mouth. Served in shells and all in a variety of soup styles, too Moules Marinieres (Mussels mariner style) in a soup dish with a delicate thin soup like sauce redolent with garlic. The mussels may be picked out with a small oyster fork provided, but it is easier and just as correct to use the shells containing the mussels as small scoops. Pick up with the right hand and, placing the tip of the shell in the mouth gently (and silently), suck out mussel and sauce, then discard shell onto butter plate or platter provided. When shells have been cleared from dish, eat balance of sauce with spoon and bits of French bread used to sop up sauce, then conveyed to mouth with fork. The Italian variety of this dish has tomato, and is eaten the same way, often as a main dish with salad. A finger bowl is essential.

Oysters and Clams (Half Shell)-

Antique oyster or seafood fork 

Hold the shell steady with left hand and, using oyster fork, lift oyster or clam whole from shell, detaching, where necessary, with fork. Dip in cocktail sauce in container on plate, if desired. Eat in one mouthful. Oyster crackers may be dropped whole in sauce, extracted with oyster fork and eaten.

E.B. Mallory and Company's oyster advertisement, circa 1880's. Eliada Blakesley Mallory canning company in Gladesville and Baltimore, Maryland produced "Arrow Brand" oysters, thus the arrows being used as oyster forks in the advertisement. 

Shrimps, Scallops, Oysters (Fried)-

Diamond brand oyster advertisement. 

Eaten like fried clams, except that oriental fried shrimp (French fried with the tails on) are to be taken up by the tail and dipped in sauce, then bitten off to the tail, which is then discarded. Unshelled shrimp are lifted in the fingers, shelled, and conveyed whole to the mouth.

From the original "Amy Vanderbilt's Complete Book of Etiquette"

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

Etiquette Between Nations

the Age Old Perplexing Matter

A 19th century French political cartoon, depicting a helpless China being divided among Britain, Germany, Russia, France and Japan.

In England, in these days of leveling down, it is really inspiriting to those who reverence old times to find that there are, excluding the two sister Kingdoms, eighty-nine sorts of men above the level of a burgess. As to etiquette between nations, that has long been a perplexing matter. 

In I504, Pope Julius II composed and promulgated a complete list of seniority for the use of ambassadors in his own chapel, recommending Europe to adopt it everywhere. It commences with the Pope, and ends with the nephews of the Pope and the Legates of Bologna and Ferrara. It includes twenty-six Potentates and Powers. England is placed eighth on the list. But the question was by no means settled even then. Monsieur, brother of Louis XIV, would not allow his second wife, the Princess Palatine, ever to see her family otherwise than incognito. "Ah," said he, "how can I, a Prince of the blood, pay honour to an elector, because he happens to be the uncle of my wife? As for giving a chair to an elector, I really can't." 

For a long time the republics strove in vain to be accorded what were called Royal Honours. It was one of the fine things Cromwell did, that he insisted on the maintenance towards his Republic of the forms of ceremonial which had been observed towards the monarchy which he had suppressed. The rivalries between Ambassadors to obtain superiority over one another were immense. In 1661 the Spanish envoy gained priority of place by attacking the carriage of the French Ambassador in the streets of London, hamstringing his horses, and killing his men. 

The first Napoleon was very tenacious, as it became him to be, in these matters. A curious proof of this occurred in 1805, when all the copies of the Almanach de Gotha, which had just been printed for the year, were seized and sent to Paris, because, by the old habit always adopted in the volume of arranging reigning houses alphabetically, the list began, not with Napoleon, but with the Anhalt duchies; and, animated by the same spirit, England has always maintained what may be called naval ceremonial, as a proof to other Powers of the Jurisdiction over the High Seas which she once pretended to possess. In the time of James I, England insisted that her maritime supremacy should be acknowledged by the instant disappearance of the flags and sails of all other ships, English vessels showing their own opinion of their own importance by offering no kind of greeting in return. 

In our day, the law, as interpreted by Dr. Fhillimore, is that "maritime ceremonials can be claimed as recognitions of sovereignty, when the sea is subject to the sovereign who claims them." This sovereignty, according to a usage which has acquired the force of law, extends to a maritime league three miles from low water-mark, and within that distance it is laid down that salutes are not optional but necessary. The limit of three miles was originally chosen because it was supposed to represent the range that a cannon ball could cover.

     

“Emperor Sultan Mahmud, son of the Sultan Moustapha, always victorious...”

Forms and formularies are even more puzzling than questions of ceremonial. The French diplomatic manual alone contains four hundred and sixteen separate types and models. Few of us know the exact signification and minute differences of bulls, brief and protocol, of capitulations and concessions, of exequations and concordats, of prescripts and pragmatic sanctions, of golden bulls and placitum regiums, of verbal notes and memoires and revet sails, of Firmans (a royal mandate or decree issued by a sovereign in certain historical Islamic states) and Hatti-Sherifs (an irrevocable Turkish decree countersigned by the Sultan). It is more instructive to learn that a congress has the power of deciding and concluding, while a conference can only discuss and prepare. 

As a choice specimen of florid formulary we quote The Frenell Treaty in IJ.Kt Willi Turkey. The document is headed by a star, and then begins:—

“The Emperor Sultan Mahmud, son of the Sultan Moustapha, always victorious. "This is what is ordered by this glorious and imperial sign, conqueror of the world, this noble and sublime mark, the efficacity of which proceeds from the divine assistance. 

“I, who by the excellence of the infinite favours of the Most High, and by the eminence of the miracles filled with benediction of the chief of the prophets (to whom be the most ample salutations), am the Sultan of the glorious Sultans; the Emperor of the powerful Emperors; the distributor of crowns to the Chosroes who are seated upon thrones; the shade of God upon earth; the servitor of the two illustrious and noble towns of Mecca and Medina, august and sacred places, where all Mussulmans offer up their prayers; the protector and master of Holy Jerusalem; the sovereign of the three great towns of Constantinople, Adrianople, and Brusa, as also of Damascus, the odour of Paradise; of Tripoli in Syria; of Egypt, the rarity of the century, renowned for its delights; of all Arabia; of Africa; of Barca, . . . and eight other cities; particularly of Bagdad, capital of the Caliphs; of Erzeroum the delicious," . . . and eleven other places; "of the isles of Morea, Candia, Cyprus, Chio, and Rhodes; of Barbary and Ethiopia; of the war fortresses ofAlgiers, Tripoli, and Tunis; of the isles and shores of the White and the Black Sea; of the country of Natolia and the kingdoms of Roumelia; of all Kurdistan and Greece; of Turcomania, Tartary, Circassia, Cabarta, and Georgia; of the noble tribes of Tartars, and of all the hordes which depend thereon; of Caffa and other surrounding districts; of all Bosnia and its dependencies; of the fortress of Belgrade, place of war; of Servia, and also of the fortresses or castles which are there; of the countries of Albania; of all Walachia and Moldavia, and of the forts and battlements which are in those provinces; possessor, finally, of a vast number of towns and fortresses, the names of which it is unnecessary to enumerate and boast of here; I, who am the Emperor, the asylum of justice, and the king, of kings, the centre of victory, the Sultan son of Sultans, the Emperor Mahmoud, son of Sultan Moustapha, son of Sultan Muhammed; I, who, by my power, origin of felicity, am ornamented with the title of Emperor of the two Earths, and, to fill up the glory of my Caliphat, am made illustrious by the title of Emperor of the two Seas.” 

There ends the description of the Turkish monarch: the document then turns westward, and begins to designate the King of France, who is catalogued as follows: "The glory of the great princes of the faith of Jesus; the highest of the great and the magnificent of the religion of the Messiah; the arbitrator and the mediator of the affairs of Christian nations; clothed with the true marks of honour and of dignity; full of grandeur, of glory, and of majesty; the Emperor of France and of the other vast kingdoms which belong thereto; our most magnificent, most honoured, sincere, and ancient friend, Louis XV, to whom may God accord all success and happiness, having sent to our august Court, which is the seat of the Caliphat"—(here we revert to Turkey)—“a letter containing evidences of the most perfect sincerity, and of the most particular affection, candour, and straightforwardness; and the said letter being destined to our Sublime Porte offelicity, which, by the infinite goodness of the incontestably majestic Supreme Being, is the asylum of the most magnificent Sultans, and of the most respectable Emperors; the model of Christian Seigneurs, able, prudent, esteemed, and honoured minister, Louis, Marquis de Villeneuve, his Councillor of State and his Ambassador to our Porte of felicity (may the end thereof be filled up with joy), has demanded the permission to present and hand in the aforesaid letter, which has been granted to him by our imperial consent, conformably to the ancient usage of our Court; and consequently, the said ambassador having been admitted before our imperial throne, surrounded with light and glory, he has given in the aforesaid letter, and has been witness of our Majesty in participating in our power ind imperial grace; and then the translation of its loving meaning has been presented, according to the ancient custom of the Ottomans, atthe foot of our sublime throne, by the channel of the most honourable El Hadji Mehemmed Pacha, our first Minister; the absolute interpreter of our ordinances; the ornament of the world; the preserver of good order amongst peoples; the ordainer of the grades of our empire; the instrument of the glory of our crown; the road of the grace of royal majesty; the very virtuous Grand Vizier; very venerable and fortunate minister, lieutenant-general, whose power and prosperity may God cause to triumph and to endure.”

Then begins the treaty, which goes on through eightyfive articles, and finishes with these words: “On the part of our imperial Majesty I engage myself, under our most sacred and most inviolable august oath, both lor our sacred imperial person and for our august successors, as well as for our imperial viziers, our honoured pachas, and, generally, all our illustrious servitors who have the honour and the felicity to be in our slavery, that nothing shall ever be permitted contrary to the present articles.” 

Not quite so gorgeous, but very flowery, nevertheless, is the verbiage of The Persian Formula of Treaty. The heading of the treaty of 1814 between England and the Shah is: “Praise be to God, the all-perfect and all-sufficient. These happy leaves are a nosegay plucked from the thornless garden of concord, and tied by the hands of the plenipotentiaries of the two great States in the form of a definitive treaty, in which the articles of friendship and amity are blended.” In another place a firman is spoken of as being “equal to a decree of fate,” which is a somewhat strong simile. 

The Persian style does not grow modern, it keeps up its local colour; for even as late as the year 1855, in the treaty then made with France, we find the following designations: “In the name of the clement and merciful God. His High Majesty, the Emperor Napoleon, whose elevation is like that of the planet Saturn; to whom the sun serves as a standard; the luminous star of the firmament of crowned heads; the sun of the heaven of royalty; the ornament of the diadem; the splendour of standards, im. perial ensigns; the illustrious and liberal monarch ;—and his majesty elevated like the planet Saturn; the sovereign to whom the sun serves as a standard; whose splendour and mag. nificence are like those of the heavens; the sublime sovereign; the monarch whose armies are as numerous as the stars; whose greatness recalls that of Djemschid; whose magnificence equals that of Darius, heir of the crown and throne of the Keyanians, the sublime and absolute Emperor of all Persia.” It will be observed that whereas the compliments paid to himself by the Sultan are mainly moral and territorial, the forms of self-adoration adopted by the Shah are astronomical and historical. It would be curious to follow up this difference to its roots, and to seek out the peculiarities of national character which lead a Turk to talk of his dominions and his virtues, and a Persian to quote his ancestors and the solar system.

Titles are of a very remote antiquity in the case of royal persons. Luckily for archaeologists, it was because Darius persisted in calling himself King of Kings that we had a key to the cuneiform writing, of which Grotefence availed himself when he unlocked to mankind the treasures contained in the arrowheaded records of Egypt and the East. There is some interesting matter in the history, as here given, of modern Decoration.

Den Kongelige Norske St. Olavs Orden ~ (Sanct Olafs Orden is the old Norwegian name) is a Norwegian order of chivalry instituted by King Oscar I of Norway and Sweden in August of 1847, as a distinctly Norwegian order.

Of the great chivalric institutions of to-day, the Garter and the Seraphim are the oldest: they are twins, for both saw the light in 1344; both occupy the highest place in European reverence; and if the Garter is admitted on the Continent to be the more glorious of the two, it is not because, as Selden urged, " it exceeds in majesty, honour, and fame, all chivalrous Orders in the world," but, in reality, because England is a bigger and a stronger country than Sweden, and because what belongs to the former inspires, consequently, more awe abroad than the latter is competent to provoke. Next to these patriarchs follows the Annunciada, another most illustrious fraternity, with two legends for its origin; it dates from 1362. 

The Golden Fleece comes fourth: it was set up in Bruges in 1429 by Philip III of Burgundy; but it passed to Spain with the provinces of Flanders, and was transferred again to Austria in 1713 by the Emperor Charles VI, when he acquired the Low Countries. Spain, however, would not consent to lose it; and, after much wrangling, it was tacitly agreed that it should become the joint property of both the Spanish and Imperial Governments. 

The Elephant claims to have come into existence in 1159, when a Danish Crusader having slain an elephant single-handed with his sword, Canute VI is said to have established this very noble Order in memory of that remarkable event. But this story is not admitted by the annalists of chivalry; they allow the Order to date only from 1478. St. Andrew of Russia and the Black Eagle are very modem: the former was established in 1698 by Peter the Great; and the latter in 1701, to commemorate the coronation of the first King of Prussia. St. Stephen of Austria is still more recent; it was set up by Maria Theresa in 1764.

But though these eight majestic Orders are alone included in the first class, there are, as was said just now, several other knighthoods whose antiquity is as great and whose merit is almost as real as theirs. Though we group the latter here with the great mass of Orders of every kind, some of them deserve a special mention. St. Hubert of Bavaria, which dates from 1444; the extinct "Ordres du Roi," in France, St. Michael, St. Louis, and the St. Esprit; the Danebrog of Denmark, with its legend of a flag which fell miraculously from heaven in 1219, in the middle of a fierce battle which it helped the Danes to win; the Spanish Order of Montesa and the Christ of Portugal, which two replaced the Temple when it was extinguished in the Peninsula in 1315; the White Eagle, established in 1325 in Poland, but now absorbed by Russia; our own Bath ;—all these are examples of Orders of this class which possess or have possessed much dignity, and there are several others like them. And, subsidiarily, there are the purely military decorations, such as St. George of Russia, the Iron Cross, and our Victoria Cross, which have a merit and a value of a special kind, and must not be confounded with the mass of ribbons which constitute the third category.

This third category includes, at the present moment, about one hundred-thirty Orders. The number fluctuates; for, though it is increased almost every year by the creation of new institutions, it is diminished, from time to time, by the absorption of independent states, and by the consequent suppression of the Orders belonging to those states. These two conflicting causes make it somewhat difficult to ascertain the exact number of orders in existence on any given day. 

The books which have been published on the subject (and there are a good many of them, copied from each other, in all the languages of Europe) are all far behind the times; the only list which can be admitted as probably correct is the one furnished by the "Almanach de Gotha" for 1875; and even that one will doubtless become inexact before the year is out. It shows that on last New Year's day, forty-three countries possessed Orders: of these countries thirty-three are in Europe; four in America (Brazil, Honduras, Venezuela, and Hawaii); five in Asia (Siam, Birmah. Persia, Cambodge, and China); and 1 in Africa (Tunis.) These forty-three countries dispose altogether of one hundred-forty three Orders of the three classes, not including medals of any kind, or commemorative crosses. 

Furthermore, the states which have been recently suppressed (Naples, Hanover", Hesse-Cassel, Mexico, Modena, Nassau, Parma, and Tuscany) possessed three others, all of which are at present in abeyance (a state of temporary disuse or suspension), and ought not to be worn by those who hold them. And it must be remembered that the one hundred forty-three Orders now in force, represent very little more than half the total of all the orders which have existed; for, without including any of the mythical or legendary brotherhoods, the special books present catalogues which, though they vary somewhat between themselves, reach a general total of about two hundred-seventy Orders, of which about one hundred twenty-five have become extinct. 

But, though these figures show the quantities in which Orders have disappeared, other figures indicate that they sprout up again even faster than they fade; for when we analyse the composition of the one hundred forty-three existing Orders, we find that ninety-one of them have been created during the 19th century, that twenty-three were made in the 18th century, and that only twenty-nine of them are anterior to the year 1700. Most ot the old religious and strictly noble confraternities have vanished out of sight; but they have been replaced by modern institutions more in harmony with the spirit of the age. 

And when we look still closer into the subject, and examine the geographical distribution of all these Orders, we naturally find that, as the rush for them is everywhere the same, the development of their number has been everywhere alike, with one exception. That exception, strangely, is in France— in frivolous, vainglorious France—the very place where we should least expect to find it. While sturdy cross-despising England owns seven Orders, Sweden six, Russia eight, Bavaria thirteen, Austria nine, Prussia eleven, Spain ten, Portugal seven, Italy five, Wurtemberg four (the Kingdom of Württemberg was a state in Germany that existed from 1806 to 1918, located in the area that is now Baden-Württemberg), and little Denmark two, France, alone of the real nations, has but one. Proportionately to their population, their power, or their pride, all other European states have gone on multiplying their ribbons; France contents herself with the single Cross of Honour. 

And while most other countries have created special decorations for women (out of the one hundred-forty-three there are thirteen for ladies only, and four others to which they are promiscuously admitted, making seventeen in all, or twelve per cent, of the entire number), France has declined to participate in that pretty court and ballroom form of chivalry: in the rare cases in which women have been considered worthy of it, they have been specially admitted into “the Legion,” whose cross is at this moment worn by Rosa Bonheur the painter, and Sceur Rosalie the nun. –By Frederic Marshall, Author of “French Home Life,” 1873

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

Mobile Manners Issued for No. Koreans

North Korea is now stressing etiquette in use of mobile phones. "Korean citizens are generally kind and accepting of tourists, but in a culture that is far more conservative than America's, following etiquette is crucial. Respect is paramount, and Koreans may take offense at behavior that you wouldn't blink twice at witnessing at home. Tourists generally visit only South Korea; private American citizens aren't allowed into North Korea on their own. In any case, the same basic manners apply in either place." USA Today 
Photo from http://americaninnorthkorea.com/

North Korea keeps tight controls on the flow of information within, and even across, its borders. Even so, approximately 2.5 million people are estimated to be subscribed to the country's mobile operator Koryolink, a joint venture with Egypt's Orascom Telecom. With this increasingly growing mobile phone use in North Korea, the strict communist country has published a set of etiquette guidelines on how to treat others with respect through the new medium.

A quarterly North Korean magazine on culture has been obtained by the Yonhap News Agency, and it includes an article entitled “Language etiquette in phone conversations.” The article stresses the importance of proper manners in one's mobile phone usage.

“As mobile phones are being used increasingly in today's society, there has been a tendency among some people to neglect proper phone etiquette,” reads the article in the August 2014 issue of the magazine.

In an apparent reference to the fact that the caller's number appears on mobile phones, the article states that, “On mobile phones, unlike on land lines, conversations usually take place with knowledge of the other person. However, even in such cases, one must not neglect to introduce oneself or offer greetings.” 

In one such example, the magazine states that if the recipient does not introduce himself or herself upon answering a call, the caller must go through the time-consuming process of enquiring, “Hello? Is it you, comrade Yeong-cheol?”

It stresses too, that it is more polite for the recipient of the call, to not only introduce himself but to also acknowledge that he is aware of who the caller is, as well. If not, the caller must go through the aforementioned, time-consuming inconvenience of identifying himself, according to the magazine article.

In an attempt to nip in the bud the irritating phenomena known as “cell yell” and “TMI,” the article also offers the etiquette tip that, “Speaking loudly or arguing over the phone in public places where many people are gathered is thoughtless and impolite behavior.”

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

Historic U.S. Senate Etiquette Breaches

Depiction of  U.S. Senator Henry S. Foote (“a voluble, unscrupulous, sharp and successful stump speaker”) drawing a pistol on the Senate floor and attempting to shoot a fellow politician. Foote is the only senator in American history to attempt such a thing.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 1852 “It is a pity that there are not enough self-respecting gentlemen among the members of the United States Senate to put an end to the disgraceful breaches of decorum and common decency which are now of almost daily occurrence in that once honorable body.” –The New York Times

“Senators Rhett and Clemens have contributed largely, in their recent collision, to that unworthy-spirit which is been infused into the United States Senate within the last ten years, and which threatens, unless checked, seriously to impair the character and influence of that distinguished body. They have indulged in personal accusations, and in the use of epithets of the most offensive and reprehensible character. Language, which no man having respect for the ordinary courtesies of life would permit himself to use in private intercourse, has been freely bandied from one to the other upon the floor of what has been styled often times, and with justice, the most dignified deliberative body in the world. Charges of knavery, lying and cowardice have been hurled from one to the other, in open Senate, with all the volubility, and more than the vulgarity, of Billingsgate. Other Senators, so far from preventing these insults and outrages upon the character of that body, took special pains to encourage the actors in them, and to prompt their repetition.

“When the degradation in the manners of the Senate shall be complete, and that body shall have been converted into the prize-fight ring to which by such scenes it seems to approximate, the public temper will inevitably sink to a corresponding level. Much of the popular respect for law grows out of the feeling of confidence in those who make it; and nothing is more important to the preservation of a healthy and conservative spirit among the people, than a dignified, decorous, and impressive demeanor, on the part of our highest legislative bodies. When the Senate becomes simply an arena for personal quarrels, -- when attacks upon personal character take the place of deliberation and discussion on themes of national importance, the whole tone of popular feeling will be lowered and the public morality will suffer disastrous change.

“What have personal controversies to do with public interest? What right have Senators, met to consult for the common good, to bring their paltry personalities -- their private differences, upon the high platform of national affairs, to be canvassed and adjusted in sight of the world? Mr. Seward never stated a more pertinent fact, than when he said a year or two since, but no man's personal affairs or opinions were worth ten minutes of the time that belongs to the nation. Ten or fifteen years ago, when such men as Clay and Calhoun and Webster gave tone and character to the deliberations of the Senate, such a thing as a low personal squabble was unknown upon that floor. Personal attacks were made and repelled, -- but only upon grounds of important public principal, and in a tone and terms befitting that high position. 

“With the advent of Senator Foote, of Mississippi, commenced a new era in the history of the American Senate. He had established a reputation at home as a voluble, unscrupulous, sharp and successful stump speaker; and he evidently regarded the Senate as only a higher field for the exercise of his peculiar gifts. He talked to the Senate just as he had talked to mass meetings at home. He teased and bullied members of the opposite party, -- he hurled epithets and scattered accusations against all with whom he differed, -- he bandied names and drew pistols upon his fellow members, as he found each species of argument most convenient and serviceable for the special occasion. His whole career in the Senate was a systematic crusade against the dignity and decorum of that body. His spirit has lingered behind his retiring steps. And the Senate now has half a dozen members equally lacking in self-respect and in regard for the reputation of the body to which they belong.

“Neither house of Congress seems at all sensitive to the degradation which such practices are bringing upon both. From neither are any measures to be expected, which will correct the evil, or check the downward tendency of Congressional manners. The only remedy is in public sentiment, and the Press as its chief organ. It is the duty of the Press never to allow any such outrage upon propriety, to pass unscathed. When members of Congress, in either branch, shall come to feel that no breach of propriety can escape severe censure from the public press, and that neither party adhesion nor personal regard can procure immunity for such offenses, they will be more careful in their conduct, and pay a steadier regard to the requirements of decorum and self-respect.” 1852

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