A Tale of One Society Belle of 1878

Bridal costumes and dress of the era. — “She rarely breakfasted away from her apartments, but unless dining out she always came to the 6 o’clock dinner. I well remember the sensation which attended her entrance to the dining room. She was always dressed most richly, but never showily. A handsome horse is best displayed in a simple harness. Being a horsewoman, she followed the motto in her own trappings. As I recall it, I do not remember ever to have seen a finer form than Mrs. Hicks’. She was unusually tall and straight—a beautiful neck and a well poised head. At this time she wore little jewelry—occasionally a necklace of diamonds and emeralds, and occasionally solitaire earrings as big as her thumb nail. Her dresses were singularly plain, but the fitting of them was a work of art. She was very graceful and self-possessed; her manners were not haughty in the least, but they possessed that quiet reserve and self consciousness that kept all at a distance.” 

Mrs. Hicks is remembered in Washington

The marriage of Mrs. Hicks in New York a few days ago is generally spoken of here, where she was well known, as very eccentric, to say the least. It recalls to the minds of those who were living at the Arlington Hotel, in this city, in the winter of 1872, the star boarder of that fashionable house. Mrs. Hicks came to Washington in regal style. She had the best rooms in the hotel. She was accompanied by Mrs. Hills, an old lady of white hair and aristocratic bearing, who was unable, as was noticed, to be out much at night. She came in the capacity of friend and companion to Mrs. Hicks. She had her separate suite of rooms, as well as Mrs. Hicks. They each had their private servant, and Mrs. Hicks had a maid besides and her coachman and footman. Her rooms were the same which Secretary and Mrs. Hamilton Fish occupied one winter, and the same which King Kalakaua and suite were assigned during his stay in Washington. These consisted of sleeping chambers, bath rooms, breakfast rooms, two parlors, and servants’ quarters. For these Mrs. Hicks paid $50 a day. 

She rarely breakfasted away from her apartments, but unless dining out she always came to the 6 o’clock dinner. I well remember the sensation which attended her entrance to the dining room. She was always dressed most richly, but never showily. A handsome horse is best displayed in a simple harness. Being a horsewoman, she followed the motto in her own trappings. As I recall it, I do not remember ever to have seen a finer form than Mrs. Hicks’. She was unusually tall and straight—a beautiful neck and a well poised head. At this time she wore little jewelry—occasionally a necklace of diamonds and emeralds, and occasionally solitaire earrings as big as her thumb nail. Her dresses were singularly plain, but the fitting of them was a work of art. She was very graceful and self-possessed; her manners were not haughty in the least, but they possessed that quiet reserve and self consciousness that kept all at a distance. Side by side with her walked her chaperone, Mrs. Hills, both in immaculate white kids—a new pair (as a friend of hers told me) every day. 

Before the ladies strutted their major domo, who never left their side at the table. Other waiters might bring Mrs. Hicks her food, but only their own servant might place it before her. Her dinner over, the whitest of hands were dipped in the finger-bowl, dried on the softest of napkins and drawn again into the whitest of kids, and, Mrs. Hicks and her companion marched out of the dining room, preceded by her servant and followed by the eyes of the common mortals. She had little company, but it was of the best. None of the common herd ever dried their fleece at her fire. She went out a good deal in her own carriages—driving a big team of banged steppers to a fine coupe and Victoria. She also find her saddle horse, and when she trotted along the avenue or through the park, followed by her groom in mulberry coat, cocked hat, striped waistcoat, and knee breeches, she was the personification of grace and beauty. 

She was, if I remember rightly, on intimate terms at the house of George Bancroft, the historian, and with the families of several of the foreign Ministers. Gen. Banks was frequently in her company, and also Gen. Butler. There was, I believe, a report current at one time that she and Gen. Butler were to be married. This is not extraordinary, as her name has been connected with a good many desirable widowers, including Gen. Schenck and the brother of the Duke of Richmond. Her departure from Washington  regretted by her landlord, at least.—Philadelphia Times, 1878

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

Improving Etiquette by Dueling?

It is argued that the abolition of dueling causes English women to be treated with less respect than in former days, and thus it is indirectly the origin of the suffragette movement. A step back toward those chivalrous, romantic days has been taken in the preparations now in progress for a special exhibition to illustrate the history of swordsmanship, with the object of popularizing the sword in England. 

— Photo of a “Dueling Sword” from Pinterest 

English Movement to Revive Dueling

Well-Known Men Believe That It Would Improve Manners and Discourage Divorce

LONDON, Jan. 26. — In these days of continued novelties and of the revival of many old things, there is not much room left for real surprises, but a surprise is certainly furnished by the statement, made apparently quite seriously, that certain well-known Englishmen are not only in favor of the revival of the duel, but will do their best to bring such a revival about.


It is argued that the abolition of dueling causes English women to be treated with less respect than in former days, and thus it is indirectly the origin of the suffragette movement. A step back toward those chivalrous, romantic days has been taken in the preparations now in progress for a special exhibition to illustrate the history of swordsmanship, with the object of popularizing the sword in England.


It is claimed by the promoters — many of whom are prominent men in English society— that the revival of dueling in England would be associated with the following beneficial results:
1. Better manners and more civility.
2. The purity of the home.
3. The practical abolition of divorce.
4. A higher moral standard.
5. Less friction and rivalry between the sexes.
6. A finer physical standard for all who practice fencing.


Most of the gentlemen who will take part in the celebration, which will be a matinée, are members of the Actor's Sword Club, and the scenes illustrating the history of the duel will be based on a series of famous fights taken from both history and fiction. Sir George Alexander kindly has kindly loaned St. James's theater for the matinée, but owing to the elaborate preparations necessary, the performance can hardly be given before next May. Duels of all periods will be fought, and special ‘quarrel dialogue’ suitable to the period will be written by well-known authors to lead up to each fight. This ‘quarrel dialogue’ will require very careful writing, for a grievance or insult that would have stung an ancient Roman to the quick might not be enough to base, say, a modern French duel upon.


“We shall overcome this difficulty,” said Gerald Ames, “by facing our quarrels upon the honor of women, in which cause man has been prepared to shed his blood throughout the ages. Nowadays woman is not treated with the respect and reverence that was her right in the old days when most women had a champion who was prepared to draw his sword for her honor. If you take a lady out to supper and some cad of a man takes it into his head to annoy her with his insolent staring, she has no redress, and you have no means of punishing him. If dueling were recognized and practiced in England that sort of thing would be stopped and a lady could walk out alone without fearing the insolent advantages and attentions of the cads who infest our streets to-day.


“But apart altogether from the social advantages of dueling, sword practice, or fencing, is quite the finest exercise there is for keeping a man or woman fit. Lord Halsbury, Lord Desborough, Lord Howard, de Walden, and the Speaker (Mr Lowther) are among our best-known fencers. They have all promised their patronage, and among those who have already promised to help are the amateur champions and ex-champions, Norman Forbes, Ben Webster, Justin Huntly McCarthy, Jerrold Robertshaw, Athol Stewart and Col. Matthew. Egerton Castle will act as ‘chorus’ between the scenes, and explain the development of the weapons and the rules of fencing of the period.”— The New York Times, 1912

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

Brits Copy American Customs, Wares

An 1892 American patented tea pot — “ American practices and precedents are freely quoted and adopted in English society. American ideas are copied without stint, and American wares, novelties, and inventions are generally advertised by London tradesmen.” 

Anglo-American Imitation

It is time that the truth should be understood in this matter of Anglo-American imitation. The opinion prevails that it is wholly one-sided, which most emphatically is not the case. The American leaven works in England about as strongly as the English notions obtain this side the water.

It is not a concession to American good sense and example that the English young woman of the best families now often walk the streets unattended by footmen! Such a thing a few years ago would have been impossible. American practices and precedents are freely quoted and adopted in English society. American ideas are copied without stint, and American wares, novelties, and inventions are generally advertised by London tradesmen. 

The most conservative of the London society and women's periodicals constantly set forth the “fads” of American women, and they long ago ceased the tone of half apology in which such items used to be couched. There seems, in fact, quite as great and admiration and respect for things American over there, as there is here for things English. — The New York Times, 1892

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

Pretentious Manners Adopted by 1880

Depiction of Delmonico’s restaurant in New York City, late 19th Century — There is speculation as to the origin of each method and why they differ. Edward Munves Jr. of James Robinson, dealers in antique silver and table wares, says it may be traceable to the robber barons of the 19th century. “It was a form of pretentiousness adopted here around 1880, when the robber barons went respectable,” Mr. Munves said. “But by now, it would be more pretentious than practical for people to return to the old, or European, way of eating.” On the same era in America, James Beard, gourmand and cookbook author, said: “It was considered more elegant to sit with one hand in your lap during most of a meal than to use both hands to simplify dining.”

In Europe, Table Knife Is Versatile

Use of Silverware Often Puzzling

Americans who travel abroad for the first time often wonder why Europeans handle their knives, forks and spoons in ways so contrary to American custom. They may even disapprove, judging it ill mannered. In Europe, the table knife is versatile and the use of silverware is often puzzling. The Continental way of dining involves the simultaneous use of fork and knife. The fork is held in the left hand, the knife in the right. At no time is the knife put down and the fork transferred to the right hand. The knife is used not only for cutting, but also to press foods onto the back of the fork.


According to Emily Post, it is Americans and not the rest of the Western world who are out of step. As long ago as 1922, when Mrs. Post's book on etiquette was first published, she deplored this “zigzag” custom in which the fork is constantly transferred from the left to the right hand, saying that it was “strange” and “not seen at the tables of fashionable people.” Amy Vanderbilt, however, believes that either custom is proper, as long as it is performed with ease and grace. “But the Continental style often encourages people to bolt their food,” Ms. Vanderbilt warned. “I've noticed that women who dine in the European way often bend too far over the table in a way that is less than elegant.”


Many Americans stoutly defend their custom and say to adopt foreign ways would be an affectation. Others, however, have chosen to switch because the European manipulation of the table implements seems faster and more efficient. Robert Meyzen, maitre d'hotel of La Caravelle restaurant, reports that more and more Americans are adopting the Continental method. “I think that people are beginning to realize that to put the knife down after cutting the meat, and then to switch the fork into the right hand represents a loss of both time and taste,” Mr. Meyzen said.


There is speculation as to the origin of each method and why they differ. The American custom, Mrs. Post has suggested, may have started as a way to slow down children who were fast eaters. Edward Munves Jr. of James Robinson, dealers in antique silver and table wares, says it may be traceable to the robber barons of the 19th century. “It was a form of pretentiousness adopted here around 1880, when the robber barons went respectable,” Mr. Munves said. “But by now, it would be more pretentious than practical for people to return to the old, or European, way of eating.” In commenting on the same era in America, James Beard, gourmand and cookbook author, said: “It was considered more elegant to sit with one hand in your lap during most of a meal than to use both hands to simplify dining.”— By Rita Reif, 1963

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

The Birth of the Modern Restaurant

By the late 19th century the restaurants in Paris had become accepted centers of social life, accompanied by the elegant art of the menu card.— From “Food Mania... An extraordinary visual record of the art of food from kitchen garden to banqueting table,” 2001

Paris of the 1760s saw the birth of one facet of the modern world... The modern day restaurant

When traveling, lunches and dinners can be the most delightful of moments. Especially, if we allow ourselves to spend some time discovering the culinary particularities of the visited region. The chances are that we have all enjoyed these moments at restaurants, as we can find them in most places we visit, whether the place is a tourist destination or not. The fact is that restaurants are nowadays so commonplace, we can hardly picture ourselves in a world without them. However, it hasn’t always been the case. Did you know that the French Revolution deeply influenced the development of the restaurant as a major cultural practice, and made it nowadays a marker of world heritage?

Historically, inns and hotels have always provided meals for their guests, but it was related to hospitality and not on the culinary experience itself. Moreover, these were mostly taverns which were notoriously crowded, noisy, not very clean and they served food of dubious quality at large common tables. The first modern restaurant appeared in rue des Poulies in Paris in the 1760s, owned by Mr. Boulanger; he opened a place with his motto written on the top of it, “Venite ad me, omnes qui stomacho laboratis, et ego restaurabo vos” (“Come to me, you whose stomachs hurt, and I will restore you”). Mr Boulanger was serving healing “bouillons” to his guests, in order to cure their aches. This is why he created the word “restaurant,” which comes from the verb “se restaurer” (to restore), a place where you would find something to restore your strength. But quickly Boulanger adapted his place to the expectations of his clientele, giving birth to the modern restaurant and bringing three disruptive innovations.

The first was on the food itself. Indeed, the client could choose from a much larger selection of dishes, up to 250, of a higher quality. Also, it was possible to enjoy various types of food, from bouillons to meat, and vegetables to pastries, while taverns mostly proposed a daily meal. The concept of eating “à la carte” was born. The second innovation seems commonplace for us today: at Boulanger’s restaurant it was possible to be seated at an individual table, and no longer on collective benches, as was the case in inns and hotels. And finally, the restaurant displayed fixed pricing in advance. Thus the client was able to choose the table he wanted, be seated with the persons he had invited, eat the dishes of his choice and know how much he would have to pay for it. How innovative!

Very often disruptive innovations break the situation of well-established competitors. This was also the case at that time. The industry of the “traiteurs” (caterer) were the only ones allowed to serve dishes cooked in sauce, thus they decided to sue Boulanger, who won the trial. This affair had a major impact with enlightening the new concept of the restaurant, making it even more successful by attracting philosophers and intellectuals. Quickly, several competitors appeared. The most famous was “La Taverne de Londres” at the rue de Richelieu, held by Antoine de Beauvilliers, the chef of the Count of Provence, King Louis XVI’s brother. In a very delicate and refined environment, he invited his guests to eat like at the Court of Versailles. The wine was served by the bottle, according to the custom in of the time in London, which was fashionable at that time. “La Taverne de Londres” was the first grand restaurant, and remained the largest one in Paris for 20 years from 1782 without any rival. Joséphine de Beauharnais, the future Empress and wife of Napoleon Bonaparte, enjoyed dinners there. But the take off of the modern restaurants happened thanks to a major historical event... the French Revolution!

By the late 19th century the restaurants in Paris had become accepted centers of social life, accompanied by the elegant art of the menu card.— From “Food Mania... An extraordinary visual record of the art of food from kitchen garden to banqueting table,” 2001

Without a doubt, the French Revolution helped indirectly the development of this innovative dining trend. Before the Revolution, the profession of cook was almost exclusively dedicated to serve at the private mansions of the bourgeois and aristocrats. No chef was on his own. But during the French Revolution most of the nobility emigrated outside of France, leaving their cooks and domestic servants unemployed. In order to use their talents, many of them became restaurant owners. There were fewer than 100 restaurants before 1789, but 10 years later Paris had more than 1,000 of them. There were 3,000 restaurants by 1815. The competition became fierce, each place trying to make a difference by offering different styles and varieties of food, and also enhancing the quality. The trend went quickly abroad: the first restaurant in the United States opened in Boston in 1794. And slowly, the fashionable trend became a well-integrated habit, which went during the 19th century from an elitist custom to a well-popularised practice.

Another revolution, the industrial one, also deeply influenced the development of the modern restaurant. People from the countryside left their provinces in numbers to come to Paris to work in factories. They arrived in a city where they had no family to feed them, and no place to cook for themselves after the day’s work. Therefore, cheaper versions of the restaurant appeared, called “gargote” or “guinguette,” where it was possible to enjoy some basic meals at very low prices. The trend went on, and later, in Paris during the Second Empire (1853-1870), each neighborhood had a restaurant offering choices of food matching the tastes of the local population. This is why, in 1867, the “Almanach des étrangers à Paris” wrote, “Paris is the city in the world where people enjoy the most dining at restaurants.” The author also added “This is the city where you can taste the best cuisine if you are not paying too much attention to your expenses, but also the capital where you can get fed for very moderate prices”. In 1900 the Michelin guide was created to go with the development of automobiles as a common practice, giving for drivers a list of mechanics, doctors and maps for each listed cities. Some 20 years later, the guide also started to list restaurants, and gave its first stars in 1926 for the best tables. At the time, restaurants could be found around the world, and the success of the “restaurant” has not declined since.

The next time you travel, give a bit of thought to your ancestors, who 250 years ago could not choose their own food while traveling, and could thus face some difficulties to adapt local culinary customs. Nowadays, you can make your own choice, and it is no longer a luxury to enjoy a meal when traveling. In fact, one of the best things to do for the next Bastille Day celebrations, could be to enjoy a meal at a restaurant!

Etiquipedia contributor Guillaume Rué de Bernadac is the President & Founding Director of the luxury etiquette institution, Académie de Bernadac in Shanghai and Paris. He has been featured in Michelin Guide, L’Officiel, Global Times, The Guardian, M6, CNN, etc... Académie de Bernadac

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

Table Etiquette and Superstition

 

Throughout history, bread at the table has seen many changes: Rolls or slices of bread have been placed directly on tablecloths, snuggled into napkins placed atop each diner’s plate, passed ‘round dining tables in “bread baskets” or in silver bread trays, served in their own bread plates with matching plates for butter, called “butter pats,” and most notably, Queen Victoria popularized having an entire loaf of bread at the table, from which guests could cut off their own slices.

Why is it a curse to place breads or rolls  upside-down at the table?

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the 21st century, you must have heard it: placing bread upside-down on the table is a curse! Do it, and there will most likely be some people feeling uncomfortable. There is a reason for this discomfort that goes back through a long, tragic history.

During the Middle-Ages in Europe, each city had its own executioner, in charge of executing the justice decision, including the most extreme ones. It was also a time when bread was the main food for the majority of the people. Bakers had a central place in people’s life. Bakers’ shops were visited every day. Nobody wanted to take the bread meant for the executioner and bakers began to place one loaf of bread facing down. This was the loaf which was meant for him. Seeing a loaf of bread in such a position was already synonym of the worst for those common people, and left everyone feeling uneasy.

Another event would make placing a roll or loaf of bread upside-down definitely a terrible faux-pas at a dining table was the French Revolution. In 1793-1794 there took place “La Terreur” during which many people were sentenced to death through the too-famous Guillotine. Before their execution days, they were all kept in jail, in which they were brought every day a jug of water with a portion of bread on top. None of them knew when would be the day of their death, the only clue they would had was this bread: the night before the execution, they would receive their one portion upside-down. It would mean they only have the night to pray for their soul, going through their sins and hoping God would forgive them.

Marie Josèphe Rose Tascher de La Pagerie, wife of the Viscount Alexandre de Beauharnais, was one of them. Later known as “Joséphine de Beauharnais,” which was how her 2nd husband, Napoléon Bonaparte called her, she spent several months in jail, terrified by the bread facing down brought every day to other inmates. She lived every day praying not to receive it, and had to go through the execution of her husband Alexandre on 23rd July 1794, but she was spared and survived.

The 28th July, Maximilien de Robespierre, the man who started “La Terreur”, was arrested. Executions stopped, Joséphine was freed. She eventually married Napoléon Bonaparte, and became Empress. But the sight of a bread upside down was absolutely unbearable for her! At the Imperial court all the servants made sure to place bread properly in her presence, and so did all the restaurants of Paris. As the trend of restaurant went throughout Europe, the custom of considering bread down has a curse was reinforced.

Nowadays, we should remember this is a mere superstition, and we should not forget it is one, but it is still shared by many. Whether you believe in the curse or not, let’s all place the bread facing up, by respects of those who saw their death in it, and also because that’s more beautiful that way to serve breads.

Etiquipedia contributor Guillaume Rué de Bernadac is the President & Founding Director of the luxury etiquette institution, Académie de Bernadac in Shanghai and Paris. He has been featured in Michelin Guide, L’Officiel, Global Times, The Guardian, M6, CNN, etc... Académie de Bernadac

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

Etiquette Ignorance and Finger Bowls

 

Another patented design for a new finger bowl, from Christmas of 1900 — “ Like most Americans, he hesitated to own that he did not know everything, but while counting his change he said shyly: “Two is enough, I think.”  He was not the first who had failed in understanding the finger-bowl mystery.”

Ignorance Cleared Up in the Finger Bowl Section of the Shop 

A man who had heard either of the Oriental fashion of pouring rose water on the fingers after a meal, or else of the French style, not very generally, adopted in this country, of passing around a large bowl of rose water, into which each guest dips his napkin and wipes his fingers therewith, went into a well-known china shop the other day and selected, and paid for, two finger-bowls.Like most Americans, he hesitated to own that he did not know everything, but while counting his change he said shyly: “Two is enough, I think.” 

“Certainly,” said the saleswoman, “if you have but one person beside yourself at the table.” “But I want these for a dinner party,” he said, “one at each end of the table!” “And one tumbler at each end of the table, too?” she asked, not pertly, but gently. “Why, no,” he said, light breaking in upon him. “I want —well, I only want four or five more, but I'll take a dozen. What a fool I am!” Before he went out he heard enough stories of queer blunders to convince him that he was not the first who had failed in understanding the finger-bowl mystery. — Boston Transcript, 1888

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

Etiquette and a Sincere Form of Flattery

“Bock, hund! Bock, I soy!”

Anglophile noun

An·​glo·​phile | \ ˈaŋ-glə-ˌfī(-ə)l \
variants: or less commonly Anglophil \ ˈaŋ-​glə-​ˌfil

Definition of Anglophile
: a person who greatly admires or favors England and things English
First Known Use of Anglophile

1883, in the meaning defined above

New York Girls... One Wicked Correspondent Thinks They Make Blooming English Idiots

The girls of New York grow more and more English every day. Where the inspiration comes from is a mystery. But they all seem moved by the overwhelming desire to look and act like English girls. Their gowns are made of cloth and cut and fitted by English tailors, whose shops are gaudy with coats of arms of foreign notables and who employ only British assistants. Even the masculine walk, which has caused so much ridicule to be cast upon the English women is mimicked by New York girls, and they stalk about the streets with majestic and grenadier-like aspect. 

Everywhere you go, stalwart young women, with their shoulders thrown back and their chins high in the air, stare at you boldly, calmly, or indifferently, and heavy, tan-colored gloves, tall collars, and heavy hats predominate. Despite the rather bold appearance of all this, the girls have a fine, dashing manner and an easy carriage that is captivating. They are all right as to clothes, but they are still off on the accent. This must of course be so, because the accent is in so many cases copied from grooms, waitresses, butlers and shop girls. It is rather curious that they should adopt the most unpleasant characteristics of the English. 

I was caught in a short shower a day or two ago, and dived under the awning at the ladies’ entrance to the Hotel Brunswick to wait until the shower passed. Two dashing Anglomaniacs sought the same protection from the elements. The elder of them was tall and distinguished in appearance, and very well dressed in a tailor’s suit of dark green cloth. Her companion was a chubby little girl of perhaps seventeen years, who wore a standing collar, a pepper-and-salt waistcoat, a bright red scarf with a diamond horseshoe and a little bob-tailed plaid English jacket and yellow leather boots. In one gloved fist was a whip. 

As she dashed under the awning, somewhat out of breath, two. little bull-terriers scurried after her. She struck them half savagely with the whip, and said with the most absurd accent possible: “Bock, hunds ! Bock, I soy!” Then she stamped her little boot and snapped her whip at the dogs. She seemed ao much pleased at the expression that she repeated it several times, and each time the little bull terriers shrank further out of the way. I presume she had heard some English groom tell the hounds to keep back at one of the Rockaway hunts, and hence the English of it all.— The New York Correspondent, Providence Journal, 1885

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