Produced by Al Haines ETIQUETTE BY AGNES H. MORTON AUTHOR OF "LETTER WRITING," "QUOTATIONS," &C. GOOD MANNERS FOR ALL PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE "WHO DWELL WITHIN THE BROAD ZONE OF THE AVERAGE" (REVISED EDITION) PHILADELPHIA THE PENN PUBLISHING COMPANY 1919 Copyright, 1892, By the Penn Publishing Company Contents INTRODUCTION I. ETHICS OF ETIQUETTE II. VISITING CARDS THE OFFICE OF THE VISITING CARD. STYLE OF CARDS. THE ENGRAVING OF VISITING CARDS.-- Cards for Men; Cards for Women; Cards for Young Women; After Marriage Cards. THE USE OF THE VISITING CARD.-- Calling in Person; Card-leaving in Lieu of Personal Calls; Cases in which Personal Card-leaving is Required; Cards by Messenger or by Post; Card-leaving by Proxy. SOME FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF CARD USAGE. III. CEREMONIOUS CARDS AND INVITATIONS. ETIQUETTE OF REPLIES. THE "HIGH TEA," OR MUSICALE, ETC. WEDDING INVITATIONS. DINNER INVITATIONS. LUNCHEON AND BREAKFAST INVITATIONS. IV. THE CONDUCT OF A CHURCH WEDDING V. ENTERTAINING VI. AFTERNOON RECEPTIONS AND TEAS VII. THE DINNER SERVICE REQUISITES FOR THE DINING-TABLE. THE FORMAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE DINNER-TABLE. THE ARRIVAL OF GUESTS, MEANWHILE. THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF DINNER. THE SERVING OF THE DINNER. MISCELLANEOUS POINTS. DINNER-TABLE TALK. INFORMAL DINNERS. VIII. LUNCHEONS IX. SUPPERS X. BREAKFASTS XI. EVENING PARTIES XII. THE TWENTIETH CENTURY XIII. "THE STRANGER THAT IS WITHIN THY GATES" XIV. "MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME" XV. "AS THE TWIG IS BENT" XVI. SOCIAL YOUNG AMERICA XVII. THE AMERICAN CHAPERONE XVIII. GREETINGS. RECOGNITIONS. INTRODUCTIONS XIX. BEHAVIOR IN PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES XX. IN PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES XXI. BEARING AND SPEECH XXII. SELF-COMMAND XXIII. A FEW POINTS ON DRESS XXIV. PERSONAL HABITS XXV. SOCIAL CO-OPERATION XXVI. ON THE WING XXVII. ETIQUETTE OF GIFTS XXVIII. GALLANTRY AND COQUETRY XXIX. IN CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION As a rule, books of etiquette are written from the standpoint of the ultra-fashionable circle. They give large space to the details of behavior on occasions of extreme conventionality, and describe minutely the conduct proper on state occasions. But the majority in every town and village are people of moderate means and quiet habits of living, to whom the extreme formalities of the world of fashion will always remain something of an abstraction, and the knowledge of them is not of much practical use except to the few who are reflective enough to infer their own particular rule from any illustration of the general code. Though it is interesting as a matter of information to know how a state dinner is conducted, still, as a matter of fact, the dinners usually given within this broad zone of "the average" are served without the assistance of butler, footman, or florist; innocent of wines and minus the more elaborate and expensive courses; and though served _à la Russe_ the service is under the watchful supervision of the hostess herself and executed by the more or less skillful hand of a demure maid-servant. Yet, in all essential points, the laws of etiquette controlling the conduct of this simple dinner of the American democrat are the same as those observed in the ceremonious banquet of the ambitious aristocrat. The degree of formality varies; the quality of courtesy is unchanging. Well-mannered people are those who are at all times thoughtfully observant of _little_ proprieties Such people do not "forget their manners" when away from home. They eat at the hotel table as daintily and with as polite regard for the comfort of their nearest neighbor as though they were among critical acquaintances. They never elbow mercilessly through crowded theatre aisles, nor stand up in front of others to see the pictures of a panorama, nor allow their children to climb upon the car seats with muddy or rough-nailed shoes; nor do a score of other things that every day are to be observed in public places, the mortifying tell-tale marks of an _habitual_ ill-manners. The importance of constant attention to points of etiquette cannot be too earnestly emphasized. The long lecture of instruction to the little Ruggles', preparatory to their visit to the Birds, is a comical--if burlesque--illustration of the emergency that sometimes faces some people, that of suddenly preparing to "behave themselves" on a great occasion. Although the little Ruggles' were fired with ambition to do themselves credit, their crude preparation was not equal to the occasion. The best of intentions could not at once take the place of established custom. One might as well hastily wrap himself in a yard or two of uncut broadcloth expecting it to be transformed, by instant miracle, into a coat. The garment must be cut and fitted, and adjusted and worn for a space of time before it can become the well-fitting habit, worn with the easy grace of unconsciousness which marks the habitually well-mannered. In this brief volume I have endeavored to suggest some of the fundamental laws of good behavior in every-day life. It is hoped that the conclusions reached, while not claiming to be either exhaustive or infallible, may be useful as far as they go. Where authorities differ as to forms I have stated the rule which has the most widespread sanction of good usage. ETIQUETTE ETHICS OF ETIQUETTE Etiquette is the term applied to correct behavior in social life, and refers to the manner of actions and the expression of a proper social spirit through the medium of established forms and ceremonies. Polite usage recognizes certain minute distinctions between the mannerly and the unmannerly ways of performing every act of life that affects the comfort and happiness of others. By one whose experience in life has been a hardening process tending in the direction of a crystallized selfishness the rules of etiquette are regarded with contempt and alluded to with a sneer. No more disheartening problem faces the social reformer than the question how to overcome the bitter hostility to refined manners which marks the ignorant "lower classes." On the other hand, there is no more hopeful sign of progress in civilization than the gradual softening of these hard natures under the influence of social amenities. The secret of successful missionary work lies primarily, not in tracts, nor in dogmas, nor in exhortations, but in the subtle attraction of a refined, benevolent spirit, breathing its very self into the lives of those who have hitherto known only the rasping, grasping selfishness of their fellow-men, and to whom this new gospel of brotherly kindness and deference is a marvelous revelation and inspiration. The result of such missionary work is a triumph of sanctified courtesy, a triumph not unworthy the disciples of Him who "went about doing good" while teaching and exemplifying the "golden rule" upon which all rules of etiquette, however "worldly," are based. Perhaps it may sometimes seem that there is little relation, possibly even some antagonism, between the sincerity of perfect courtesy and the proprieties of formal etiquette. At times etiquette requires us to do things that are not agreeable to our selfish impulses, and to say things that are not literally true if our secret feelings were known. But there is no instance wherein the laws of etiquette need transgress the law of sincerity when the ultimate purpose of each action is to develop and sustain social harmony. Sometimes, for example, we invite people to visit us, and we pay visits in return, when both occasions are, on the face of it, a bore. Yet there may be good reasons why we should sacrifice any mere impulse of choice and exert ourselves to manifest a hospitable spirit toward certain people who are most uncongenial to us. Sometimes for the sake of another who is dear to us, and who, in turn, is attached to these same unattractive people, we make the third line of the triangle cheerfully, and even gladly, no matter how onerous the task, how distasteful the association forced upon us. These are not happy experiences, but they are tests of character that we are all liable to meet and which prove a most excellent discipline if they are met with discretion and patience. Moreover, in the conscientious effort to be agreeable to disagreeable people we are tacitly trying to persuade ourselves that they are not so disagreeable after all, and indeed such is our surprising discovery in many instances. Let us hope that others who exercise a similar forbearance toward ourselves are equally flattering in the conclusions which they reach. Etiquette requires that we shall treat all people with equal courtesy, given the same conditions. It has a tendency to ignore the individuality of people. We may not slight one man simply because we do not like him, nor may we publicly exhibit extreme preference for the one whom we do like. In both cases the rebel against the restraints of social mice shouts the charge of "insincerity." Well, perhaps some of the impulses of sincerity are better held in check; they are too closely allied to the humoring of our cherished prejudices. If "tact consists in knowing what not to say," etiquette consists in knowing what not to do in the direction of manifesting our impulsive likes and dislikes. Besides, etiquette is not so much a manifestation _toward others_ as it is an exponent of _ourselves_. We are courteous to others, first of all, because such behavior only is consistent with our own claim to be well-bred. Bearing this in mind we can behave with serenity in the presence of our most aggravating foe; his worst manifestation of himself fails to provoke us to retort in kind. We treat him politely, not because he deserves it, but because we owe it to ourselves to be gentle-mannered. Etiquette _begins at self_. There is no worthy deference to others that does not rest on the basis of self-respect. "To thine own self be true; And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." It is a superficial judgment that descries nothing but insincerity in the unvarying suavity of a well-bred manner; that regards the conventional code of behavior as merely a device for rendering social life artificial. The _raison d'être_ is always to be found in the established rules of etiquette; and probably the most exacting and seemingly unnecessary of formalities has its foundation in some good common sense principle not far removed in spirit from "the rule golden." In short, manners and morals are twin shoots from the same root. The essentially well-bred man is he whose manners are the polite expression of moral principle, magnanimity, and benevolence. VISITING CARDS THE OFFICE OF THE VISITING CARD The personal, or visiting, card is the representative of the individual whose name it bears. It goes where he himself would be entitled to appear, and in his absence it is equivalent to his presence. It is his "double," delegated to fill all social spaces which his variously-occupied life would otherwise compel him to leave vacant. Since the card is to be received as the equivalent of one's self, it is important that it shall be discreetly sent upon its embassy. In every case where personal cards are correctly used the owner is accredited with having performed _de facto_ whatever the card expresses for him, be it a "call," a "regret," a "congratulation," an "apology," an "introduction," a "farewell-taking," or whatever. The rules guiding the uses of visiting cards are based upon this idea of representation. The deputy is on duty only in the absence of his superior, so the card is usually superfluous when the owner himself is present. A card sent at a wrong time suggests the possibility that the owner might blunder similarly in his personal appearing. The neglect to send a card at a proper time is equivalent to a _personal_ neglect. The man who comes himself and hands you his card also is apt to have too many elbows at a dinner, too many feet at a ball. He has about him a suggestion of awkward superfluousness that is subtly consistent with his duplicate announcement of himself. For want of the much-needed genderless singular pronoun I have been using the masculine form; but upon reflection I remember that it is the women of society who have the most diverse responsibility in the management of personal cards, their duties extending even to the care and oversight of the cards of their socially careless and negligent male relatives. But no matter who attends to the proprieties, the relation of the card to its owner is the same in all cases. If his card blunders, he gets the discredit of it. If his card always flutters gracefully into the salver at exactly the right time and place, the glory is all his own, even though his tireless wife or mother or sister has done all the hard thinking bestowed on the matter. Happy the man allied by the ties of close kindred to a gifted society woman, for lo! his cards shall never be found missing, wherever _he_ may stray. STYLE OF CARDS The prevailing shape of cards for women is nearly square (about 2 1/2 x 3 inches). A fine dull-finished card-board of medium weight and stiffness is used. A man's card is smaller, and narrower proportionately; and is of slightly heavier card-board. The color is pearl white, not cream. Tinted cards are not admissible. The engraving is plain script, or elaborate text; as the fashion may for the time decree. The responsibility of furnishing the correct style of card rests with the engraver, whose business it is to know the ruling fashion of the day. Any one may have an elegant card by intrusting the choice to a first-class stationer. But it is not half the battle to secure an elegant card. An elegant use of the card distinguishes the well-informed in social usage. This distinction shows when the distribution of cards begins. THE ENGRAVING OF VISITING CARDS CARDS FOR MEN If the surname is short, the full name may be engraved. If the names are long, and the space does not admit of their full extension, the initials of given names may be used. The former style is preferred, when practicable. In the absence of any special title properly accompanying the name--as "Rev.," "Dr.," "Col.," etc.,--"Mr." is always prefixed. Good form requires this on an engraved card. If in any emergency a man _writes_ his own name on a card he does _not_ prefix "Mr." What titles may properly be used on a man's visiting-card? The distinctions made in the use of titles seem arbitrary unless some reason can be discovered. The rule should be, to omit from visiting-cards all titles that signify _transient offices_, or _occupations not related to social life_; using such titles only as indicate a rank or profession that is _for life_; and which has become a part of the man's _identity_, or which is distinctly allied to his _social conditions_. To illustrate:--The rank of an officer in the army or the navy should be indicated by title on his card, his connection with the service being _for life_, and _a part of his identity_. His personal card is engraved thus: "General Schofield"--the title in full when only the surname is used; or, "Gen. Winfield Scott," "Gen. W. S. Hancock"--the title abbreviated when the given names, or their initials, are used. The first style is appropriate to the Commander-in-chief, or the senior officer; or in any case where no other officer of the same name and rank is on the roster. Officers on the retired list, and veteran officers of the late war who rose from the volunteer ranks, retain their titles by courtesy. And very appropriately so, since the war record of many a gallant soldier is inseparable from the man himself, in the minds of his fellow-citizens. He may have retired to private life again, but his distinguished services have outlived the brief hour of action; and his hero-worshiping countrymen will always recognize him in his most salient character, "every inch a soldier." It is quite impossible to call him "Mr.," or at once to know who is meant if his card reads--for instance--"Mr. Lucius Fairchild." Nothing but the title of his well-earned rank gives an adequate idea of the man. The official cards of political officers and ambassadors, which bear the title and office of the man--with or without his name--should be used only on official or State occasions, and during the term of office. When the incumbent "steps down and out," this card is also "relegated." His friends may continue to greet him as "Governor," but he no longer _uses_ the title himself. In strictly social life, the personal card of the ex-Governor is like that of any other private citizen, subject to the same rules. Similarly, professional or business cards that bear ever so slight an advertisement of occupations are not allowable for social purposes. The three "learned" professions, theology, medicine, and law, are equally "for life." But the occupation of the lawyer is distinctly related to business matters, and not at all to social affairs. His title, or sub-title, _Esquire_, is properly ignored on his visiting-card, and socially he is simply "Mr. John Livingstone." On the other hand, the callings of the clergyman and the physician respectively, are closely allied to the social side of life, closely identified with the man himself. Therefore "Rev.," or "Dr." may with propriety be considered as forming an inseparable compound with the name. The title is an important identifying mark, and its omission, by the clergyman, at least, is not strictly dignified. "Office hours" are not announced on a physician's social card. It is not good form to use _merely honorary titles_ on visiting-cards. In most cases, a man should lay aside all pretension to special office or rank, and appear in society simply as "Mr. John Brown," to take his chances in the social world strictly on his own merits; assured that if he has any merit, other people will discover it without an ostentatious reminder of it in the shape of a pompous visiting-card. Of course this suggestion of democratic simplicity refers to the engraving of _one's own card_; other people _address_ the man properly by his official or honorary title, with all due respect for the worth which the world recognizes--even though the wearer of such honors ignores his own claim to high distinction. "Blow your own trumpet, if you would hear it sound," is a sharply sarcastic bit of advice, since only hopeless mediocrity could ever profit by the injunction. Real merit needs no trumpeter. Mrs. Grant could afford to call her husband "Mr." Grant, as was her modest custom; because all the world knew that he was the General of our armies, and the President of the republic. It is some "Mayor Puff," of Boomtown, who can hardly be persuaded by the engraver from giving himself the satisfaction of incidentally announcing on his visiting-cards the result of the last borough election. A man's address may be engraved beneath his name at the lower right corner, the street and number _only_ if in a city, or the name of a country-seat if out of town; as, "The Leasowes." Bachelors who belong to a club may add the club address in the lower left corner; or, if they live altogether at the club, this address occupies the lower right corner. An engraved address implies some permanency of location. Those who are liable to frequent changes of address would better omit this addition to the visiting-card, writing the address in any emergency that requires it. No _messages_ are _written_ on a man's card, and no penciling is allowed, except as above, to give (or correct) the address, or in the case of "_P. p. c._" cards, sent by post. CARDS FOR WOMEN The rules in regard to titles are simple and brief. A woman's name should never appear on a visiting-card without either "Mrs." or "Miss" prefixed. The exception would be in the case of women who have regularly graduated in theology or medicine. Such are entitled, like their brothers, to prefix "Rev." or "Dr." to their names. A married woman's card is engraved with her husband's name, with the prefix "Mrs." No matter how "titled" the husband may be, his _titles_ do not appear on his wife's visiting-card. The wife of the President is not "Mrs. President Harrison," but "Mrs. Benjamin Harrison." She is the wife of the _man_, not the wife of his _office_ or his _rank_. A widow may, if she prefers, retain the card engraved during her husband's lifetime, unless by so doing she confuses her identity with that of some other "Mrs. John Brown," whose husband is still living. It is more strictly correct for a widow to resume her own given name, and to have her card engraved "Mrs. Mary Brown," or, if she chooses to indicate her own patronymic, "Mrs. Mary Dexter Brown." An unmarried woman's card is engraved with her full name, or the initials of given names, as she prefers, but always with the prefix "Miss" (unless one of the professional titles referred to takes its place). The address may be engraved or written in the lower right corner. If a society woman has a particular day for receiving calls, that fact is announced in the lower left corner. If this is engraved, it is understood to be a fixed custom; if written, it may be a transient arrangement. If a weekly "at home" day is observed, the name of the day is engraved, as "Tuesdays." This means that during "calling hours" on _any_ Tuesday the hostess will be found at home. If hours are limited, that is also indicated, as "from 4 to 6." Further limitations may be specified, as "Tuesdays in February," "Tuesdays until Lent," "Tuesdays after October," etc. Any definite idea of time may be given to meet the facts, the wording being made as terse as possible. If the regular "at home" day is Tuesday (unlimited), and the card is so engraved, any of the special limitations may be penciled in to meet special conditions. Sometimes an informal invitation is thus conveyed; as, by the addition, "Tea, 4 to 6," etc. _Other penciling_.--Cards left or sent, before leaving town, have "_P. p. c._"--(_Pour prendrè congé_)--penciled in the lower left corner. A holiday, a birthday, a wedding anniversary, or other event in a friend's life may be remembered by sending a card, upon which is penciled "Greeting," "Congratulations," "Best wishes," or some similar expression. Such cards may be sent alone, or may accompany gifts. Any brief message may be penciled on a woman's card, provided the message is sufficiently personal to partake of the nature of a social courtesy. But the card message should not be sent when courtesy requires the more explicit and respectful form of a _note_. CARDS FOR YOUNG WOMEN In strictly formal circles a young woman, during her first year in society, pays no visits alone. She accompanies her mother or chaperon. She has no separate card, but her name is engraved, or may be written, beneath that of her mother (or chaperon) on a card employed for these joint visits. After a year or so of social experience (the period being governed by the youth or maturity of the debutante, or by the exigency of making way for a younger sister to be chaperoned), the young woman becomes an identity socially, and has her separate card, subject to the general rules for women's cards, even though she continues to pay her most formal visits in company with her mother. AFTER MARRIAGE CARDS During the first year after marriage cards engraved thus: "Mr. and Mrs. Henry Bell Joyce," may be used by the couple in paying calls, or returning wedding civilities. Such cards are also used when jointly sending presents at any time. For general visiting, after the first year, husband and wife have separate cards. THE USE OF THE VISITING-CARD A too profuse use of visiting-cards indicates crudity. The trend of fashion is toward restricting the quantity of paste-board, and employing cards always when they are required, never when they are superfluous. CALLING IN PERSON When one calls in person the name of the caller is given verbally to the servant who opens the door. The card is not usually sent up, except by a stranger. But sometimes there is difficulty in making the servant understand the name or properly distinguish it from some other similar name. In this case to avoid mistakes the card is sent up. If the hostess is not at home a card is left by the disappointed caller. On the occasion of a _first_ call a card is left on the hall table, or other place provided, _even though the caller has been received by the hostess_. This serves as a reminder that the acquaintance has been duly and formally begun. On the occasion of subsequent calls, when the hostess is at home, no cards are employed, except, as before stated, to avert servants' mistakes. Such is the sensible dictum of good authorities, and one in harmony with the idea that the personal card is the _representative_ of its owner, not his _accompaniment_. This idea is more pointedly illustrated in quiet neighborhoods, where even the wealthy live simply of choice, and, like their neighbors of moderate means, employ but one domestic, or, it may be, none. In such households often the guest is met at the door by a member of the family, possibly the hostess herself. The use of a visiting-card then is plainly incongruous, not to say absurd. The visitor who is paying a "first call" under these informal conditions may find opportunity to drop a card unobtrusively into the basket, if such receptacle be within reach; but if this cannot be done without conspicuous effort the card is better ignored, and its place as a remembrancer filled by the genial impression which the visitor leaves, and of which an appreciative hostess needs no card reminder. Besides, people "living quietly" visit so little, comparatively, that it is no severe tax on the memory to recollect who has called, especially as the infrequency of calls gives ample time for each one to make an individual impression. This is not possible when a steady stream of visitors is pouring in and out of a drawing-room on a fashionable woman's "at home" day, scarcely giving the hostess opportunity to gaze upon one face before another has displaced it; so that at the end of the hour her memory recalls a composite photograph. Cards are her indispensable aids in resolving this picture into its component elements. But those who "live quietly," receiving but few calls, have no such bewildering complexity to deal with. At the same time, these people thus quietly environed may represent the most refined and cultivated circle. They may know perfectly well what formal etiquette would demand in the matter of cards if the conditions were more formal. The omission of cards whenever their use would be forced, so far from indicating ignorance, is a proof of discrimination. Personal calls are made in the following cases: In returning a first visit, made in person. After a dinner party to which one has been invited, whether the invitation was accepted or not. After any entertainment other than a dinner it is allowable to leave or send cards instead of paying a personal call. This is a wise rule in cases where a hostess, has a long visiting list, and entertains frequently. To receive afterward personal visits from all of her guests would be practically impossible. The majority will express their acknowledgments by card, leaving it to the most intimate friends of the hostess to pay their respects in person. But among quiet people, where one "Tea" is the extent of a hostess' efforts for the season, the personal call is desirable as showing greater respect and friendliness. Among congenial friends only the plea of a busy life can make the card acknowledgment quite as graceful and acceptable as the personal visit. But if the guest is a comparative stranger, and, for any reason, there is a wish not to extend the acquaintance, the sending of a card meets all the requirements of etiquette, without committing the sender to any further intimacy. (The alternative for personal calls, is personal card-leaving; the next point to be considered.) CARD-LEAVING IS LIEU OF PERSONAL CALLS When personal calls are not practicable, nor desirable, the leaving of cards is accepted as an equivalent. A few years ago, fashion demanded that all visiting-cards expressing or acknowledging social civilities should be left in person; the alternative in emergencies being to send them by the hand of a private messenger, never through the post-office. There was good excuse for this fashion in our grandmother's day, when the post was a slow coach, or a storm-stayed postillion; but the admirable system of our postal service to-day leaves no excuse for the prejudice in favor of the private messenger; and it is not surprising that fashion has yielded to common sense in allowing that many of these cards of courtesy may, with perfect propriety, be sent by post. The following instances illustrate the present correct usage in regard to these three ways of leaving cards. CASES IN WHICH PERSONAL CARD-LEAVING IS REQUIRED After a _first hospitality_, whether accepted or not. Calls of condolence. After-dinner calls by cards. _Alternative_.--In such cases, when _personal_ card-leaving is _impossible_, the card is sent by a private messenger, and an explanation, or apology, is sent by _note_. Cards of condolence may be sent by _post_ by friends at a distance; but not by persons residing in the near vicinity. CARDS BY MESSENGER, OR BY POST In all cases where personal card-leaving is not imperative, cards may be sent either by messenger or by post. As the former is still regarded by many persons--especially elderly people--as the only strictly polite medium of transfer, it is considerate to send cards, invitations, etc., to such people by the good old-fashioned messenger, rather than to shock unnecessarily a crystallized sense of propriety by ruthless innovations. But in general it is more convenient and quite as neat and reliable to send by post; and the fashion of so doing is now fully adopted by the younger generation, and no longer subject to criticism. In stating what _may_ be done, in the way of escaping personal tasks, we are merely marking the bounds of propriety in one direction. On the other hand, in most cases, those who choose may make personal calls instead of those several formal card-leavings. When good form allows alternatives, each one must judge for himself which form of expression is most appropriate in any given case. Frank cordiality, amounting to informality, may be in the best taste in some oases; whereas, in other instances, only the most conventional and reserved expression of respect is either agreeable or discreet. In the latter case, let your card speak _for_ you, and at "long range"--the longer the better. CARD-LEAVING BY PROXY One of the peculiar permissions of "good form" is that which allows a man to delegate the distribution of his visiting-cards to a near female relative, whenever it becomes impracticable for him to attend to the matter personally. Only the women of his own household, or a relative with whom he habitually pays visits, can thus represent a man by proxy. In this country, where most society men--certainly the better element--are "business men," whose days are filled with earnest work and crowned with the achievements of industry, it is not to be expected that men of affairs will always be ready to respond to social invitations, or to pay all the calls of civility which fashion decrees shall be paid during the hours usually devoted to business. In theory, each man and woman in society is supposed to attend to his or her own social duties. _While it is expected that a man will make all reasonable effort to do this, and that he will not altogether neglect it_, still, so long as he occasionally appears personally, with a genial demeanor that proves the sincerity of his "good intentions," it will be accepted in good part if, in a large number of instances, his card, instead of himself, appears, brought by another hand. But let men remember that the "good excuse" must be obvious. Any suspicion of indifference robs the proxy card-leaving of all effect as a compliment. In case a man is legitimately prevented, by business cares, from paying calls or leaving his cards in person, it is proper for his wife or mother or sister, or other near relative, to leave or send his card with her own. When a woman calls upon another woman she leaves her husband's card. If the hostess is married, a second card is left for the host. She may leave the cards of a son, a brother, or other relative, if such responsibility rests upon her. This formality should be observed when paying the first call of the season. While every well-informed woman should know that it is her place to leave her husband's cards for him, it is a fact that many women, otherwise attentive to social forms, habitually neglect this particular duty. The result is that the man who has not time to pay visits becomes a social nonentity, and society, in some circles, is simply a "world of women." Why does the husband, thus neglected, get out of going to the occasional party whenever he can, and when he does allow himself to be dragged thither, why does he sulk, leaning against a chilly mantel-piece, eying his fragile coffee cup with disdain, and enacting the _rôle_ of martyr generally, until he can persuade his wife to go home again? Why, indeed; but because he feels out of place. His rare and incidental appearance is a journey into a far country, of which he has little knowledge, and in which he has no interest. But when a man goes--ever so seldom--where he knows that his card _habitually_ goes, he feels that he is on familiar ground, and he will go in person, of choice, oftener than he otherwise would. Some men, unaccustomed to exact social observances, would ridicule the idea at first, if their wives should announce the intention of leaving their husband's cards for them. But, however much a man might demur, a lurking vanity would develop into complacent satisfaction, as he became aware of the increasing geniality of the social atmosphere about him; and the pleasing glow would take the ultimate form of gratitude to his wife. That the permission to leave cards by proxy is often abused by selfish and indolent men is no doubt true. But the social advantage which it gives to a large class of men who are neither selfish nor indolent more than counterbalances any disadvantages, and saves to "society" a solid element that might be entirely given over to business, if it were not for judicious feminine co-operation in the distribution of visiting-cards. "Solid" men would go "into society" far more frequently and with greater alacrity if they felt assured that the way had been smoothly paved with their own visiting-cards, well laid in place by the deft fingers of their skillful women folk, who have left no flaw in the mosaic of social proprieties. SOME FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF CARD USAGE When a married, or elderly woman tacitly invites a man to call on her by telling him what are her "at home" days or hours, it is obligatory upon him to acknowledge the courtesy. If unable to call personally he should explain that fact and express regret, and should be particular to send a card on her next receiving day during the hours that she has mentioned. It is a special courtesy to send also a card for her husband, if he is a venerable man, or if, by reason of ill health, he is usually at home. A woman older, or busier, or occupying some position of acknowledged distinction, may send her card, indicating her receiving days and hours, to a younger or less occupied woman. This is accepted as a call, and an invitation to return the same. If the recipient chooses she may respond in person. If she does not care to establish a calling acquaintance she may respond by sending one of her own cards on the receiving day. In case opportunity occurs for explanation some polite reason may be given for not adding to one's visiting list; but unless one has the tact to do this without snobbishness, it were better to keep silence. Cards of introduction are simply visiting-cards upon which the owner writes, above his own name, "Introducing Mr. ----." The card is inclosed in an unsealed envelope, addressed to the person to whom the introduction is to be made, and with the words "Introducing Mr. ----," written in the lower left corner. It is a delicate matter to refuse a card or letter of introduction, but it is a far more delicate matter to take the _liberty_ to give one. If one is in doubt about the readiness of the third party to receive the person introduced it is better to find some polite excuse for declining to be the medium of the introduction. Fortunately, if the blunder is made of introducing uncongenial people they can easily drift apart again without rudeness on the part of either. When any one is invited to a church wedding and cannot attend it is proper to send, on the day of the marriage, a card or cards to those who issued the invitations; one card, if one parent, or a guardian, invites; if the invitation is sent in the names of both parents, a card for each, inclosed in an envelope and addressed to both. If the invited guest attends the wedding he leaves or sends cards within a week, similarly addressed. A personal call is allowable if intimacy warrants it. Those friends of the groom who are not acquainted with the bride's family should merely send cards. When a man wishes to make the acquaintance of another man he may call and send in his card. This may or may not be accompanied with some explanatory message. If the man on whom the call is made does not wish to receive the caller he will express some polite reason for declining, or suggest another time for receiving the visitor. Usually a man will receive another man who makes polite overtures; but if the host does not wish to continue the acquaintance he will not return the call in person, but simply send his card by post. This distant rejoinder practically ends the brief acquaintance without any discourteous rebuff. It is one of the mistakes of the vulgar to be rude and gruff in order to repel an undesired acquaintance. In reality, nothing freezes out a bore more effectually than the icy calm of dignified courtesy. There are exquisitely polite ways of sending every undesirable person to limbo. The perfect self-command of the well-bred man enables him to do this to perfection, but without giving offense. Moreover, as most people worth seeking are men and women of earnest lives and crowded occupations, no one need feel personally chagrined by the failure to establish a coveted acquaintance with some gifted man or woman. Cards of condolence are left as soon as possible after learning of the affliction. If in town, cards are left in person or sent by a messenger with a message. If out of town a card is sent by the first post. Nothing is written upon these cards. A visiting card, with "Congratulations" written upon it, is sent to felicitate a friend upon any happy event in which friends may sympathize. Such cards are sent by messenger or by post. If a card is left in person with a kind message, nothing is written upon the card. When a man calls and sees his hostess, but not the host, he should leave a card for the latter. If the hostess is not at home, two cards should be left. When a man entertains formally, each man invited, whether he accepts or not, should acknowledge the courtesy within a week. He may call in person, or leave a card, or send a card by mail, or write a note of thanks, whichever he prefers. This is one of the important formalities between men, and the neglect of it argues either ignorance or insolence. When a man calls upon a woman while she is the guest of a family with whom he is not acquainted, he inquires for both his friend and her hostess, and, as he is a stranger in the house, he sends up a card for each (instead of announcing himself _verbally_, as at the house of a friend). If the hostess receives him on this occasion, but extends no further hospitality, he has no claim upon her recognition beyond the hour. If the hostess subsequently offers him any hospitality during the time his friend is her guest he must call upon her; but if he defers this until after the departure of the guest, he must leave a card for the hostess without intruding a personal call, unless he has been distinctly invited to continue the acquaintance. If the man who pays the call does not wish to continue the acquaintance with his friend's hostess, after she has offered him hospitality, he must at least call and leave a card for her, with a polite inquiry for her health. This is obligatory; but nothing further is required. A visiting card is employed in sending informal invitations to a tea or afternoon reception. The care of the hostess is used, and in addition to the name of the regular receiving day the special date, as "January 19," and some other specific words, as "Tea, 4 to 6," are written in the lower left corner. (In this informal _written_ message _numbers_ are indicate by _figures_, where _formal_ invitations require the _words_ to be written in full.) This card is accepted by the recipients as equivalent to a call paid by the sender, and they respond in person at the time indicated, leaving cards with the servant as they enter, and also, on their departure, leaving the cards of such male members of their respective families as have been invited, but are unable to attend. As few men can leave business at this hour these occasions become prominent illustrations of "proxy" card-leaving. If any one invited cannot be present (and in case of a man no female relative is there authorized to represent him) a card must be sent by post or messenger on the receiving day. After a change of residence, or after a prolonged absence from home, cards of the entire family are sent to notify an acquaintance of their re-establishment and of their readiness to resume the social interchange. It is customary for the younger society men to pay a round of calls after returning from the usual summer "outing," or to leave cards in lieu of a call. When leaving for a long absence, or when parting from transient, but agreeable acquaintances, as companion tourists, etc., when time does not admit of farewell calls, visiting-cards are sent by post with "P. p. c." (_Pour prendrè congé_--to take leave) written upon them. This is equivalent to saying, "If ever we meet again we will meet on the footing of friends, not strangers." It is a pleasant way of showing appreciation of the pleasure afforded by another's society, and the formality should not be neglected by one who would be esteemed thoughtfully polite and kind. Only people who cling to old-fashioned customs still fold over the right side of a visiting-card to show that the card was left _in person_, and also fold over the _left side_ to show that the call was intended for _all_ the women of the household. This custom is practically obsolete. Another fashion that has had its day was that of leaving a separate card for each of the women of the household. Now, _one_ card answers the purpose, the inquiry accompanying it indicates whether the call was intended for one or for all of the family. In case a _guest_ of the household is included in the call a separate card is left for her. CEREMONIOUS CARDS AND INVITATIONS. ETIQUETTE OF REPLIESs THE "HIGH TEA," MUSICALE, ETC. These occasions are more formal than the ordinary afternoon tea. Special cards are engraved, and if any special entertainment is provided, the fact may be indicated by the words, "Music," or "Miscellaneous Program" (when readings and music are interspersed). Or, the announcement may be omitted, and the program furnish a pleasant surprise for the guests. But when "Dancing" is the recreation provided for, it must appear on the card, so that guests may prepare for it. The card for a "_musicale_" or similar occasion, is simply engraved: MRS. JOHN LIVINGSTONE At Home Wednesday, October fifth, from four to seven o'clock. Dancing. 119 Park Ave. FOR A PARTY OR RECEPTION GIVEN IN HONOR OF ANOTHER, the invitations may be engraved with a blank space left for the name of the invited guest; or, the form may be filled out, and the name of the guest appear on the envelope only. It may read: MR. AND MRS. DEXTER HOLMES request the pleasure of .........................'s company on Tuesday evening June sixth, at nine o'clock, to meet Rev. John D. Loring. R.S.V.P. 29 Rice St. or, the wording may be "request the pleasure of your company," etc. The former has the rhetorical advantage of uniformity, the third person being used throughout; and it also indicates a personal recognition of each guest; but the latter form presents a neater appearance. As to the use of "R.S.V.P.," or any of the phrases now preferred by many, as, "Please reply;" "The favor of an answer is requested," etc., this may be said: some authorities claim that _all_ invitations should be _answered_; and that therefore these _requests_ for a reply are a reflection on the good manners of the people invited. But such is not the popular understanding. All invitations that are _plainly limited to a certain number of guests_, as dinners, card parties, and certain exclusive receptions, should be answered at once, in order that vacancies may be filled. Whether the invitation is accompanied with the request for a reply or not, all thoughtful people will recognize the propriety. But on many occasions where numbers are not necessarily limited, only the hostess can say whether the reply is urgent or not; since it is a question of her personal convenience, the limits of house-room, or some other individual matter. As no one class of entertainments is given always under the same conditions, it is well to allow the hostess to choose whether she will add or omit the request for a reply to her invitations. Meanwhile, the punctilious may reply to every invitation of a strictly social character, and even if the host or hostess did not expect it, such reply can give no offense; whereas, the _neglect_ of a _necessary_ reply might prove very awkward and annoying. A private ball is only a more elaborate form of a dancing party. The invitations are phrased in the same language, but the hour is usually not earlier than 9.30 P. M. The same form of invitation can be adapted to almost any reception, party or other social entertainment, with such variations in the phrasing as suit the circumstances. It may be said that it is unnecessary to give explicit directions about invitations, inasmuch as the engraver is the one ultimately responsible for the accuracy of these things. But on occasions when small numbers are invited--but undiminished formality is observed--the formal invitation is requisite, yet the engraved card is a needless expense. In such cases one may have cards _written_ in due form. But, for written invitations of this formal character, it is imperative that the paper shall be of superior quality, and the penmanship neat, and _thoroughly stylish_ in effect. CARDS OF INVITATION TO A WEDDING are issued in the name of the bride's parents, or, if she is an orphan, by her guardian, or some relative or friend who gives her the wedding. All expenses are paid by the bride's family. It is not etiquette for the groom to bear any of the expense, except the fee to the clergy man; nor to furnish anything for his own wedding, except the ring and the bouquet for the bride, presents for the brides-maids and best man, and some little token for the ushers. The hostess (who invites) requests the groom to furnish her with two lists of names--one list of those of his friends whom he wishes to be present to witness the ceremony, and another list of those whom he would like to see at the reception also. These, with similar lists of the bride's friends, make up the number of guests to be invited. Wedding invitations are usually sent out two weeks before the day fixed for
{'title': 'Etiquette by Agnes H. Morton', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}