Even good form may be made too burdensome to be endured, and it is the
privilege of conscientious Christian society to strike the happy medium
between this oppressive formalism and the true kindly life which can
cause even the violation of all form to be almost unnoticed.
It is better to have the good life without the good form than to have
the good form without the good life; but it is our privilege, and duty
as well, to have both.
In treating upon this subject it must not be forgotten that there are
forms and forms. Each city aims to be a center of social good form for
itself and its suburbs. Each has its own little peculiarities, as, for
instance, its own manner of using visiting cards,—the size, shape,
turning of the corners this way and that as signals; all of which differ
according to the decree of the social leaders of a great center of
social influence; and yet the manners of one city would never be
considered blunders in any other, however much they might differ,
provided they were sincere, easy, adjustable, and dainty. It is not,
however, considered elegant to ignore the customs of the people among
whom you may visit. That which your hostess considers good form should
be good to you while you are her guest, unless some principle is
violated. Good form requires concessions to even ignorance without any
of the “I-am-more-cultured-than-you” air.
Because of this diversity of forms it will be manifestly impossible for
any one to know just what would be considered good form in every detail
the world over. As in everything else which involves principles and
their application, it is true in this, that if you know and appreciate
the opportunities, and keep your eyes open, you will be able to avoid
serious mistakes.
In reply to many questions of a miscellaneous character I bind a little
sheaf of gleanings with which to conclude this subject of good form.
“When a gentleman friend of the family calls, is it proper for the
wife to go on with her work, and not go to the parlor at all to
welcome him, but to leave him to be entirely entertained by the
husband? Or is it necessary that she go to the parlor, and remain
during his visit? Would it be proper for her to leave the room during
his visit without asking to be excused?”
First of all I wish to drop the remark that the word “gentleman” is not
good form, as commonly used. It has been so perverted and misused that
it does not in these days even mean that for which it was first
intended,—a man of especially good manners. There are “gentlemen of _the
cloth_,” “gentlemen of _the turf_,” “the gentleman of _the road_,” “the
gentleman _about town_;”—all slang phrases, which have brought the word
into disrepute. The compound word “gentleman” was an effort upon the
part of human society to make distinctions which the Creator had refused
to recognize. He called man “MAN.” One can not be _more_ than a man.
Furthermore, the appropriation of the word “gentleman” by the
“aristocracy,” the fact that in the social world there is a “gentleman
class,” has made the expression inappropriate for universal application.
Instead of speaking of your gentleman friend, speak of your man friend.
Therefore I will say in reply to my questioner that when a man friend
calls upon the husband and family it is proper for the wife to occupy
herself with some work kept at hand for such occasions; or, if
necessary, after she has greeted him, and passed a few minutes
pleasantly in conversation, she may excuse herself, and go to her
household duties; but if she can do so, it is very cordial, and in every
respect good form, for her to take her work, and with some graceful word
of apology, such as any man would appreciate, go on keeping her hands
busy, while she assists in entertaining her husband’s friend. In leaving
the room she should ask to be excused, unless the men are so occupied as
to make it an interruption to do so. If she does not expect to return,
however, she should make her adieus, and invite him to call again,
before leaving the parlor.
“Is it admissible for a lady to keep on with her sewing or mending
while she is entertaining a caller? Can she take some kind of fancy
work with her while she is visiting a friend or neighbor?”
It is perfectly admissible for a woman to keep on with her sewing and
mending while she is entertaining a caller, provided she speaks of it in
some simple, graceful fashion. This is a much better means of
manifesting your appreciation of a caller than to lay aside necessary
work and take some fancy article. You can even take your mending with
you while visiting a friend and neighbor, and it will be appreciated
more than fancy work. In many localities fancy work, especially for
married women, has fallen into disfavor among even society people. There
is a social cult which makes much of everything practical. It is a
fad;—here to-day, gone to-morrow; but it has prepared the way for even a
stocking-bag in the boudoir of some social queen: the stockings, of
course, are supposed to be of the very finest texture and quality, and
the darning in itself to be a piece of finest lace work; and yet under
the cover of this supposition one can take a real serviceable hose and
do good, practical work upon it.
“Should the hostess offer to take the hat of a gentleman caller? and
where should she place it?”
If he does not at once make his hat at home, she should indicate where
he can leave it. It is better form for her to suggest that he can hang
it upon the hat rack or peg in the hall, or lay it on the table, if he
does not seem to know that he can do so, than it would be to take it
from him. If he has been properly instructed, as every boy should be at
home, he will, without any effort upon her part, relieve her of the
necessity of looking after his hat. But if he appears embarrassed by it,
take it at once with some pleasant remark calculated to set him at ease,
and place it where it ought to be. The proper place is in the hall, if
there be a hall. Lacking this, any convenient place is in order.
“If a man friend happens to call when the husband is absent and the
wife alone, should she invite him into the parlor and visit with him?”
Such a friend should so time his visits as to make reasonably sure that
the man of the house would be at home, but if he fails to do so, it is
the better way to inform him when the husband will return, and invite
him to call again, provided this would be agreeable to both husband and
wife. It is, however, bad form to say, “Come again,” when you mean,
“Stay away;” _very_ bad form for the wife to invite any one to call who
would necessarily be disagreeable to the man of the house. In these days
of moral contamination and prevalent gossip, good form is a conservator
of good morals. Even as regards the wife’s relation to her pastor, if
the husband is not a Christian, and, as often happens, dislikes
ministers as a class, and makes a call anything but pleasant, common
politeness requires that all pastoral visits shall include the husband.
“Where several are invited to a dinner, is it necessary for the men to
escort the ladies to the table? or is it better for each to walk out
independently?”
In relation to dinner manners, the hostess is expected to decide all
forms for her company. If she wishes to make it very formal, she
arranges just what man shall take out a certain woman. The couples will
be so seated that a man and a woman will occupy alternate places. Every
woman is expected to entertain first her own escort, and then to assist
in entertaining the one who sits next her on the other side, and also
occasionally to exchange a word with the one who sits opposite. It is
not, however, expected that one will talk all over the table, nor that
any one voice will command general attention until the table is cleared,
and the after-dinner program is called.
“If two gentlemen with their wives should be riding in one carriage,
would it be proper for the husband and wife to be separated, and each
gentleman sit with the other man’s wife?”
If married couples are riding together the most graceful thing is for
the host and hostess to take a guest to entertain; either for the two
men and the two women to sit together, or for the couples to exchange
companions. It would be an exceedingly ungracious act for the host and
hostess to sit together during the ride, thus leaving their guests to
each other alone. In any country good form requires that husbands and
wives should appreciate each other enough to consider that they are
conferring a favor by giving others an opportunity to enjoy their
society; and that they should at least _seem_ to trust each other to be
friendly to other men and women, even if they quarrel about it when they
are alone. The appearance of suspicion is the most foul of all bad
forms; it is, in fact, the very stench from the body of moral death.
“Is it proper for a woman to call in company with her husband upon a
man who lives alone?
“Is it proper for a lady to visit a sick man who is not a relative?”
It is suitable for a woman to accompany her husband _anywhere_. If the
husband intends calling on a man who lives alone, it is a very
neighborly act for his wife to accompany him. A feminine presence might
brighten the home of a social hermit, and would surely be as a
benediction to him if he were an invalid, or in trouble.
In visiting a sick man it would be better for two ladies to go together,
provided no interested man friend or nurse could accompany them. Yet
there might be cases where it would be necessary, and the only Christian
thing, for a woman to call alone, if she must, and render any necessary
care. This should, however, be only in case of necessity. The general
rule should be observed as far as possible, that men should care for
men, and women for women.
“When leaving a reception, dinner, or any private entertainment,
should one bid the hostess good night first before addressing the
others? Or, if there are several ladies belonging to the house, would
it be best to address the eldest lady first? I suppose it would be the
same when entering the house. I would like to know what the rules are
in regard to this, if there are any.”
The hostess takes precedence of all other members of the household for
the time being. If a person is required by circumstances to take an
early leave, and the hostess, as is sometimes the case, be occupied, it
is admissible to address others first. Faultless manners require that if
possible your personal arrangements should be such that you can
accommodate yourself to whatever exigencies may arise, so that without
any stress or pressure of any sort, you can have time to wait for an
opportunity to speak first to the hostess, and announce that you are
taking your leave. Then the way is open for any informal leave-taking
and preparations which you may have to make, reserving the last word for
the host, at the door, unless indeed, as sometimes happens, he stands
beside his wife at the leave-taking as well as the reception.
“Should the host offer to entertain the company himself with music, or
should the visitors invite him to entertain them?”
This depends upon the kind of entertainment, the character of his
visitors, and the proficiency of the host as a musician. If he is really
a musician, and has something which he knows would give pleasure to the
company, it would be expected that he would favor them. A few words of
introduction, not of himself, but of the music, would be appropriate;
but it should be done in the most informal and unobtrusive manner
possible.
“Should one recognize and bow to an acquaintance when upon the
opposite side of the street? If one meets a person with whom she is
but slightly acquainted and bows, then meets him again after an hour
or so, is it necessary to recognize him and bow again? How should a
lady do at the second meeting?”
In chancing to look up and recognize a familiar friend upon the opposite
side of the street, a slight inclination of the head on the part of a
woman is correct; on the part of a man or boy, touching or lifting the
hat; but a vocal greeting at that distance would be bad form. It is not
necessary to bow every time you meet in passing and repassing often
during the day, although some sign of recognition is always good; but
when upon the first meeting during the day proper greetings have been
duly exchanged, a slight inclination of the head, a touch of the hat, a
cordial glance is sufficient. More could be made very tiresome if you
were to meet often while about the day’s business.
“Is it good form to use a toothpick at the table?”
It is bad form to use a toothpick in any but the most private manner.
Its public appearance is always repulsive. It should never be used as an
article of table decoration. It is one of those necessary articles that
can never be suggestive of anything appetizing or graceful; in fact, its
suggestions are wholly of things concerning which one should be as
reticent and retired as possible.
“Which is the better form,—to use the fork in the right hand, leaving
the knife lying upon the plate, or to take the fork in the left hand,
and use the knife to push the food upon it? In short, in which hand
should the fork properly be held, and what is the office of the knife
at the table?”
The fork should always be used in the right hand, for cutting, taking
up, and conveying food to the mouth, unless one is left-handed. In that
case it should be used in the left hand. The knife should only be used
for cutting what can not be cut with the fork, and when not in use,
should lie on the plate. It has a very limited service at the table. It
would be very awkward to use the knife to push food on to the fork,
because it is entirely unnecessary.
“Should brothers and sisters call upon each other in their
sleeping-rooms in connection with boarding-schools?”
Those who are old enough to go away to boarding-school should come under
the same regulations in such matters as any other men and women must
observe. The bedroom is not designed as a reception-room. It has
properly only one use. If it must for any reason be used as a
study-room, yet the fact that it is a bedroom makes it unfit for a
visiting place. It is furthermore the usual rule for two persons to
occupy the same room in the school home, and manifestly immodest for
sister or brother to intrude upon the privacy of these roommates.
Besides these considerations the association of brothers and sisters
should be upon the same plane of modest deportment as between any other
man and woman. This should be taught the children in the home, and
practised everywhere, for the purpose of education and training
preparatory to meeting the conditions which exist in the world at large.
“Under what circumstances is it proper for young men and women to
correspond with each other? Where not allowable, give reasons.”
When a thorough acquaintance between a young man and woman has developed
into that association which points to marriage, and when they must
necessarily be separated, correspondence is right. Such correspondence
should not, however, be considered too sacred to share with father and
mother. Anything that can not be shared with a good parent is dangerous.
If there is good reason for confidence between the young people who are
drawn toward each other, and yet who have had no good opportunity to
become thoroughly acquainted, a correspondence for the purpose of
acquaintance is admissible, although not wholly safe. To correspond with
more than one at a time has every appearance of evil, and is too often
just as evil as it can appear to be. Correspondence, excepting as it
leads up to marriage, should be for business only, as brief and formal
as possible, and should stop short when its purpose has been served. A
_religious_ correspondence between young men and women is one of Satan’s
most fruitful and profane devices.
“Should young ladies at school be permitted to receive calls from
young men? If so, under what circumstances?”
There should be connected with the young women’s home of every school a
parlor, open and public to all at all times. In such an apartment young
ladies in school should be able to receive calls, under proper
chaperonage and advice from those who have them in charge. Promiscuous
calling would be bad form, and dangerous to reputation.
“Is it best for young men and young women to do missionary work for
each other?”
The only way in which they can do missionary work for each other is in
each one making of him and herself the very best representative of
everything that is best and truest in good manners, according to the
divine model, and then leave the detail work for young men to men, and
for young women to women. Any man who must be led to Christ by some
woman, instead of some good, brotherly man, can never be saved. Any
woman who can not be helped by some sister woman, or mother in Israel,
can never be helped.
“Is it proper for a company of young people to go out on a camping
expedition for several days, even with a chaperon?”
This would depend on the character of the company. One chaperon would
not be sufficient for a company of young men and young women. There
should be _chaperons_,—a man for the young men, and a woman for the
young women; and if the company is large, there should be a sufficient
number of elderly companions to give them all necessary protection and
support in the enjoyment of the occasion. There could be no reason why a
select party of young people, properly accompanied, should not enjoy an
outing of this description. But in such a case it would be not only bad
form, but criminal, for any young man or woman to take advantage of the
occasion to break over any of the protective regulations upon which all
should agree before starting out. Common politeness and good sense would
lead each to co-operate with all to secure the most perfect good order
in the camp from beginning to end, by daylight and dark.
“Is it proper for young people to take moonlight rides together?”
A moonlight ride for a company of young people, accompanied by fathers
and mothers, or teachers, or suitable friends of mature age, would
certainly be proper and enjoyable. Under no other circumstances.
“What would you say to a young man who would stand around and talk
with a young woman while she is at work?”
That he was indulging in a very rustic and childish procedure, impolite
in the highest degree, necessarily hindering and prolonging the work of
the young woman, and perhaps complicating all the affairs of the day.
What would I say to him?—That he had better go and finish his work while
I finish mine, and then if he has really anything to say, come to the
family sitting-room, at some suitable time, and we will talk it over.
“What is the best way for a woman to meet indecent remarks or actions
from a man? Should she ‘scorch’ him, or slap him in the face?”
Neither. To take the slightest notice of him or of his remarks is to
give the man the advantage. At such a time as this rudeness would not be
good form. The only safe course would be to ignore him as you would the
buzz of the locust in the tree, or the sound of the cable along the
track of the car line. You are obliged to be conscious of its presence,
but you go on your way, just the same, and let it buzz or roar. Whatever
such a fellow may say or do, never turn your eyes one hair’s breadth.
Allow him to wonder if you are really blind and deaf. A word or act of
even protest would give him a chance to reply. One word would call for
another, and no one could possibly forecast where it would end.
“What can be done with students who will not listen to the advice of
teachers upon questions of proper behavior, who will not believe what
is told them about the character of those with whom they are
associating?”
Unless it is a reform school, the only thing would be to send them home.
“When it is known that a young man or young woman in school is impure
in thought, language, and habit, what is the duty of those in
authority in the matter?”
It is impossible for any one to know the thoughts of any other being, so
as to judge of their intrinsic character. The language and habits, when
judged from your standpoint, may be impure, but they may be really only
the result of wrong methods and circumstances over which the child has
no control, and for which he is not at all responsible. In manner and
habit he may be vile, and yet be no more responsible as far as thought
and motive is concerned than he would be for having the measles. He has
simply been exposed, caught it, and needs to be cured. But whatever the
thought and inner life may be, if his language and habits in the school
association are on the impure level, the pupil should certainly be kept
in quarantine at home, unless the school is like a hospital prepared to
take the case, and give the treatment that will lead to mental and moral
health.
“In what respect does the relation of those in charge of a school home
differ from that of the parents?”
In responsibility, during the school term, there is no difference. In
point of privilege the parent has greatly the advantage, as he alone is
capable of understanding the secrets which may be locked away, in the
breast of the child, from any possible discovery by the teacher. The
responsibility of parents, however, never ends, while that of the
teacher is limited to the hours in the school, and the school term. The
parents’ responsibility covers the whole life, and can never be
transferred.
“Is it good form for students in their work to eat bits of food from
the dishes they are handling?”
It is not only bad form, but a very disgusting practise for any one to
pick up things lying about on plates, table, in cupboards, or on fruit
stands, public or private, and put them into the mouth. The only
suitable place for eating is at the table, the picnic basket, or the
traveling lunch box, and that at the meal-time. The habit of nibbling is
also productive of many very troublesome forms of disease. Good form
requires that one should be as neat and tidy in the necessary handling
and preparing of food as in presiding at or enjoying a banquet.
“Is it good form for a gentleman to put on a lady’s skates?”
Any woman who is able to skate is able to fasten her own skates, and
should feel a womanly contempt for that childish form of incapacity that
would make her willing to receive that kind of attention from any man.
The corseted woman, trussed like a fowl, can not get down to her feet so
as to put on a pair of skates; but neither can she skate enough to make
it worth while to take note of her efforts. Of course _she_ must have a
man to perform this puerile service for her.
“What is the proper form of accepting or declining invitations to
receptions, weddings, graduations, etc.? Should an acceptance or
refusal of such an invitation be accompanied by a gift? If so, what is
the most appropriate, and the best form in which to give it?”
The above questions can all be answered upon the same principle. The
formula of acknowledging invitations to receptions differs as widely as
the style of cards; but the very best “good form” is for each invited
guest in her own natural manner, in a personal, kindly note, to either
accept, or express regrets at not being able to attend. Books on
etiquette give an assortment of styles varying in degrees of stiffness,
which you can copy if you wish, but they are the most ungraceful relics
of dead form on record.
Concerning weddings: in many circles it is supposed that a response to a
wedding invitation must necessarily include a wedding gift; but to
assume that such an event is the occasion of soliciting silverware,
dry-goods, and furniture is one of the very worst of all bad forms. The
wedding gift has become one of the most troublesome expressions of
social hypocrisy. If it could be possible to abolish it, and give
society a chance to go back to the simple habits of fifty years ago, it
would be a blessing indeed. It is a misfortune to a young couple to
receive even one gift that either for its pretended or real value would
make the simple style in which they will doubtless be obliged to begin
life seem mean. Flowers or books are the most suitable things to bring
to a wedding, and even flowers may be so profuse as to become vulgar.
This does not of course include those gifts that would naturally be made
by the family for the purpose of giving the young couple “a start in
life.”
“What are the proper conditions and forms upon which introductions
should take place?”
Good form requires that no man shall address a lady without an
introduction, unless it be in a case of extreme necessity. An
_emergency_, for the time being, nullifies all ceremony; but after the
emergency is passed, the informal acquaintance should be ended. Every
boy should be so taught in the home that as he grows up, and goes out
into the world, he will not offend against good form, and bring himself
under suspicion by intruding upon the notice of any young woman whom he
may happen to fancy, without the formality of an introduction by some
one of whom he will have no reason to be ashamed.
Good form requires that the introduction of any two persons should be by
the desire of both. The slightest objection upon the part of either
would make the introduction a gross intrusion. The reasons for this are
obvious. Society has seen that after the introduction, anything may
follow, and the only chance for a young woman to protect herself from
undesirable and dangerous association, may be in the rigid enforcement
of this simple rule of rights. The proper form of introduction is that
which is most easy and graceful in manner for the one who is to do the
introducing. As in everything else, individuality should be given a
chance; the spirit and manner carries much more weight than the words.
Always, however, the person who is to be in any way advantaged by the
introduction, favored either in pleasure or profit, is the one who is to
be presented to the other. For instance, Mr. Lane has seen Miss Mason,
and has recognized her as one whose acquaintance he would enjoy. He asks
a mutual friend to secure the privilege of this introduction; Miss Mason
has been asked the favor with the assumption that it will be entirely
for Mr. Lane’s advantage and pleasure. Miss Mason is gracious, and
consents to grant the request. Mr. Lane is therefore brought to the
place where the young lady is waiting. Never should a person who is to
receive another be asked to come to be introduced. Bring the candidate
for this social favor, to the one of whom it has been asked, and upon
approaching, you will say, “Miss Mason, allow me the pleasure of
presenting Mr. Lane. Mr. Lane, Miss Mason,” upon which Miss Mason will
bow slightly, Mr. Lane a little more noticeably. They will not shake
hands, but will stand, or perhaps be seated, and converse for a few
moments, when Mr. Lane will take his leave, if he knows what is good for
him, and wait for some further recognition from Miss Mason.
Among very intimate friends, where it is well known that an acquaintance
would certainly be a mutual pleasure and benefit, this formula is not
always necessary. I have been giving the strict social good-form code,
which is for protection against annoyances. It would be an unfortunate
social misdemeanor for any person to make the second effort to receive
an introduction which has been once declined, without some advances from
the person who had made the refusal.
When a young man desires to cultivate the acquaintance of a young woman,
good form requires that before he utters a word, he shall frankly inform
her parents of his wishes, and ask their consent. _And this is right_;
and even if their decision is against him, a young man who is worthy of
a wife will have that regard for the rights of the parent which will
make him careful how he ruthlessly breaks into the family circle. He
will give himself time and opportunity to win the parents, before he
disturbs the mind of the daughter. The observance of good form in such
matters will bring a blessing, and save unspeakable trouble, even if it
should require what seems to the heart of a youth a great deal of
unreasonable delay.
“After the introduction should the mutual friend leave, or remain and
lead out in conversation?”
After the introduction the newly made acquaintances may or may not be
left to their own devices in following up the introduction. This
introduction does not under any circumstances bind the young woman to
any future recognition of the person who has been introduced to her. She
may ruthlessly ignore him the next time she meets him without any
violation of good form, it being supposed that she has sufficient reason
for doing so, and he will have no occasion to complain. He must accept
the fact that he has had all that he can receive of pleasure or profit
from this acquaintance, and be satisfied with it, unless he can by some
means so bring himself in some manly way to the notice of this young
woman that she shall indicate her wish to continue the acquaintance.
“What is good form in dress for an evening reception for both men and
women? Should gloves be worn?”
For a formal reception, society requires that a man should wear black.
If the host wears gloves, the men should do so. If the hostess only
wears gloves, only the women wear gloves. At a wedding the bride
determines whether gloves shall be worn. It would be very bad form to
wear gloves if the bride’s hands were bare. The fashion changes with
reference to what is suitable for both men and women, but as a rule what
is known as the cutaway coat for men, with a white necktie, makes an
evening dress for any occasion. It need not necessarily be of expensive
material. A great variety is admissible in women’s costume at a
reception. If she chooses to wear her bonnet, she may also wear a simple
tailor-made gown, of very plain style and color, a traveling dress, or
even an ordinary street dress; or she may be arrayed like the veriest
butterfly in all the colors of the rainbow, and still preserve unbroken
the rules of good form in dress according to the social code. But the
plainer style is unquestionably the better form in every sense of the
word. This is a social concession to the conscientious Christian element
in social life, and an effort to retain it; and the more truly people
carry conscience into dress, as well as the more they cultivate every
true Christian grace, the more they are appreciated even by those who
give time and thought to what seems to be frivolous in custom and
costume.
“How shall one cultivate the art of conversation?”
First of all _by conversing_. But to talk one must _know_ and _think_.
Select some theme of general interest and importance, inform yourself
concerning it, then train your mind to methodical handling of it; think
it over in colloquial form; talk about it to the home folks, study the
dictionary for a vocabulary, and use what you find. It is a good thing
to have several words at your tongue’s end which mean the same thing, or
nearly so; but it is very bad form to “talk _book_.” You can fill
yourself with the book, but when it comes to expressing yourself in
conversation, talk _talk_,—common language, pure and simple, short words
such as even a child can understand.
The best conversationalist is one who by saying but little himself (that
little choice, clear, and true) can draw others out to a free expression
of their thoughts, making even the slow and stammering to feel “at
home.”
It is bad form to take advantage of a social opportunity to air any
private opinions that must necessarily arouse opposition and
controversy. Conversation should be like a refreshing stream, holding
all truth in solution in such form that it shall be recognized as sweet
waters, at which the thirsty soul may find refreshment. The truth which
it contains can be trusted to do its work in thought and life, as the
iron and magnesia may on blood and tissue.
“What is the difference between good form, etiquette, and ethics?”
Good form contains the bare principle, etiquette applies the principle,
and ethics brings _conscience_ into the practise of it. It is possible
for etiquette to violate every principle of both good form and ethics;
but good form and ethics will always agree when they understand each
other, and will make a safe environment in which any child, youth, man,
or woman may live, love, and labor.
Nowhere is the observance of good form more necessary than during a
journey. It is especially a safeguard to the young and inexperienced
against the designing and vicious.
The rule is that the traveling dress should be of the most unobtrusive
character, of some neutral color, with no showy embellishments on hat or
gown, something which can be readily shaken or brushed free of dust; and
that every movement should be such as to avoid attracting attention;
that no acquaintance should be formed with strangers, unless it be under
circumstances that could admit of no possible question.
It is bad form to stand and look about in a waiting-room, or to
promenade the platform, to turn the head and gaze at people, or to ask
questions of any but officials. These things, trivial as they may seem,
carefully observed, help to keep a hedge of safety about the young woman
or boy who is obliged to travel alone, while only a slight departure
from these rules will often open the way for annoyance, and even dangers
such as we can not discuss in these pages.
In the matter of asking questions, the prospective traveler should
inform herself concerning everything she will need to know of her route,
etc., as thoroughly as possible, before she starts, so as to make
questioning unnecessary. It is dangerous to depend even upon men in
uniform for information beyond certain narrow limits. Do not expect a
local ticket agent, nor yet a railroad conductor, brakeman, or Pullman
car porter to know what every passenger may need to know in order to
reach his destination.
The man in uniform is responsible for knowing one or two things and
seeing that his own end of the work is kept well in hand. Beyond that he
has no official responsibility, and is often as likely to abuse
confidence, and betray trusting ignorance, as any other man.
If you are a young girl traveling alone, compelled to make a transfer
across the city, _never_ take a carriage or cab, but the common public
omnibus. If you have a tedious wait before you, do not try to relieve it
by sauntering about the depot or street, or any public places. Settle
yourself down with determination to patiently and quietly endure _in the
depot_, unless you know some suitable place to which you can go and
spend the time. Do not ask, receive, or act upon any advice from _any_
strangers as to hotels, or any other places where you could spend the
hours more comfortably. Accept no invitations excepting from well-known
friends, and even then not to any ice-cream parlors or restaurants.
Nothing short of a _family_ invitation to some good home should turn you
for a moment from your purpose to keep closely to the line of travel,
and endure hardness with good practical common sense.
Children should be taught in the regular routine of home life how to
entertain and how to be entertained; how to avoid the necessity of
putting on “company manners” by always in all relations of life
observing those principles of politeness which are summed up in the
gospel as expressed in that law of liberty known as the Golden Rule.
As a hostess, do not overload your guest with attention. Nothing is more
wearisome than to be compelled to ward off continual intrusive efforts
to make you happy and comfortable as a guest. See that all necessary
provision is made for your guest before arrival, that water for drinking
and bathing, with glasses and towels, are in her room in readiness. Take
your guest at once to the room appointed without stopping for
introductions or greetings; inquire if anything further is needed; state
the hour of meals, and any other regulations which must in any manner
concern a transient member of your household; arrange to return in a
half-hour to lead the way to the family room for greetings and
introductions, and then withdraw, leaving the coast clear for such
attention to personal comfort as is always needed even after a short
journey.
There may be degrees of intimacy that would seem to naturally modify
these good-form requirements, but it would be perfectly safe to hold
yourself to them, even if the guest were your own mother, sister, or
brother. If your guest is to make a long visit, everything like _effort_
to secure his comfort should be kept out of sight. In fact, all
arrangements should be made so as to make the visit a pleasure to all
concerned; and this can only be done by taking him into the home life,
and going on just the same in everything as if you were alone as a
family.
An invitation to a friend to visit you should be for a definite time,
and should not upon any account be extended unless you _heartily_ desire
it. Not a word or hint should be dropped out of so-called politeness,
which, if taken literally, would stay his departure one hour after the
time limit has been reached. The sort of hypocrisy that would say, “O
don’t hurry off just yet,” when you feel in your heart that you can not
conveniently have the visit prolonged, is very bad form, indeed, and a
grievous wrong to your friend.
As a guest, one should at once fall into the regular order of the family
life as nearly as it is possible to do so, avoiding everything that
would add to labor for hostess or servants.
A guest should give no orders to children or servants. All requests
should be made of host or hostess, and left for them to pass on as they
shall see fit. Good form requires that the guest shall be blind and deaf
to any unpleasant episodes that may occur, taking no part in any
disputes from the children up, and that at any moment when his presence
could prove an embarrassment, he will find it necessary to retire to his
room, take a stroll in the wood or field, or a “day off” in town; and
then when the time limit for which his visit was planned has been
reached, he will take his departure, no matter how warmly he may be
urged “not to hurry.”
Give neither money nor eatables to the children. Make no plans which
include them without first consulting host and hostess. In fact, the
guest should propose nothing, plan nothing. This should all be left to
host and hostess. He should make of his presence a pleasure to all,
which will leave nothing more to be desired. Let him find his place in
the domestic economy for the time being, and fill it in just as helpful
a manner as possible, remembering that here it is as true as it can be
anywhere in the world, that he who abases himself shall be exalted, and
he who seeks the most for others, finds the most for himself.