Frost's Etiquette: Book review

"A breach of etiquette, an involuntarily omission of some point of politeness, may often have a serious influence upon the future of the perpetrator."

At the Steampunk World's Fair, I attended a presentation on etiquette by Mark Donnelly. At the World Steam Expo, I attended an etiquette presentation by the IAPS. In some cases, they had different things to say about proper behavior in certain situations, for example, under which circumstances to escort a lady on which arm.

So, when one is confused about points of history, go to the source.

"Frost’s Laws and By-Laws of American Society" by Sarah Annie Frost (1869) is one such primary source. This won't be so much of a review of the book but some commentary on the contents from a perspective a century and a half later.

"Etiquette is, in point of fact, nothing more nor less than the law, written and unwritten, which regulates the society of civilized people, distinguishing them from the communities of barbarous tribes, whose lives are hard and their manners still harder."

Frost clearly places herself above those foreign barbarians and, of course, misses that even those "uncivilized" cultures have their own etiquette. She was surely no cultural anthropologist.

"True politeness must come from the heart, from an unselfish desire to please others and contribute to their happiness; when upon this natural impulse is placed the polish of a complete and thorough knowledge of the laws of etiquette, the manners must be perfect and graceful."

I much prefer this presentation of what etiquette is about. To set another at ease. To help them. To be truly unselfish in the desire to make someone else comfortable. This is the essence of etiquette. Other lands and other cultures have their ideals of etiquette and it is merely the different perspective of what is necessary to make someone else comfortable that has Frost looking on them as barbarous. Even those "whose lives are hard" have a sense of etiquette, though they may not have the luxury to show it all the time.

In fact, now that I think of it, the opposite seems to be true anymore. Look at those who have the easiest of lives, the top 1% leaning over their balconies, drinking champagne and scoffing at the angry rabble below. Imagine entering one of their offices for an interview. Do you think that they would make an effort to see you at your ease? Would they expend anything at all to make sure you were comfortable? Would you, at any time, think they were unselfish? Then look at the 99% in the streets below. Setting up aid stations. Donating food. Watching out for one another. In terms of etiquette, who then are the barbarous tribes?

"Undoubtedly the first law of good breeding is unselfishness, that thorough forgetfulness of one's own wants and comforts, and thoughtfulness for the happiness and ease of others, which is the Christian gentleman's rule of life; which makes him yield the easy chair to another older and weaker than himself, and sit upon a narrow bench, or perhaps stand up; which selects for another the choicest portions of the dishes upon the table, and uncomplainingly dines off what is left; which hears with smiling interest the well- worn anecdotes of the veteran story-teller; which gently lifts the little child, who has fallen, and comforts the sobbing grief and terror; which never forgets to endeavor to please others, and seems, at least, pleased with all efforts made to entertain himself. "

Here again, though, Frost's narrow perspective shows itself. These values of unselfishness she attributes to "the Christian gentleman's rule of life" as if those of another faith or of no faith are devoid of them. Ask any waitress what it's like after Sunday services and you will learn that Christians have nowhere near a monopoly on unselfishness. I may not follow every letter of Frost's laws but I am, at least, a fairly decent tipper.

"If a foreigner salute you after the fashion of his own country, do not draw back or allow yourself to smile, but strive to put him at his ease by taking no notice of the "national salute." "

If etiquette is the rule of law with the goal of putting another at ease, why then would you intentionally insult a foreigner by ignoring his salute? What "national salute" would cause someone to draw back or laugh?

"In this country men do not embrace each other, nor do they exchange kisses, while, unless amongst intimate friends, even the fair sex now dispense with demonstrative salutations. In many European countries kisses are exchanged, even between gentlemen, and an embrace is quite in accordance with even a somewhat formal salutation. In America, however, these demonstrations are mostly confined to gushing misses and school-girls."

Frost starts the chapter on salutes and salutations with this admonition that kissing as a European "national salute" simply isn't done here in America. Here in America, we shake hands. She seems to be advocating a position that, should one be confronted with an overly familiar Frenchman who wants to kiss you upon both cheeks, you should simply pretend as if it didn't happen. I should think that, to truly put your new friend at his ease that you should endeavor to accept his greeting with grace and perhaps reciprocate. I imagine even a botched emulation would be welcomed with more grace than a stoic obfuscation.

Someone on Steampunk Empire noted in the forums that she was new to the steampunk community and was unsure how to respond to the gentlemen who were unexpectedly tipping their hats at her. In modern society, such a thing is almost completely gone. Ms. Frost to the rescue:

"A lady must first recognize a gentleman by bowing before he is at liberty to salute her. She is the sole judge of the propriety of recognizing him at all, and etiquette requires the strictest deference to her desire in this respect. Should she recognize him, he should raise his hat a little from his head, with the hand furthest from her, and return her salutation with a slight inclination of the body. He may not obtrude himself upon her notice even if he thinks she has not observed him."

In Frost's view, those gentlemen politely tipping their hats at a lady they have never met as they pass in the street are being unacceptably forward. If the lady acknowledges them only then can they respond. That is, unless they are opening a door or offering a seat on the omnibus or other moments when the lady is clearly requiring specific assistance. Otherwise, no.

I will admit to violating this. As I ride my bicycle, I have noticed that guys riding past one another have the tendency to do the "manly nod" as an acknowledgement. I am disturbed when some random guy give me the manly nod coming out of the rest room but somehow giving this acknowledgement to another cyclist seems appropriate as we are both part of the same small community. Less than friends, perhaps, but still more than strangers. There is, however, no female equivalent to the manly nod. Were I to nod at a female cyclist, I would be (and have been) ignored. Perhaps I'm not being ignored and the lady cyclists simply don't recognize it for what it is in the same way that there may be some way that women acknowledge each other, comparable to the manly nod, that men simply don't recognize.

I believe female cyclists are deserving of the same acknowledgement of community in spite of this gesticular language barrier so when I ride past I will often touch the visor on my helmet as if I were tipping my hat. "Hello. You're a cyclist like me. Safe riding."

I wonder what Ms. Frost would think. Since we have already established that she is not a cultural anthropologist and not necessarily observant to other cultures I am fairly sure she would be appalled.

"Political and religious topics are not in good taste in general conversation. It is almost impossible to avoid strong personal feeling when a difference of opinion arises, and such discussions almost invariably lead to more warmth of expression and violence of argument than are compatible with the requirements of polite conversation."

I would so fail this one.

"Any gentleman propounding a conundrum at the dinner-table deserves to be taken away by the police. "

Harsh. But, yea, that would be me.

At the most recent Passage Party, one attendee read a passage from a book about the Civil War (I don't recall the title. It may have been "Terrible Swift Sword" by Bruce Catton) which included an account of a grand ball held at a camp during the winter when fighting had ceased due to the cold. At this ball, the officers were described as wearing their spurs.

My own reading was from a New York Times article on von Zeppelin's time as a volunteer in the Union Army but I had brought along "Frost’s Laws and By-Laws of American Society" in case there was time for a second reading. I was able to quickly find a relevant passage:

"A gentleman in a ball-room cannot be too careful not to injure the delicate fabric worn by the ladies around him. Spurs are in bad taste, even if a cavalry officer is otherwise in full uniform."

Leave the spurs with your horse.

"It is not according, to etiquette for married people to dance together at either a private or a public ball."

You can dance with your wife anytime. Dance with all the other ladies at the ball.

The major discrepancy I recall between the Worlds Fair and Expo presentations on etiquette was on which arm to escort a lady. I not sure I recall all the the details but Mark Donnelly indicated that a lady was always to go on the left side except when walking on the street. In which case, the lady should always be on the side furthest from the street so that the gentleman might protect her from the splash of carriages. The IAPS seemed a bit less ambiguous in that wives, sisters and reputable ladies are on the left while the right is "the whore side". Frost has actually very little to say on the subject.

"Gentlemen give the left arm to a lady, excepting military officers in full dress, who give the right arm, as the sword is inconveniently worn for offering the left. In all other cases the right arm must be left free."

This seems to go against the idea that escorting the lady on the left was a holdover from medieval times when the right hand was to be kept free for the drawing of a sword should such a defense be necessary. Odd then that in the specific instance when someone is carrying an actual sword that etiquette should run counter to the tradition. But remember, etiquette is for the comfort of the other and so the gentleman offers his right arm so that the sword on his left side does not entangle in the lady's dress.

This advice was in the chapter on Dinner Company and the officer escorting the lady from the sitting room to dinner. How this might apply to escorting a lady on the street she does not say.

"A gentleman walking with two ladies may offer an arm to each of them, and they may thus sandwich him if they wish; but under no circumstances may a lady take the arms of gentlemen at each side of her. "

A gentleman with two ladies. . . like a boss. A lady with two gentlemen. . . the whore side.

"Conduct towards servants should be always equal, never violent, never familiar. Speak to them always with civility, but keep them in their proper places. "

When Frost says that conduct towards servants should be equal and, in the next sentence says that they should be kept in their proper place, she is indicating that one should treat servants equally, not necessarily as your equal. She goes at length to indicate that they are to be treated with respect, as they are professionals, but they are still your servants. At best they are to be treated with a pleasant indifference.

"A man-servant is rarely grateful, and seldom attached. He is generally incapable of appreciating those advantages which, with your cultivated judgment, you know to be most conducive to his welfare."

Servants simply aren't bright enough to know what is best for them. That's why they work in the service industry.

"There is one thing a man-servant values beyond all that your kindness and consideration can do for him—his liberty; liberty to eat, drink, and be merry, with your things, in the company of his own friends; liberty to get the housemaid to clean his candlesticks and bring up his coals; and the housemaid wishes for liberty to lie in bed in the morning, because she was up so late talking to John in the pantry; liberty to wear flounces and flowers. The cook desires liberty too. For this liberty, if you grant it, they will despise you; if you deny it, they will respect you."

And even when treating servants with a pleasant indifference, you should be distrust them because they are lazy. Give them an inch and they will take a yard. Only by treating them like the servants they are will you gain their respect.

Does this sound more like the 1%? That they are the masters that know what's best for us and we are the servants that should be grateful for their benevolence?

And maybe that's why the 19th Century's version of etiquette died the death that it did. That attitude of refinement verses barbarian which flows as an undercurrent throughout Frost's book went hand in hand with the rise of magnates of industry and robber barons in the industrial age. Though it was written that etiquette was an embodiment of selflessness, it was actually a mask that the upper classes wore to distinguish themselves from the boorish and ill-bred rabble and popular books like Frost's were an ad campaign to convince the masses that they should emulate the upper classes in terms of politeness rather than expecting any genuine contribution to their happiness.

Thankfully, the steampunk movement can choose to pull the mask off and reclaim the ideals of etiquette.