Part 5

“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.