Etiquette Problems from the Edwardian Age

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7199, 23 April 1930, Page 3

Etiquette Problems from the Edwardian Age

do not know,” said an Englishwoman the other day after a big reception, “how-many,of the 900 guests left their cards.” The hostess of a recent dance said, with-, some asperity: “Probably a dozen,”-adding-that one girl’s note of thanks and the cards left by an old gentleman of 80 were the sole signs of appreciation she had received from 250 guests. •- •' ■ ;So, a little abashed, I searched out a pre-war book on etiquette and read it from cover to cover, says a writer in the Daily Mail. It was at first sight “too, too shaming,” for most of that polite elaboration of calling and cardleaving seemed as remote as fumed oak furniture. Yet the book was written in my lifetime —to be exact, when I was eight. Our own cards are a. meaningless relic of the past. But to Edwardian ladies, it seems, cards were as symbolic as totems. They turned down tho top left-hand corner, and this could 'be translated: “I’ve really come myself, not merely sent th footman,” or “Mrs. Smith, I leave this card for yon, but it’s meant for all your daughters, too.” Or they had their cards inscribed: “First and third Tuesdays,” which meant that every month on those days they would be found seated in the drawing room surrounded by teacups. Or they might scribble “P.P.0.” on it, which means: “I am going away and won’t be back for ages.” They could also put “Change of-address” when they moved house. With these cabalistic bits of pasteboard they played an intricate game of catch-as-eatch-can. Callers were not allowed to ring up and warn victims of their approach, but on tbe other hand the invasion was prepared for on “At Home” days "and on the days following dinner parties. For some obscure reason, calling was not permitted after garden parties. Calls after other parties, according to my etiquette book, were particularly easy, because the callers had a readymade topic of conversation —they could criticise the other guests in general and surmise whether the handsomest woman in the room might not, after all, be made-up. Otherwise there seemed little to say. For the main object of calling was not to exercise their conversational gifts, but to find their hostesses “not at home.” This is where cards came in. One stopped tho carriage, left the correct number of cards and galloped on to the next call. Thus 15 calls was a good average score for an afternoon. The problems of card-leaving occupied whole chapters of books and whole columns of magazines. It certainly must have been hard to know if a hostess whose husband was in China was a widow for calling purposes, or if you should leave two of your husband’s cards. Just to make the game more difficult, the right procedure was to treat her. as a widow. Sisters were another problem. If two of them lived in a house on apparently equal terms it was correct to leavo cards for each. If, however, one sister was manifestly younger or in some way inferior, it was permissible merely to leave one set of cards, turning down a corner of one’s own. Then in no circumstances could a woman play the card-leaving game with a bachelor unless (a) he had given a particularly"grand party, and (b) she had a carriage. Husbands, also armed with cards, performed this disagreeable duty. And so on and so" on. No wonder tho silver salver on tho mahogany hall table overflowed with pasteboard trophies. It all seems rather frivolous and trifling. My generation reply infrequently to invitations and neglect bread-and-butter letters. Yet occasionally, when we have enjoyed ourselves, we write or telephone to say so. Surely such spontaneous expressions of gratitude are worth moro than a series of “duty” visits made with the sngle object of leavng behind a set of varyingly. mutilated calling-cards.