Keeping up with 19th-century Joneses
Ookasan
In article <nYOGmGAo...@rydelib.demon.co.uk>,
Brenda <bre...@rydelib.demon.co.uk> wrote:
(about "Little Women")
>Mr Lawrence sent the supper, but I presume that they ate something
>between breakfast and the cake, ice-cream, etc after the evening
>entertainment. What I meant was, they knew where their next meal was
>coming from.....after all, they had a cook. (A source of mystification
>to me as a child; why did they keep saying they were poor when they had
>a servant? !)
I know - I grew up poor in New York and it took my years to accept the
fact that some poor people actually lived in *houses.*
I think the March's themselves realize that they're *not* poor
compared to people like the Hummels. But of course, they don't
compare themselves to people like the Hummels, but to other people
like themselves. By "rights," they *should* have more money and
that's why they feel so poor. It's like how people today compare
themselves to people on television and don't realize that in fact it's
*not* the normal middle-class lifestyle to have a lot of expensive
possessions and eat out all the time.
In one of the Virago Modern Classics, I forget which one, a 19th
century family becomes so poor they actually don't have any servants
at all! It's the only time I've seen a non-working class family sink
to those depths in older literature. ;-)
--
Wendy E. Betts, Editor, "Notes from the Windowsill." web at armory.com
"I have a wonderful, soothing book I could lend you:
_War and Peace_, as adapted by Donna Karan. 'A sprightly
farce,' _Bill Blass Magazine_ called it." --Cynthia Heimel
Karen Wheless
> >between breakfast and the cake, ice-cream, etc after the evening
> >entertainment. What I meant was, they knew where their next meal was
> >coming from.....after all, they had a cook. (A source of mystification
> >to me as a child; why did they keep saying they were poor when they had
> >a servant? !)
Also, we are accustomed to certain costs - in the 19th century things
cost less in absolute terms, of course, but the proportions were also
quite different. In the U.S., we are used to a society where food is
relatively cheap and easily available, but servants are expensive. That
wasn't the case in the 19th century. I don't know the exact
proportions, but for the cost of a couple of chicken dinners they might
have been able to afford a live-in servant for months. Of course,
that's not the case today! When we read Little Women, we look at it
with today's point of view, when a turkey dinner is something most
everyone can afford at least occasionally but a cook is only for rich
people.
That's also the way with housing. The poorest still lived in tiny
living spaces, but having a big house wasn't the huge expense it is now.
The expensive part was the time and effort and expense to maintain,
clean, and heat it, which was much higher as a percentage of the cost of
the house itself than it is now.
Karen
--
kwhe...@rockland.net
http://members.dencity.com/regencyread/
Alison Seitz
> In one of the Virago Modern Classics, I forget which one, a 19th
> century family becomes so poor they actually don't have any servants
> at all! It's the only time I've seen a non-working class family sink
> to those depths in older literature. ;-)
I grew up reading the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder. That
was probably a more accurate depiction of typical "real" family life in
those times. Although most of the "work" that surely went on isn't even
mentioned, you can learn some fascinating snippets of information from
books like this. Some I recall are stories about maple tapping, hog
slaughters, house building, sewing, farming, food preserving, etc.
As a teenager I made a green pumpkin pie following Laura's depiction of
one in "The Long Winter". It was said to taste just like apple pie, and
indeed it did!
bf...@cleveland.freenet.edu
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca (Cheryl L. Perkins) wrote:
>
> I read a book written and set in post WWII England. The widowed
heroine
> was bravely facing up to poverty - which baffled me, as she had a
house, a
> small income, and an old family servant to do the cooking and
cleaning.
>
> Cheryl
> --
> Cheryl Perkins
> cper...@stemnet.nf.ca
Yeah, "The mother was poor, the father was poor, the maid was poor, the
butler was poor." Sure was a different world.
Who said she was from New York? Me too--although not poor myself, when
I came to Cleveland, and was shown what were billed as slums, I could
hardly believe they -were- slums. Houses! With a little grass! It took
a while before I could identify the signs of poverty, because to me, a
house and a tree meant middle-class.
Bonita
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Tom E Arnold
>
> I read a book written and set in post WWII England. The widowed heroine
> was bravely facing up to poverty - which baffled me, as she had a house, a
> small income, and an old family servant to do the cooking and cleaning.
>
we've often discussed here. This widow was obviously accustomed to far
more; compared to that she _was_ living in poverty. Cooking and
housekeeping should have been two different people's jobs, and there
should have been at least a houseman if not a gardener.
My house in Milwaukee was built in 1903. I understand it was originally
built for a doctor, but in 1910 it belonged to a scrap metal dealer. The
census listed a cook, a maid and a coachman in addition to the family.
Standards of poverty shift in all different directions. A few years ago,
during a particularly bitter winter , a Chicago TV newscrew went out to
see how the homeless were coping. One fellow was sleeping under the
bridge in an Eddie Bauer KaraKorum sleeping bag rated to -30F.
--
TTom/
My current neighborhood: http://www.coldspringpark.org
My next neighborhood: http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/9361
Doug Younker
ago,
> during a particularly bitter winter , a Chicago TV newscrew went out to
> see how the homeless were coping. One fellow was sleeping under the
> bridge in an Eddie Bauer KaraKorum sleeping bag rated to -30F.
While the circumstances that lead that fellow to be sleeping out doors
is unknown to us, don't forget the fact he was sleeping out doors. That
neccitates the best you can get.
--
73, Doug Younker N0LKK
Near Plainville,KS
do...@ruraltel.net
A.Ferszt
>
> Ookasan wrote:
>
> > In one of the Virago Modern Classics, I forget which one, a 19th
> > century family becomes so poor they actually don't have any servants
> > at all! It's the only time I've seen a non-working class family sink
> > to those depths in older literature. ;-)
>
> I grew up reading the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder. That
> was probably a more accurate depiction of typical "real" family life in
> those times. Although most of the "work" that surely went on isn't even
> mentioned, you can learn some fascinating snippets of information from
> books like this. Some I recall are stories about maple tapping, hog
> slaughters, house building, sewing, farming, food preserving, etc.
Those books are only an accurate depiction of life in that particular
part of the country. 'Real' family life varied (and still varies)
greatly from region to region.
People living in the cities would have had a quite different life than
someone in a rural area. People living on the prairies had a different
life than people living near the Gulf coast or in the Rockies or in the
Southwest (aside from the obvvious difference between the Europeans vs
the native Americans).
Jean P Nance
City life and rural life in Victorian times were fairly different
People in cities, in "comfortable" circumstances, had servants, and
engaged in "conspicuous consumption" to keep up with what they perceived
as the proper standard of living. Look all the Victorian era antiques
that are so popular now. There are books in the library describing
this kind of life.
In addition to the poor, there were of course plenty of people in
between. They tried to imitate the lives of the rich and famous, just
as people do now. I have closer connections to Victorian times than
most here. My mother was born in 1879. Her father was a sewing machine
salesman. They struggled to own "nice things", and wanted to be
considered as people of "culture and refinement".
My father was born in 1880. His father was a construction supervisor.
They had some nice furniture, but much of it was inherited from his
father's family, which had been a little more upscale. His mother,
and my maternal grandmother, had both been brought up in N.Y. farm
families. Not exactly the frontier, but they probably learned how to
provide for a family primarily from what was produced on their own
land.
People don't change that much over time. When goods and luxuries
were available, in the cities, Victorians went to great lenghs to
acquire them. Just different goods and luxuries.
--
Jean P Nance
According to accounts, Abraham Lincoln when he was a moderatley
successful lawyer in Springfield, Illinois, had a nice house, some
beatiful furniture, and there was always a "hired girl". to do most
of the cleaning and dirty work. But, Lincoln came home every night
and cared for and milked the family cow! And, he walked to work,
a matter of a mile or so.
Today a Springfield lawyer would have a $250,000 house, but
no servants, and for sure. And he would have an expensive car to
drive to work, even if just a mile. And no cow!
--
Melanie Piper
> In one of the Virago Modern Classics, I forget which one, a 19th
> century family becomes so poor they actually don't have any servants
> at all! It's the only time I've seen a non-working class family sink
> to those depths in older literature. ;-)
> Wendy E. Betts
Hi, Wendy!
Well, consider who was writing "older literature" and who they
were writing it for.
Depending how far back you mean, most of the people who could
even *read* were in the wealthier "classes", or in some
circumstance like a monastery or religious setting that focused
on writing religious materials or recording "history".
Books might logically have been written by people in those
wealthier classes or approaching that, and for a "target"
audience of those who could both read and afford to acquire
books. Can't imagine that those people in the target audience
would want to think about the possibility of losing what they
had and falling into "reduced circumstances", though it must
have happened a lot. They seem to me to have wanted to read
about their own class or better, and to read either for formal
education, religious pursuits, or light entertainment and
diversion.
Even in very early times in the U.S. and Canada, there were
apparently whole vast communities where the people depended on
one or two people who could *read*, and those people read and
wrote even their mail for them. If anyone in the community
actually owned a book or books, that was often a matter for
special esteem, whether or not they themselves could read.
Consider later times, like those referred to in the Little
House books, when a child with a few years of schooling could
become a teacher--that few years of school was far more than
most people in the community had, and that's why they could
teach. Don't remember how far Laura in the Little House series
went in school before becoming a teacher, but I've read factual
accounts of young men and women becoming teachers after as few
as six years of attending school themselves, becoming teachers
at twelve, thirteen or fourteen years of age.
Wasn't Charles Dickens the start of some uproar when he wrote
of the poverty and class differences of his time, not just
because he pointed out the tragedy and unfairness, but because
he actually expected people who could *read* (the "better"
classes") to want to think about such things?? I've read terms
like "effrontery",
"assault on the gentility of the reader...", etc., that were
apparently used in reference to some of his work. Seems it
just "wasn't done" to think of anyone in lesser circumstances
as being anything other than deserving of their situation, and
was considered even more appalling for anyone to be asked to
think such could happen to them.
And yes, we tend to forget there were and are times and places
so very different from our own.
I have a relative by marriage who was in the U.S. Air Force
till his fairly-recent retirement, and whose family lived in
several countries where his wife's major "complaint" was that
she had so very little to do and missed doing her own housework
and caring for her own family. In those countries, very
capable servants could be had for just a few dollars U.S. a
month, and that person could support his or her whole family
very well by local standards on those few dollars. Seven
dollars a month for a very accomplished gardener, six dollars
for an accomplished cook, five for a laundryman, four dollars
for a housemaid. She said the Americans posted there felt
almost obligated to have such servants to provide the
employment, but it left her with nothing to do in her own house
and she never felt comfortable. As an example, she mentioned
once knocking over an ashtray and bending to start cleaning up
the mess. The maid rushed in, very, very upset, protesting
"No, no, this my job!"
Melanie
Alison Seitz
> Today a Springfield lawyer would have a $250,000 house, but
> no servants, and for sure.
Actually, they probably would have servants. We just don't call them
that anymore. But a cleaning service once a week is almost a given for
someone like this, probably lawn care, and perhaps a live-in nanny for
the children. Not to mention a cook (who resides at local restaurants,
instead of the family home.)
Myriam Godfrey
French Canadians who helped cutting ice, shearing sheep and butchering. They
were often paid in kind.
"A.Ferszt" wrote:
> Alison Seitz wrote:
> >
> > Ookasan wrote:
> >
> > > In one of the Virago Modern Classics, I forget which one, a 19th
> > > century family becomes so poor they actually don't have any servants
> > > at all! It's the only time I've seen a non-working class family sink
> > > to those depths in older literature. ;-)
> >
Judy Wagner
>in the early 1960's. My parents were in their late
>20's then, young & military, but they still were actually
>able to have a maid. I don't know how much they paid her,
>but she stayed for a year. When she left, they offered to give
>her a bonus & asked her if she wanted money or something else.
>She chose a broken sewing machine of my mother's, which
>they repaired for her. She was very happy with that & told
>my mother that no one else in her neighborhood had an
>electric sewing machine, apparently it gave her status.
>Melodi in VA
Melodi--
I was also in Okinawa in the early 60s (64-65) and we had a full time maid to
whom we gave $30.00 per month plus an occasional pound of ground beef and
hershey's powdered chocolate. Living there was very cheap--and there were
very few conveniences. We had no washing machines and she washed <everything>
by hand and ironed everything but my hose!
JOW
John Bomberger
teen years. Not a live in but someone who came and helped out. It
was just what everyone did
Barb
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:22:45 -0400, "Henry F." <hen...@wt.infi.net>
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>My mother had a maid when we lived in Okinawa
>in the early 1960's. My parents were in their late
>20's then, young & military, but they still were actually
>able to have a maid. I don't know how much they paid her,
>but she stayed for a year. When she left, they offered to give
>her a bonus & asked her if she wanted money or something else.
>She chose a broken sewing machine of my mother's, which
>they repaired for her. She was very happy with that & told
>my mother that no one else in her neighborhood had an
>electric sewing machine, apparently it gave her status.
>
>Melodi in VA
>
>
>Melanie Piper wrote:
>
>> Ookasan wrote:
>> > In one of the Virago Modern Classics, I forget which one, a 19th
>> > century family becomes so poor they actually don't have any servants
>> > at all! It's the only time I've seen a non-working class family sink
>> > to those depths in older literature. ;-)
Soul Surgeon
Dennis
>
> If a maid cost $30 a month, how much were the hookers?
Five bucks and a case of syphilis.
Dennis
Bev
A whole CASE? Jeez, I would have thought a few ounces would be
enough...
--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Screw the end users. If they want good software,
let them write it themselves." -- Anon.