What an interesting project! As I’m sure you’re aware, most of the
information on servants online is about Brits, not Americans.
Information about living conditions and wages is especially scarce for
American servants, too. (Largely because they were thought to be "good
enough.") However, I have a nice collection of 19th and early 20th
century household guides, etiquette books, and the like, that provide
some detail about the life of a servant during this period.
Generally, the number of servants a household had depended upon two
things: How wealthy the family was, and whether it was earlier or
later in the century. Generally speaking, the earlier in the 19th
century, the more servants a middle class woman might have. Later, as
appliances became more modern and the idea that exercise was a good
thing for women became known, fewer servants were employed. “The
average urban housewife often supervised one or more domestic servants
..” (“Useful Leisure,” Victorian Ideals of Gender,
http://www.librarycompany.org/HookBook/Section1-Case2.htm ) They do
not specify at what time in the 19th century they write of, but being
somewhat an authority on this subject, I’d say that was mostly true
for the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century.
The idea that servants were a pain, but had to be tolerated was
prevalent, as was a general dislike for servants in general. This is
readily apparent when reading Victorian how-to books, and a number of
books try their best to convince readers to treat servants well,
anyway. Because trust was important, “It is always desirable, if
possible, to have servants of your own faith.” (p. 239, “The Ladies’
Book of Etiquette, Fashion & Manual of Politeness” by Florence
Hartley, published by J.S. Locke & Co., Boston, 1858) This may be why
the most-complained about servants were Catholic Irish. “More or less,
we must trust our servants; they come into the inner life of the home
in such a manner that, but all the members of the family, they must,
in a measure, be trusted…” (p. 440, “The Complete Home” by Mrs. Julia
McNair Wright, published by William Garretson & Co., Columbus, Ohio,
1879)
Thoughtful people recognized that servants were an important part of
the household. “The more I consider the affairs of Home, the more am I
impressed with the importance of the servant’s position. How much of
our home-order, health, economy, cheerfulness, is dependant upon the
domestic! I think the interest, value and duty of this relation are
too seldom appreciated, its permanency is undervalued.” (p.436, “The
Complete Home” by Mrs. Julia McNair Wright, published by William
Garretson & Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1879)
Yet, it was rare that servants were treated like family; much of this
was due to a “we’re better than they are” attitude: “…we often have in
our houses girls who are pretty good workers, cleanly, pleasant; they
suit us very well, and we keep them: but while they are *in* out
family they are not *of* it; we do not interest ourselves in them; we
give them no friendly counsel; we do not look forward to their future,
and help them to provide for it; they are lonely in our houses—that
tie of home and friendly interest which every woman craves is lacking
to them…The trouble is that we forget in considering our servants out
common womanhood; they are viewed by us as chattels, as animated
machines to perform for us such and such offices, and, in regarding
them, we forget the human tic…There are differences, it is
true—differences in station, in habits of thought, in associations, in
methods of pleasure; these differences are neither for our making nor
for our abrogating…I often hear Mrs. Black using the expression,
‘Nobody but the servants,’ very much as if she would indicated nobody
at all. Now Mrs. Black is not an unkindly woman, but she regards her
servants and speaks of them very much as one would of a horse or cow…”
P. 437-438, “The Complete Home” by Mrs. Julia McNair Wright,
published by William Garretson & Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1879)
Servants were expected to not bring their relationships to their
employee’s house (unless, of course, a family was employed all in one
house.) “It is barbarity to take a young woman into your house to
work, yourself meanwhile not expecting to be her companion, and then
saying to her: ‘I do not approve of servants having friends.’..[but]
if I am not careful…my kitchen will be full of visitors…the work will
be neglected for gossip…there will be diseases brought to the
children…the visitors will be constantly taking meals and carrying off
things.” (p. 444–445, “The Complete Home” by Mrs. Julia McNair Wright,
published by William Garretson & Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1879)
In all cases, it was advised that servants should be dealt with
firmly—although many books urge readers to treat them kindly (a hint
that they often were not treated kindly): “I give you the same
[advice] which possibly I have given you in regard to children—for in
many respects our servants come to us on the plane of children. Have
laws like those of the Medes and Persians—unalterable laws, so that
they shall know what to depend upon.” (p. 447, “The Complete Home” by
Mrs. Julia McNair Wright, published by William Garretson & Co.,
Columbus, Ohio, 1879)
All in all, as the century progressed, more and more books took this
attitude: “It has become the fashion to complain of the hired help;
mistresses have fallen into a habit of exaggerating faults and making
themselves out to be martyrs.” (p. 453-454, “The Complete Home” by
Mrs. Julia McNair Wright, published by William Garretson & Co.,
Columbus, Ohio, 1879)
Of all servants, man servants were most complained about: “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 the most conducive to his welfare.” P.
232-233, “The Ladies’ Book of Etiquette, Fashion & Manual of
Politeness” by Florence Hartley, published by J.S. Locke & Co.,
Boston, 1858) “There is one thing a man servant values beyond all that
your kindness and your consideration can do for him—his liberty;
liberty to eat, drink, and be merry, without your things in the
company of his own friends; liberty to get the housemaid to clean his
candlesticks, and bring up his coats…” P. 234, “The Ladies’ Book of
Etiquette, Fashion & Manual of Politeness” by Florence Hartley,
published by J.S. Locke & Co., Boston, 1858)
“The best servants are women.” (p. 234, “The Ladies’ Book of
Etiquette, Fashion & Manual of Politeness” by Florence Hartley,
published by J.S. Locke & Co., Boston, 1858). Indeed, women seem to
have been much more prized as servants, especially as the decade came
to a close.
Middle-class households rarely had butlers, but many had housekeepers,
and a good housekeeper was much prized. In large cities such as New
York: “In the position of housekeeper $1,000 a year is occasionally
paid to an experienced woman, trustworthy and capable of assuming the
entire management of a first–class establishment. Such instances are
very rare.” (p.20, “What Can A Woman Do,” by Mrs. M.L. Rayne,
published by Eagle Publishing Co., Albany, NY, 1893) Still, we get the
idea that the housekeeper was well paid.
One of the duties of a good housekeeper saw to it that all labor to
keep the house in order was done before the male head of household
came home: “The man of the house never saw her do these things—never
will see her do them. He is always absent when the household elves are
busy.” (p.230, “What Can A Woman Do,” by Mrs. M.L. Rayne, published by
Eagle Publishing Co., Albany, NY, 1893)
On the other hand, the cook was complained about almost as much as the
man servant. In the 19th century, the cook was often female. For the
most part, finding a good cook seems to have been difficult, and most
American cooks had no training. “It has often been said that while we
have the best markets in the world, we have the worse and more
wasteful cooking. And although within the last few years much interest
has been felt in England, in the establishment of cooking schools, but
little has been done in this country. Private classes were opened in
Boston sixteen years ago, and were well patronized, but the expense of
instruction was necessarily so large as to close them to persons of
small means. Miss Carson, in New York, and Miss Parlon, of Boson, have
met with good success in their cooking schools. It is now considered
very desirable to bring such teaching within the reach of those who
intend to become cooks…” (p. 249, “What Can A Woman Do,” by Mrs. M.L.
Rayne, published by Eagle Publishing Co., Albany, NY, 1893)
Because so few trained cooks were available, it was often suggested
that wives find a young girl and train her themselves. “Probably the
best cooking school for an ignorant girl is the kitchen of a kind and
intelligent mistress, who is willing to spend a large part of her life
in that best missionary work—training Irish and German girls in ways
of thrifty housewifery. But since the days of our grandmothers,
housekeeping has taken a new aspect. The young mother once had her
kitchen within easy reach from her nursery, but now a separation, by
long flights of stairs, makes it practically impossible that she shall
spend much time in teacher her domestic to cook.” (p. 249, “What Can A
Woman Do,” by Mrs. M.L. Rayne, published by Eagle Publishing Co.,
Albany, NY, 1893) Notice the slam to immigrants.
A really good cook was so rare that she or he usually commanded more
salary than a good housekeeper. “…Mrs. Vanderbilt paying her head cook
$7,000 yearly, while there are numerous instances among the wealthy
where the cook is paid $3,000 to $4,000 a year.” (p.251, “What Can A
Woman Do,” by Mrs. M.L. Rayne, published by Eagle Publishing Co.,
Albany, NY, 1893) Obviously, the middle class could not pay such sums,
but this offers a nice comparison in value between housekeepers and
cooks.
What a cook wore: “This costume consists of a neat, short dress, with
an immense brown Holland or print over–apron, with waist pockets and
all conveniences. These aprons are inexpensive, and can, if necessary,
be bought ready made at the Woman’s Exchange, or in large dry good
stores, and keep the whole dress free of dust or spot. A cap of blue
or pink cambric, or while muslin, protects the hair. These caps are
simply large, round pieces of cloth, into which an elastic is shirred
an inch or so from the edge, and they cost only a few cents. Some
critical observer has said, that, as a general thing, female cooks are
not expected to be fit to be seen, although male cooks have no such
privileges of disorder allowed them….perhaps the truth may be found in
the fact that woman cooks are loaded with other duties. The artist in
cooking will be also an artist in making of herself a picture…” (p.
254-255, “What Can A Woman Do,” by Mrs. M.L. Rayne, published by Eagle
Publishing Co., Albany, NY, 1893) Again, the fact that books harp on
cooks tidying up suggests that few did.
On the other hand, the housemaid’s costume grew more and more fine as
the decade progressed. “There is no medium now between the lady with
mittens and flowers who dresses your hair, and the dirty sloven of a
lodging-house. All housemaids must now be upper-housemaids; cooks must
be cooks and housekeepers. The homely housemaid…is difficult to be
found; and, at a time when cleanliness is at its zenith, the rarity is
to discover any one who will clean. All, except the raw country girl,
expect to have deputies…The consequence is, that a greater number of
servants are kept in every household than formerly in similar
families…” p. 237, “The Ladies’ Book of Etiquette, Fashion & Manual of
Politeness” by Florence Hartley, published by J.S. Locke & Co.,
Boston, 1858) This was in the 1850s; by the early 1900s, this was even
more true, as the strict line between servant and household member
began to crumble a bit.
For more on the clothing of servants, be sure to check out The
Costumer’s Manifesto page on the topic:
http://www.costumes.org/pages/1900servants.htm
As for living quarters, they were often small, cramped, and gloomy.
House plans of the era show some of the smallest rooms going to the
servants. Several books in my collection urge readers to make servants
living quarters a bit more pleasant: “Show your friendly interest in
your maid by giving her a decent room. Don’t give a mass of ragged
bed-clothes, a poor tick and pillow, and begrudge a clean sheet and
pillow-case each week.. Don’t ask her to be neat, and then give her no
appliances for her toilette, so that she must wash and comb in the
kitchen. Put a bowl, pitcher and comb-case in her room; a chair; a
stand for her light and books; a pincushion; at least one strip of
carpet by the bed; put up hooks for her clothes, and do not deny her
the decency of a curtain to the window; if you can spare her a little
bureau, or a chest of drawers, so much the better, and a shoe-box. Her
room thus tidy and well equipped when she goes into it, you can
impress upon her the need of keeping it as nice as any part of the
house…Girls who have a comfortable room furnished them generally
appreciate it. I remember a girl coming to Mrs. Burr and being sent up
to her tidy room, where there was, among other things, an illuminated
text on the wall, and a pot of flowers in the window. She came
straight down before laying off her bonnet, and said, with tears in
her eyes, ‘I came to thank you for such a nice room. It looks just as
if you wanted to make me comfortable and self-respecting, and I shall
try to do my very best for you.’” P. 449-450 “The Complete Home” by
Mrs. Julia McNair Wright, published by William Garretson & Co.,
Columbus, Ohio, 1879)
The Victorian web also has some great resources about servants;
unfortunately, their site seems to be down today. You can check them
out later at: www.victorianweb.org
To sum up the changes from c.1850-1900:
• Servants followed the general lines of fashion; therefore, a maid in
the 1860s probablyu would have worn a hoopskirt (albeit a small one),
while a maid of the 1880s probably would have worn a small bustle. I
write “probably” because some households would not allow such things.
(“The very servant girl’s wear bustles!” one woman cried in the early
19th century; “Expanding Horizons,” by Kristina Harris,
http://www.geocities.com/writerkristinaharris/LifeandDress3.html)
• Gradually, more and more employers allowed their servants to be more
fashionable. Still, they were never as “fancy” as their employers.
• In the 1850s, servants were generally greatly frowned up and thought
of a problematic. By 1900, this attitude was *much* less prevelant.
• In the mid-19th century, genreally more servants were used in middle
class households; by 1900, fewer servants were generally used in
middle class households.
Good luck with your project!
Kriswrite
Research Strategy
A dig through this Researcher’s personal collection of antique
literature
"man servant" 19th century
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22man+servant%22+19th+century
manservant 19th century
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=manservant+19th+century&btnG=Google+Search
housemaid* 19th century
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=housemaid*+19th+century
housekeeper* 19th century
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=housekeeper*+19th+century&btnG=Google+Search
cooks 19th century
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=cooks+19th+century&btnG=Google+Search
"domestic help" 19th century
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22domestic+help%22+19th+century&btnG=Google+Search
"domestic servants" 19th century
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22domestic+servants%22+19th+century&btnG=Google+Search
"domestic servants" Victorian
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22domestic+servants%22+Victorian&btnG=Google+Search
servants Victorian
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=servants+Victorian&btnG=Google+Search
"number of" servants "United States" Victorian
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22number+of%22+servants+%22United+States%22+Victorian+&btnG=Google+Search |
