Part 1

Chapter 13,812 wordsPublic domain

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

A superscript is denoted by ^{xx}: for example, n^{th}.

Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been placed at the end of the relevant section.

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation in the original has been retained: for example, overcrowded/over-crowded, saucepans/sauce-pans, and subtile/subtle, etc.

Duplicate headings have been removed to eliminate repetition.

PROGRESS IN THE HOUSEHOLD

LUCY MAYNARD SALMON

BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY The Riverside Press, Cambridge 1906

_Published October 1906_

APOLOGIA

In 1897 the author of these sketches published a book entitled “Domestic Service.” It was an attempt to consider certain historical and economic aspects of a common occupation and its aim was to induce others to investigate by scientific processes a neglected field of inquiry. It distinctly disclaimed any and all attempts to square the circle by proposing a plan to do away with all difficulties in the present condition of household service.

The book was not one of “the six best sellers” of the season, it was never duplicated by a public library, and it never secured a lodgment at the Tabard Inn. A modest second edition, not yet exhausted, represents its present rating in the authors’ “Bradstreet’s.” The book was a disappointment to many housewives who had noted its appearance because they had hoped to find in it a sovereign remedy for all domestic ills. Instead of that they found only rather repellant footnotes, statistical tables, appendices, and bibliographies. “What connection,” they probably asked, “exists between the far-away fact that there is one domestic employee to every one hundred and fifty-six inhabitants in Oklahoma and the near-at-hand fact that there is a dearth of good cooks in Pantopia?” But Moses Coit Tyler, _beatissima memoria_, once instructed a class of college seniors about to begin the study of certain works in English literature that the initial step in all literary criticism was to find the author’s object and to judge him by his success in attaining that object; that an artist who intends to paint a landscape must be judged by his success in landscape painting, and not criticised because the landscape is not a figure piece. To the charge therefore that a book of three hundred odd pages contained no panacea with virtues attested by hundreds of housekeepers whose domestic ills had been cured by its application, the apologetic answer might be made that the writer professed to be only a seeker after facts, not a domestic physician,--she therefore craved judgment on the facts collected, not on the cure-all unsought and therefore unexploited.

But the author had secretly craved a hearing from the economists, although conscious that she was not one of the guild and therefore might be open to the charge of trespassing on the domain of others. She had also secretly hoped for a hearing from her fellow-workers in the field of history, although conscious that the proportion of history to economics in the book was in inverse ratio. Gaining admission to the salon, however, does not prevent the work of an amateur from being “skyed,” and “Domestic Service” was hung above the line. To the economists whose attention may have been called to the book, it doubtless seemed unreasonable that one who had apparently always been connected with work in history should meddle with economics; to the historians, it probably seemed apostasy to wander, even for a moment, from the path of history. _Ergo mea apologia._

In September, 1887, I became associated with Vassar College with the understanding that I was to give instruction in history and economics. The work in history proved unexpectedly heavy and it was therefore necessary for me to defer taking up the work in economics until the following year. The same conditions existed for three successive years and I then definitely abandoned all thought of undertaking regular work in economics. But although unable to carry out all that had been expected, it seemed possible to make some compensation and therefore at the end of the first year an investigation of domestic service was planned. A series of schedules was drawn up and these were distributed to the members of two successive classes graduating from Vassar College. The publication of the results of the investigation was delayed in order to incorporate with them certain returns of the United States Census of 1890 and these were not available until late in the year, 1896.

A second explanation may be needed concerning the choice of the subject. A residence in several communities differing somewhat widely in geographical location and in industrial conditions had disclosed the fact that in every place the demand for capable household employees was greatly in excess of the supply, largely, it was commonly believed, because in each place the conditions were “peculiar.” These unusual and peculiar conditions were the competition of factories, the competition of shops, the loneliness of farm life, the loneliness of a great city, the inaccessibility of suburbs, the heat of the Western prairies, the dampness of the sea-shore, the life of a college town, and numerous variants of these general principles. All of the conditions that most attract to a place other residents and all the conditions most favorable to other occupations seemed to be always attended with fatality in the case of domestic employees. But as the union of the seven colors of the rainbow forms white light, was it possible that all these peculiar conditions could be reduced to a single fundamental cause that should explain the discrepancy between demand and supply?

Another consideration in favor of selecting domestic service as a reasonable subject for investigation lay in the accessibility of the material. Every household, whether with or without domestic employees, could add its contribution to the inquiry. Moreover, in an age that collects everything from baggage tags and cigar ribbons to old china and old masters, could not a zeal for collecting be turned in the direction of collecting the hitherto untabulated experiences of different households?

But it is true that while the material was accessible, it was not on that account necessarily procurable, and the investigation was undertaken with some realization of the difficulties to be encountered. Yet if, deferring to the example of the British “Who’s Who,” carpentry, cabinet-making, mountaineering, gardening, spectroscopy, and animal chemistry are by some considered as recreations while to others they would imply tasks difficult of achievement, could not, for college women, this collection of material be classed as recreation, although to others it might seem a burdensome task?

It is possible that another element may more or less consciously have been a factor in determining the choice. College education is not even yet universally accepted as necessary and desirable for women. If Society should in a sense expect an apology from college women for having removed themselves from general society and passed four years in college halls, could not that apology take the form of making some small contribution to a domestic question even though those who rendered the quasi-apology did not altogether recognize its necessity?

Another consideration akin to this lies in the frequent assumption by Society that all women marry. Cold, enduring statistical tables, as well as observation, go to show that there is an error in this assumption, and when this fact is pointed out, Society, forgetting that there are some who would but cannot, and others who can but will not, attributes the discrepancy between theory and reality to college education for women. If a few college women could add something to our knowledge of how household affairs are conducted, would that contribution serve to atone for both voluntary and involuntary neglect of matrimony?

But an apology implies not only an explanation of the past but a promise for the future,--the erring one must err no more if absolution is to be given. The economist may pardon the poacher, but he must poach no more. The historian may forgive the one who has wandered from the fold, but the wanderer must in future remain within the pale. Yet how shall the collector of experiences be diverted from his diversion of collecting? The collector of old mahogany depletes his bank account and turns his modest dwelling into a veritable second-hand shop, but still his pony chaise is tied before every farmhouse that has advertised an auction sale of household effects. The lawyer whose country estate produces green peas that yearly cost him five dollars a peck, cheerfully proclaims that it pays to be a gentleman farmer. The New York merchant hunts in Montana and charges up to profit and loss the expressage on the game secured. The luxuries of one are the necessities of another, the recreations of one are laborious occupations for his neighbor, a habit once formed holds its victim in an ever-tightening grasp. If then, in spite of apology and all that it implies, the collector of experiences still accumulates much that to others may be of little practical benefit, if she still indulges in what her friends deem an extravagant luxury, if she still finds her recreation in what others may consider an onerous pursuit, if the habit once formed of connecting with the present the facts and experiences of the past cannot apparently be broken off, if at times she still poaches and still wanders, she will once more claim indulgence if perchance there be any to grant it. It has been in anticipation of this indulgence that these sketches are reprinted. If they seem slight, it is hoped that behind the shadow will be found the substance of a great, and still unsettled problem. The hope that lies still beyond is that the household may in time to come be recognized as a legitimate field for scientific investigation.

CONTENTS

I. RECENT PROGRESS IN THE STUDY OF DOMESTIC SERVICE 1

II. EDUCATION IN THE HOUSEHOLD 35

III. THE RELATION OF COLLEGE WOMEN TO DOMESTIC SCIENCE 51

IV. SAIREY GAMP AND DORA COPPERFIELD 81

V. ECONOMICS AND ETHICS IN DOMESTIC SERVICE 93

VI. “PUT YOURSELF IN HIS PLACE” 121

VII. OUR KITCHEN 133

VIII. AN ILLUSTRATED EDITION 145

IX. THE WOMAN’S EXCHANGE 159

The author takes pleasure in acknowledging the courtesy of _The Atlantic Monthly_ for permission to print the chapter on “Recent Progress in the Study of Domestic Service;” of the _New England Magazine_ for that on “Education in the Household;” of the _Boston Cooking School Magazine_ for the chapter on “Sairey Gamp and Dora Copperfield;” of _The Chautauquan_ for that on “Economics and Ethics in Domestic Service;” of _The Outlook_ for that entitled “Put Yourself in his Place;” of the _Craftsman_ for the chapter on “Our Kitchen;” and of _The Forum_ for that on “The Woman’s Exchange.” The author also acknowledges the kind permission of The Macmillan Company to reprint several passages from her work on _Domestic Service_.

RECENT PROGRESS IN THE STUDY OF DOMESTIC SERVICE

A lady recently called at the house of a friend who answered in person the ring at the door. With careworn expression and flurried manner she apologized for the confusion that apparently reigned in the house, saying:

“My parlor maid is upstairs ill,--not ill enough to go to the hospital, too ill to work, too far from home to go there, yet needing attention from me. My waitress is having a fit of the sulks, and I have sent her out to do an errand and get some fresh air. The cook is just now not on speaking terms with her husband,--the coachman,--and is seeking a divorce, so that one or the other must go. The footman came home drunk last night, and had to be discharged this morning. My house is at sixes and sevens, my husband lunched downtown, my mother has taken the children and the nursery-maid home with her, guests arrive this evening, and I have spent the day in a vain search for help in the house. I belong to a club studying household economics, and have allowed it to turn a search-light on all my household affairs in the interests of society at large. I am now ready to call a halt, to refuse to have my domestic arrangements considered a hunting-ground for theorists, to pronounce all such clubs vain mockeries, snares, and delusions, inventions of the enemy for squandering time, and showing the bitter contrast between abstract theory and concrete reality. The only club I am interested in must provide on tap maids who never get ill or sulky, cooks without a temper, and coachmen and footmen of unimpeachable habits.”

It is possible that such conditions are not confined to “the uninhabited districts west of Schenectady,” and that elsewhere there may be despairing housekeepers ready to cry out against all serious study of domestic questions, because such study has not yet had an immediate and practical bearing on the management of their individual households. It is, indeed, not improbable, for there is in every clime the tradition of a time when household helpers were abundant, competent, and cheap,--a golden age when harmony reigned in the household and domestic discord was unknown. Has this peaceful condition been rudely broken up by the meddlesome interference of domestic busy-bodies? Has progress been hindered by the club studying household economics, by the investigator seeking for facts, by the theorist trying to square the ideal with the real, and by students of social conditions anxious to explain the present by the past? Is the only remedy for present ills the suppression of all discussion, since discussion breeds contempt and unhappiness? Is the club to revert to Browning, the investigator to confine himself to the comparatively safe field of ancient history, the theorist to live in the future, and the student of social conditions to content himself with flower missions and soup-kitchens? If it can be shown that conditions are worse than they have ever been before, and that discussion and investigation are responsible for this deterioration, then assuredly the club should change the field of its activity, and all discussion of the household affairs should cease.

But the immediate dissolution of the club studying household economics is not imminent. The premises on which its detractors base their criticisms are false, and hence the conclusions deduced from these premises are illogical and unreasonable. All literature goes to show that an ideal condition of domestic service exists and has existed only in the castles of Spain. And recent literature and recent legislation do show that some little progress has been made in the study of domestic service as an occupation, in spite of the fact that individual housekeepers still have and always will have trials and perplexities that at times seem almost overwhelming. The Hudson empties its waters into the ocean, yet twice each day the mightier force of the ocean tide turns the current back upon itself,--in winter it bears upstream the moving mass of ice, and in summer it makes its overbalancing power felt almost to the very source of the great river.

The individual housekeeper feels only the force of the household current that bears her helpless to her destination,--she forgets the still stronger force of society that makes itself felt over and beyond that of the individual home.

* * * * *

In balancing the accounts of domestic service and in asking what has been accomplished in the past ten years in the direction of improvement, it must be frankly said at the outset that it is probably just as difficult to-day to secure good household employees as it was ten years ago,--perhaps even more difficult; that wages are probably even higher than at that time; that the service rendered is no more efficient; that recommendations are no more reliable; that cooks still have tempers; that coachmen sometimes drink; that maids have “followers;” that nursery girls gossip in the parks with policemen; that new employees engaged fail to keep the engagement; that valuable china is broken, and that household supplies are wasted.

But if the work of these years has not borne immediate fruit, it has not been without results that will sometime come to fruition. These results are seen in the distinct, positive, and direct improvement in the literature of the subject; flippancy is giving place to seriousness in considering the relations of mistress and maid; historical and statistical investigations of the question have multiplied and become more thorough and elaborate; substantial facts are supplanting sentimentality and visionary theories in the discussions on the subject; a diagnosis of the case is being made, and the prescription of a remedy is withheld while the examination is progressing; humble-mindedness and willingness to learn are now found where formerly there were absolute certainty and positiveness of conviction in dealing with the question; in a definite way an improvement in legislation has been made, disreputable methods of employment agencies have been exposed, social oases have been planted in desert places, and, in general, a concrete method of procedure has been substituted for polite abstractions and innocuous generalities. All this means that a long step forward has been taken within the past decade.

The great improvement in the character of the general literature of the subject is seen in the gradual disappearance of the fault-finding, the sentimental, the goody-goody magazine article, and the appearance in its place of genuine contributions to the subject, like those recently made to the “Atlantic Monthly” by Miss Jane Seymour Klink and Miss Frances A. Kellor. Miss Jane Addams in “A Belated Industry”[1] has dealt most thoroughly with the economic phases of the subject, as has Mrs. Mary Roberts Smith in her admirable article on “Domestic Service; the Responsibility of Employers.”[2] Mr. Bolton Hall has set forth most vigorously the employee’s side of the case in “The Servant Class on the Farm and in the Slums;”[3] while a symposium on the subject by a group of men has recently discussed in an impartial manner many of the difficulties of the situation.

Pure literature also makes its contribution, and Mrs. Mary Hartwell Catherwood has recently given a charming picture of “A Convent Man-Servant.”[4] Nothing could prove more effectively the change in the attitude of the public mind toward the subject than does the contrast presented between such a sketch, drawn with light and sympathetic pen, and that given in the satires of Dean Swift and of Defoe. The very absence of the figure of a domestic servant in the modern novel, and in current popular literature in every form, is in itself an indication of a changed attitude of the public mind toward the question as a whole. Figaro, and even Sam Weller, are almost as far removed from us as are the servants of Potiphar and of the Queen of Sheba.

The attitude of the daily press toward the subject of domestic service certainly leaves something yet to be desired,--the stock jests on the impertinent maid and the ignorant mistress, like those on the mother-in-law and the summer girl, die hard, but they will go in time.

The historical investigations of the subject have been few in number, but they have been of great value. Mr. Albert Matthews has placed all students of the subject under obligation to him by his exhaustive study, “The Terms Hired Man and Help,”[5] as Mr. James D. Butler had previously done by his investigations on “British Convicts shipped to American Colonies,”[6] and Dr. Karl Frederick Geiser by his work on “Redemptioners and Indented Servants in the Colony and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”[7]

The public library is always first to create as well as to satisfy a demand for literature on subjects of general interest. It is therefore not surprising to find that the Providence Public Library as far back as 1893 issued a bibliography of all works and magazine articles on domestic service, which has been followed by the still more exhaustive reference-list published in 1898 on the general subject of domestic science; and that the Salem Public Library has a similar list. The New York State Library has published a comprehensive bibliography of the whole subject of domestic economy, and it sends out, to all parts of the state, traveling libraries of the best volumes on the same subject,--the list of the volumes included being in itself an excellent guide to the study of household economics. But the greatest of all steps in advance has been made by those libraries that have changed the classification of works attempting to treat scientifically the subject of domestic service from the class of Domestic Economy to that of Economics proper. The change seems slight, but it is a recognition of the intimate relation that exists between domestic service and other forms of industry.

The statistician, like the librarian, is also quick to create as well as to respond to the demand for information of a serious nature, and this has been shown in the growing recognition of the importance of domestic service as a field for statistical research. Among the most thorough of these statistical investigations is that carried on by Miss Isabel Eaton,--recently fellow of the College Settlements’ Association,--in regard to negro domestic service in the seventh ward of Philadelphia.[8] Miss Eaton has made an exhaustive study of one phase of the subject in a limited area, considering not only the number of negroes thus employed, but the methods of living, savings, and expenditures, amusements and recreations, length and quality of the service, conjugal condition, illiteracy, and health. The work has been done in a thoroughly scientific manner, and the results form an admirable presentation of negro service in a single ward of one city.

Similar thorough investigations of special aspects of the question have been carried on by Miss Mary W. Dewson and Miss Edith G. Fabens for the Women’s Educational and Industrial Union of Boston, and by Miss Gertrude Bigelow, fellow of the Association of Collegiate Alumnæ, at the School of Housekeeping. They have collected statistics in regard to the hours of labor in domestic service, the social conditions of domestic service, household expenses, and the relative cost of home-cooked and of purchased food. The results of these investigations have been collected by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, and the reports based on them have been commented on by the press. Scientific information in regard to the subject has thus been widely circulated, and this must have been effective in changing somewhat the attitude of the public mind toward the subject as a whole. Mention must also be made of the “Twentieth Century Expense Book,” prepared by Miss Mary W. Dewson; its widespread use would be of service in affording opportunity for a comparative study of household expenses.