I’m not sure I know why myself, but I find the whole subject of 19th century domestic life, and especially of the Victorian version of domestic service, a fascinating topic. It’s a subject in which I have read a good deal over the years and I believe I now understand the intersecting forces of industrialism and imperialism that led to one-third of the female population of Britain being engaged in personal service at the end of Victoria’s long reign -- the largest single class of labor in the country -- and the social pressures that led some middle class families to starve themselves so they could afford to pay for extra servants and thereby enhance their own status in the eyes of their neighbors. It’s a weird dynamic by our present standards -- or even to most Americans at that time.
There’s a good deal of interesting and relevant material in this volume and a large number of quite fascinating illustrations, whether photographs or magazine engravings. The author obviously has read a large number of 19th century books and periodical articles written about domestic servants and intended for the mistress of the house, and he frequently quotes the comments and observations of those directly involved. He especially has some points to make regarding the role of the Church in promoting acceptance of domestic service among the working classes -- an oppressive attitude which did a good deal to lose the C of E much of its standing among the people of England. It’s an interesting and worthwhile read.
Huggett, however, is a journalist turned full-time professional writer, not an historian, and while this isn’t his first excursion into English social history of a century and a half ago, it’s not what one could call weighty. Most of the history he relates is superficial and anecdotal, which means it’s more likely to represent the ends of the bell curve and not the center. He often seems to think a description of life in a particular household, “great” or small, is a typical example, and that it applies to all establishments in the same class, in all times and places -- which is absolutely not true. Moreover, he spends a lot of time noting how elaborate and “wasteful” the whole Victorian middle-class and aristocratic lifestyle was and how inexplicably “ornate” manners in society were, especially at the dining table. His attitude is frequently one of eyebrow-lifting superiority, and while he never actually uses the phrase “How quaint,” he’s certainly thinking it, as in his description of ladies proceeding from the drawing room into the dining room, “two by two, like animals entering the Ark.” (It apparently hasn’t occurred to him to consider the similar complexity and waste of the personal life of a late-20th-century multimillionaire.) If you’re seriously, or even passing, interested in this field I would recommend instead one of the numerous popular studies by Kathryn Hughes or Pamela Horn, which are uniformly well-researched and accessibly presented.