(This edition of A Stone In Heaven has good internal illustrations, including one of Chives serving Flandry.)
Nicholas van Rijn has domestic servants, including a butler;
Dominic Flandry has Chives whom we take to be named after Jeeves;
James Bond has a Scottish housekeeper, May;
when Dornford Yates' Mansel and his two friends traveled abroad, they made a party of six because each, of course, was accompanied by a servant - and, when the doorbell rang in Mansel's flat, a servant went to answer it.
Poul Anderson imagines that the merchant princes of the Polesotechnic League and, after them, the upper echelons of the Terran Empire reproduce the wealthy lifestyles of earlier eras. Indeed, the Empire reintroduces slavery. I think that this happened, first, because in Anderson's pulp space operas, the Terran Empire was merely a futuristic Roman Empire, then, secondly, when the Technic History began to incorporate serious sociological extrapolations, Anderson rationalized this "slavery" as a way of getting some useful work out of convicted criminals. In his Draka series, SM Stirling imagines a slave-owning culture surviving and thriving into our period and beyond.
In Britain after World War II, there was an intermediate stage, not resident domestic servants but:
"Mrs Maggs was that element in Jane's economy represented by the phrase 'I have a woman who comes in twice a week.' Twenty years earlier Jane's mother would have addressed such a functionary as 'Maggs' and been addressed by her as 'Mum'. But Jane and her 'woman who came in' called one other Mrs Maggs and Mrs Studdock. They were about the same age and to a bachelor's eye there was no very noticeable difference in the clothes they wore."
-CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength IN Lewis, The Cosmic Trilogy (London, 1990), CHAPTER 2, 3, p. 393.
(So a colleague mistakes Mrs Maggs for Mark Studdock's wife.)
In the 1950s, my mother had a "woman who came in," whom we knew as Mrs Strong, and our neighbor called her gardener "Smith."
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The only criticism I would make of the illustrations for the Ace Books edition of A STONE IN HEAVEN is that I think there were too many. Some of them could have been omitted with no loss to the book.
And I don't think it will be that implausible to still find wealthy persons having servants or a domestic staff even in high tech societies in the future. This bit from Anderson's "Ramble With a Gamblin' Man" came to mind, after an American from Earth said his people thought personal service degrading: "Well, we've developed a different tradition in space," Bell drawled. "That was necessary, back in the days when people used their hands because they hadn't any machine to substitute, maybe no machine'd been designed for a particular job yet...except man himself, the all purpose gadget. And then, well, look at it this way. The pioneers had to be self reliant, or they died. But they also had to be mutually helpful, or they died. So they evolved, more or less unconsciously, the notion that anyone who did well was morally obliged to find jobs for the less fortunate; and that was no disgrace in takin' those jobs, because every erg of work contributed to improvement. The disgrace would be in freeloadin'."
Sean
Just living takes a lot of work; it took more in the past, of course, but we tend to overestimate the extent to which mechanization has reduced the necessity of housework and childcare for a number of reasons.
One of them is that 'women's work' tends to be invisible until some circumstance forces it before people's eyes. In point of fact, the amount of labor-time used to keep a house running (cleaning, cooking, etc.) hasn't gone down much in the last 75 years or so, partly because standards have gone up.
It's not a new phenomenon. I saw a cartoon from Punch in the 1860's a little while ago, in which a burly workingman is sitting having his dinner, and exulting in how his union has just secured a ten-hour working day.
His wife (who of course cooked the dinner, and in the 1860's would often not get several of the elements, meat particularly) is scrubbing the floor and thinking: Ten hours? I'm past thirteen, and not finished yet!
Note that every class in history which could has shoved off nearly all housework and most routine child-care on some sort of servant class -- nannies are ubiquitous these days among "power couples" here in the US where both husband and wife have high-paying jobs.
It makes perfect sense; if you can hire someone for $15 an hour and you make $150, it's economically ridiculous not to.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! If it's possible and you can afford it, it's simple good good sense to hire a nanny or a cleaning lady.
Sean
Post a Comment