cleaning and filling these. When dusk draws on she should light these
and the gas, pull down the shades, and make the living-rooms ready for
the evening. It is also the work of the second maid to put the bedrooms
in order for the night, closing the blinds, turning down the beds,
removing spreads and day-pillows, and bringing iced water to each room
the last thing before she goes to bed herself.
In point of fact, the work of the waitress is nearly as general in
its nature as that of the maid-of-all-work. She attends the door, as a
matter of course, answers the bells from the chambers or drawing-room,
brings hot water to the bedrooms in the morning, prepares and carries in
the afternoon tea-tray, and must be on the alert to see that the house
is in spick-and-span order. She has the charge of the silver, keeping it
clean and polishing the brasses. For each of these especial duties she
should have a regular time, and the mistress should see that the system
she put into practice when she had but one servant is followed out after
she has added to her household force. All the dusting falls to the care
of the waitress, unless the mistress prefers to reserve for herself the
handling of curios and choice bric-à-brac. The cook may sweep, but it is
the waitress who follows her with a dust-cloth and who scrubs the paint
and wipes off stray finger-marks from mouldings and window-panes.
When there is a child in the house, and the second maid unites the
offices of nurse and waitress, her work must be divided differently. She
may do the chamber-work, but she cannot be expected to wash the dishes
unless the mother or some other member of the family assumes the care
of the infant while the nurse is otherwise employed. Nor can she be
held responsible for all the details that would fall to her were
she waitress, pure and simple. When a nurse is employed as well as a
waitress, her work is usually absolutely separate from that of the other
maid. She may do sewing and the baby's washing, help make the beds, and
lend a hand on the afternoons and evenings out of the other maids, but
she has little or nothing to do with the general work of the house.
If the cook has thus far received slighter attention than the waitress,
it is because her work is so much more closely confined to one
department that it requires less minute consideration. She prepares the
meals, takes charge of the kitchen, cellar, and pantries, inspects the
latter and the refrigerator every morning in company with the mistress
of the house, and reigns supreme in the lower realms. In small families
where two servants are employed the cook usually is laundress as well.
In that case the waitress generally takes part of the cook's work on
washing and ironing days, preparing the luncheon on those days, washing
all the dishes, and keeping the kitchen in order. The waitress often
assists with the fine ironing on Tuesday. Cook and waitress relieve each
other on their days out. The cook waits on table when the waitress
goes out and attends the door, unless the mistress chooses to do this
herself. When the cook takes her holiday the waitress assumes her
duties.
When the housekeeper has a force of more than two servants the
complications thicken, since with the introduction of each new maid
comes more specialization. Unless the new servant is engaged because the
family is so large that the work is too heavy for two maids, or because
of the need of a special servant, as a nurse, the addition is usually
due to increased elaboration in the way of living, and this, of course,
subdivides specialization still more as well as raises the scale of
wages. The "professed cook," who does nothing but cook and demands a
helper or scullery-maid, gets higher pay than the general cook who does
the washing and ironing or the one who may refuse to do laundry-work
but yet undertakes all the labor of the kitchen. The waitress who
understands the service of wines and is an adept at handling large
dinners and luncheons, demands--and gets--large wages and feels her
dignity to an extent that makes her cling tenaciously to the rights and
privileges of her position.
The average American household which employs servants--and there is a
surprisingly large proportion of the sum total who keep no servant at
all--is contented with one, two, or, at the most, three servants. The
third may be a nurse, as I have said, or a laundress, who, besides her
washing and ironing, does the chamber-work and thus leaves the waitress
free for her especial tasks in the dining-room and for the duties of
a parlor-maid. The laundress may also wash windows or help in other
cleaning. Or the third servant may be seamstress and chambermaid and
have nothing to do with the dining-room or with the kitchen unless she
fills one of these places on the "day off" of the regular incumbent.
In a book that deals with the work of the maid-servant it is not worth
while to go into the duties of the man-servant or to touch upon the
possibilities of change latent in the introduction of Japanese and
Chinese service. That all has its part in the domestic labor problem,
but this is not the opportunity for discussing this phase of the servant
question.
VI
CERTAIN PROBLEMS OF SERVICE
The tendency to introduce the wearing of livery into domestic service
has grown within the past few years. There are still many protests
against it, and writers are found who declare the cap and apron of the
housemaid a badge of servitude. But the growth of the livery has been
universal, and implies no more degradation in one relation of life
than in another. The public servant, whether he be policeman or
street-cleaner or motorman or car conductor or what you will, takes his
uniform as a matter of course. The shop-girl, who often prides herself
on belonging to a higher social class than the "living-out girl," does
not feel disgraced if in the big department store where she works she
is expected to conform to the rules of the establishment and don a black
gown and a white collar. The trained nurse does not feel it an indignity
to wear a cap. In truth, there is a great deal of nonsense talked about
the livery of the servant-girl. I have known sensible young women--at
least they were sensible in everything else--who would flatly refuse to
wear a pretty and becoming cap, and would give up the chance of a good
place sooner than put one on.
The girl who surveys matters with an unprejudiced view will recognize
a pretty little cap as an uncommonly becoming adjunct to her dress. She
will also appreciate the fact that she looks much neater with her flying
locks tucked back under a cap than she would with the stray tresses
wandering over a forehead that is heated by brisk work. Rightly
considered, the cap is no mark of servitude, and has a reason for
its existence in the added neatness and freshness it imparts to the
working-girl's garb.
This, indeed, is the whole object of the livery. When the maid is
at work she should be dressed in a manner that is suitable for her
employment. In the morning when she is to be busy with her housework,
in and out of the kitchen, handling a broom and dust-cloth, her dress
should be a neat print. In houses where the mistress provides the
working-frocks of the maids, as is sometimes done, she can have these
frocks made all in one piece, but in the majority of homes, where
but one or two maids are kept, they dress themselves. Under these
circumstances they cannot be expected to conform to any especial color
or style, and will probably wear shirtwaists and skirts. It is a pity if
the skirts are dark woollen goods, because these gather dust and retain
the odors of cookery, but a large apron will protect the skirt, and
washing is saved to the maid if her whole gown is not of a light
material. She is wise if she wears a large sweeping-cap in the morning
when she is busy at work that is likely to make dust, but this can be
exchanged for a smaller cap when the rougher parts of her labor are out
of the way.
For the afternoon, when it is feasible, the maid, whether she be the
maid-of-all-work who discharges the functions of both cook and waitress,
or the servant who is waitress and parlor-maid, should, if correctly
dressed, wear a black frock with white collar and cuffs, and a white bib
apron. The latter may be a little more elaborately trimmed than that she
has on in the morning. In fact, with a morning apron she may dispense
with the bib altogether and wear only a plain, large apron. Some
mistresses demand the broad collar, although the cuffs may be omitted.
I say "when it is feasible" the maid should make this change, because
it is not always the most convenient thing in the world for the maid who
has to do the cooking of the dinner before she serves it to be in her
black frock all the afternoon. She may look neat in her gingham waist
and skirt, and then, when she gets everything in order for the dinner,
she may slip away to her room for a minute and get into the black waist.
The waitress who has no kitchen work is usually expected to have on her
black waist soon after luncheon in order to be ready to answer the bell
properly dressed. The absolutely correct custom demands that she should
be in this garb before luncheon is served, but this rule is not followed
in the average household.
There are many obstacles in the way of strict enforcement of various
regulations which are insisted upon as essential by those who endeavor
to make the social by-laws. To such rules the majority of housekeepers
would be glad to conform if they could. Like Lady Teazle, they would
be only too happy if roses grew under their feet and they could gather
strawberries all the year round. But domestic exigencies forbid many
indulgences, and the wise woman is she who adapts herself to things as
they are and does not make herself wretched over non-essentials. When a
woman keeps but one maid to do the work of a household of half a dozen
members, she cannot hope to have her establishment conducted as it would
be with a force of three or four maids. She may very properly insist
upon certain niceties of serving and waiting, but if she does this she
must make up for it in other ways. For instance, the woman who demands
candles for her dinner-table instead of gas must not expect the maid who
does all the work of the house to have time to keep the candlesticks in
order. The care of the flowers that brighten the table must also come
upon the mistress. She must take this sort of thing for granted as
much as she does the necessity for relying upon her own efforts in the
preparation of her more delicate desserts and salads. Such efforts are
the price she pays for wishing to live in a certain fashion, and, since
she has made her choice, she has no right to be dissatisfied with it.
Plainer modes of life and ultimate salvation are not incompatible, but
if she prefers the added daintiness to the lighter labor it devolves
upon her to do the additional work necessarily implied by the touches of
elegance.
I have spoken of the habit of some mistresses of providing the maids'
working-dress. This is done in large establishments where a certain
livery is required, and in other homes, where the mistress feels it
worth while, she supplies the black frock to be worn in the afternoon.
Whether this is done or not it is customary for the mistress to provide
the caps and white aprons worn by her maids, and the collars and cuffs,
if she insists upon the latter. These belong to the mistress, and are
not taken away by the maid when she leaves.
The laundering of these articles is generally paid for by the mistress.
That is, if the washing is put out or some one comes in to do it, the
aprons are included in the family washing instead of being done by the
maid herself with her own washing. In the average family, where two or
three servants are employed, each does her own washing and has a fixed
time for it, unless some other arrangement is made between the mistress
and the servant. In some cases the mistress provides also colored aprons
for the maid to wear at her heavy work, but this is not obligatory.
There is not the same reason for this that there is for the mistress's
purchasing the livery. It is taken for granted that the maid has enough
clothing of her own to enable her to look decent about the house. If,
however, the mistress has her decided preferences in favor of the maid
dressing herself in a special fashion, it is her business to provide the
raiment in which the maid is required to appear. Often it will be found
that the maid has adapted herself to her work and has purchased for
herself neat black waists or frocks to wear in the afternoon. In this
case the mistress is saved just so much expense and may esteem herself
fortunate, but she has no right to demand that the maid shall supply
herself with such a garb at her own expense.
The social relations of servants is a matter with which some mistresses
exercise themselves over-much, while others, perhaps, give too little
attention to it. According to the ideas of some persons, the affairs of
a maid outside of working hours concern no one but herself. So long as
she conforms to certain rules of the household, her coming and going,
her associates and habits, are no one's business but her own, unless
they interfere with the proper performance of her work. In a way this is
entirely true, and a mistress has no more right to pry into the affairs
of her maid than the maid has to be overcurious about the business of
the mistress. But there is something to be said on the other side. Look
at it in as matter-of-fact fashion as one will, relations of domestic
service are different from any other business association. The mistress
and maid do not only meet in the morning and part again at night, after
having been together simply in the way of their work during the day;
they eat and sleep under the same roof. Often they work side by side for
an hour at a time. They see each other in bodily and mental dishabille.
They are by way of asking or granting little kindly services that were
never nominated in the bond. Without bringing too much sentiment into
the relation, it may yet be asserted that it is next to impossible for
them to meet on purely business terms.
When this is admitted it opens the way for something more. Not
familiarity or interference, but a kindly and friendly interest. This
interest grows to be something very like a sense of responsibility if
the maid is a young girl far removed--as she often is--from the family
and associations amid which she was reared. The ties that used to hold
her have been loosened, and it would be no wonder if in the feeling of
irresponsibility that comes with novel freedom she should occasionally
make a mistake which she afterwards has to repent more or less bitterly.
In one sense it is none of the mistress's business. She is not her
maid-servant's keeper. Yet she could hardly help reproaching herself if
she thought that a kindly word, a query that showed her interest,
might have spared the girl a blunder, even if this did not amount to
wrong-doing.
So, if the mistress can do it, she should try to establish some sort
of an _entente_ with her maid. It can hardly be an _entente cordiale_,
perhaps, until they have been together long enough to have broken down
the little class antagonism that generally exists at first between
mistress and maid and to convince the latter of the good-will of the
former. It does not take much trouble to bring about this state of
affairs. An interest in the girl's family, a question or two as to
whether she has any of her own people on this side of the water, an
inquiry as to her friends--not in a manner that seems to imply a
mere curiosity or patronage, but in a fashion that shows a genuine
friendliness is prompting the queries. The assurance of the maid that
she may feel free to have her friends come to see her, a pleasant word
of greeting to these if they come and the mistress happens to meet them,
all do their part towards making the maid sure that her employer is in a
measure her friend.
When it comes to the question of "followers"--that vexed question in
so many households--the mistress is wise if she pursues the straightest
course. In the first place, she should recognize the fact that the
maid-of-all-work should be permitted to have her men friends come to
call on her. She did not enter a nunnery when she went into domestic
service. She is a human being, and she has the right to friends among
the opposite sex--just as good a right as the daughter of madam herself.
Bearing this in mind, the employer should allow "followers" subject to
the same rules which she would enforce with her own daughters. The
young men should come at a suitable hour and go at a suitable hour. They
should no more be granted permission to linger around the kitchen when
the objects of their attention are busy with the daily toil than should
the callers of mademoiselle be welcomed when she is at her music lesson
or occupied with her language teacher. To do the followers justice, they
do not often attempt it, nor do the maids encourage it. Of course, there
are the stock jokes about the policeman on the beat and the milkman
and the butcher's boy, but none of these--except the policeman--has
sufficient leisure to spend much time in the kitchen or the front area
during working hours. Even if there is violation of this rule once in a
while--well, we have all had little occurrences of the same kind in our
lives. Our chance meetings and partings out of canonical hours did
not take place in the front area, perhaps, but that was because our
employments did not lead either of us there.
The responsibility of the mistress does not go so far as to make it
necessary for her to inquire into the antecedents of the young men who
visit in her kitchen as she would into those of the men callers in the
drawing-room. That is outside of her province. Yet she may let the maid
know that she feels an interest in her admirers and friends, and such an
interest is likely to be appreciated.
Again I feel I must defend myself against a charge of sentimentality.
But I have seen these experiments tried with success. I do not mean by
this that the maids were models of unending devotion and fidelity. We
seldom find this sort of thing without flaw among our chosen associates.
But I have known instances where the casual friendliness of the mistress
was repaid tenfold in times of sickness or trouble by offices which
could not be compensated for in money. And it was done freely and
gladly, with no thought of anything out of the ordinary, with no hint
that sacrifices were being made.
"Yes," says some one, "and those very maids will talk you over behind
your back."
Quite true, dear madam. As the majority of us discuss not only our maids
but our own familiar friends behind their backs--as they do us when our
backs are turned. We are all of us as ready to resent criticism as we
are to offer it. When we find the habits of high life below-stairs, it
behooves us to ask ourselves what sort of an example along those lines
we had set the maid-servants within our gates.
Without hope of any reward, except that of the comfortable sensation we
have when we have attempted to do the decent thing, let us try to make
our maids feel at home in our houses. If it is possible, they should
have a place in which to meet their friends. Where there is space, it
is becoming more and more the custom to provide a sitting-room for the
servants in which their visitors can be received. To many housekeepers
such an arrangement as this would be impossible. In such cases there
should at least be an effort to render the kitchen as pleasant as the
circumstances will permit. It may be clean and neat, there may be a
couple of chairs that are tolerably comfortable, and any little attempt
the maid may wish to make to add to the attractiveness of the apartment
should be encouraged.
VII
GENERAL SUGGESTIONS
The mistress of a house must not look for bricks without straw. In other
words, she must not demand good work from her maids if they lack the
tools with which to achieve it.
When women, in the course of discussions on domestic topics at clubs
and elsewhere, declare that housekeeping can be practised on the same
principles as those on which men conduct their business, when they
affirm that housekeeping may be run like machinery, they sometimes
forget what is meant by the management of machinery. The metaphor
pleases them so much that they fail to examine it too closely. But any
machinist will tell one that an engine does not go of itself. I do
not mean only that the fires must be kept up and the water which is
to generate steam must be provided. There is more to it than that. The
machinery must be watched and oiled and kept in perfect repair. If
any bit of it is injured it must at once be replaced. There must be a
regular inspection made to see that there is not so much friction on one
part as to make too much wear and tear, and that other portions
which are temporarily out of use do not become rusty so that they are
unmanageable when they come in demand.
But what housekeeper takes such care of her home machinery as this? Here
and there one may be found, but the majority, having started the works
going, seem to have the impression that the wheels will continue to
revolve with no further attention. It is taken for granted that the maid
will pursue the even tenor of her way as if she were another piece of
clockwork that has been wound up--or, perhaps, as if she were a part
of the same big machine which comprises the household and all its
appointments.
The difference, of course, between the machinery and the home is that
in the conduct of the latter the human equation has to be reckoned with
constantly. It is not enough for the mistress to see that all parts
of the engine are supplied, if this or that section is to be injured
through carelessness as soon as her back is turned. The head machinist
would probably drop a man on short notice who had proved himself to be
persistently careless of the portion of labor committed to his charge.
The fact that he could do other parts of his work well, that he was
kindly and good-natured and never spoke an impertinent word, would weigh
for little if he did not pay attention to his especial duty and take
proper care of that which was committed to his charge. With the domestic
servant matters are on a different footing. In counting up her good and
bad qualities the mistress must keep a debit-and-credit account and feel
that one positive virtue offsets many negative defects.
Yet, even while she does this and puts up with shortcomings because of
some one conspicuous merit, the mistress should not relax her effort to
approximate, so far as she may, the performance of household duties to
the workings of the machinery to which it is so often likened. And to
do this she must see that everything necessary is at hand, to make the
wheels turn smoothly.
It is a proof of the carelessness with which many homes are managed,
and of the slackness which maids take for granted, that the household
equipment is so often conspicuously poor. I have been in houses that
were well furnished above-stairs where I have seen the maids attempting
to do careful cookery with utensils that were utterly inadequate. There
were broken vegetable-graters, cream-churns, egg-beaters, flour-sifters,
coffee-pots with parts of their mechanism missing, bowls and dishes
with large sections gone from them, an insufficient supply of such small
items as measuring-cups, mixing-spoons, vegetable-knives, and the like.
I have also had a glimpse of the articles provided for keeping a house
clean--stubby brooms, worn-out brushes, half-bristled scrubbing-brushes,
a stingy provision of the detergents and cleansing fluids manufactured
for household use. In the midst of this dearth the maids worked as best
they could, accomplishing wonders when one thought of the means they had
in hand.
"But," some one will say, "these things were doubtless provided at
first, and if they are lacking now it is because of the carelessness of
the maids that had them in charge."