Globalising Housework

Globalising Housework This book shows how international influences profoundly shaped the ‘English’ home of Victorian and Edwardian London; homes which, in turn, influenced Britain’s (and Britons’) place on the world stage. The period between 1850 and 1914 was one of fundamental global change, when London homes were subject to new expanding influences that shaped how residents cleaned, ate, and cared for family. It was also the golden age of domesticity, when the making and maintaining of home expressed people’s experience of society, class, race, and politics. Focusing on the everyday toil of housework, the chapters in this volume show the ‘English’ home as profoundly global conglomeration of people, technology, and things. It examines a broad spectrum of sources, from patents to ice cream makers, and explores domestic histories through original readings and critiques of printed sources, material culture, and visual ephemera. Laura Humphreys is Curatorial & Collections Engagement Project Manager at the Science Museum Group, UK. She was a project curator at the National Maritime Museum, following completion of a PhD at Queen Mary University of London, in collaboration with the Museum of the Home. Home Series editors: Rosie Cox and Victor Buchli This interdisciplinary series responds to the growing interest in the home as an area of research and teaching. The titles feature contributions from across the social sciences, including anthropology, material culture studies, architecture and design, sociology, gender studies, migration studies, and environmental studies. Relevant to students as well as researchers, the series consolidates the home as a field of study. Homely Atmospheres and Lighting Technologies in Denmark Living with Light Mikkel Bille A Cultural History of Twin Beds Hilary Hinds Art and Masculinity in Post-War Britain Reconstructing Home Gregory Salter Food Identities at Home and on the Move Explorations at the Intersection of Food, Belonging and Dwelling Edited by Raúl Matta, Charles-Édouard de Suremain and Chantal Crenn Ethnographies of Home and Mobility Shifing Roofs Alejandro Miranda Nieto, Aurora Massa and Sara Bonfanti Globalising Housework Domestic Labour in Middle-class London Homes, 1850–1914 Laura Humphreys Home Improvement in Aotearoa New Zealand and the UK Rosie Cox For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Home/book-series/BLANTHOME. Globalising Housework Domestic Labour in Middle-class London Homes, 1850–1914 Laura Humphreys First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Laura Humphreys The right of Laura Humphreys to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Humphreys, Laura, author. Title: Gloabalising housework : domestic labour in middle-class London homes, 1850-1914 / Laura Humphreys. Other titles: Globalizing housework Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, N.Y. : Routledge, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020048640 (print) | LCCN 2020048641 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367626679 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003110248 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Home–Social aspects–England–London–History–19th century. | Housekeeping–England–London–History–19th century. | Household employees–England–London–History–19th century. | London (England)–Social life and customs–19th century. Classification: LCC HQ613 .H75 2021 (print) | LCC HQ613 (ebook) | DDC 640.9421–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020048640 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020048641 ISBN: 978-0-367-62667-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-62683-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-11024-8 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Taylor & Francis Books For my mother, Jennifer Humphreys. The most dedicated and reasonably priced proofreader in the business. Contents 1 List of illustrations Acknowledgements ix xi Introduction 1 Situating London homes, 1850–1914 7 Middle-class houses, households, and homes 13 Uncovering domestic labour in the archive 19 2 A nation uncomfortable at home 26 The Servant Problem 29 ‘From an English point of view’: English domestic self-criticisms 35 ‘A sealed book to us’: foreign perspectives on metropolitan domesticity 40 Tropical residents at home? Anglo-Imperial returners in London 47 Conclusion 53 3 Changing tastes: Foreign food and cookery Celebrity chefs and cuisine bourgeois: French food in London 62 Incorporating Italian ices into London diets 73 The emergence of American foods in London 80 ‘Old colonials’ and cookery: policing imperial authenticity in metropolitan kitchens 85 Conclusion 97 56 viii Contents 4 Soap and glory: Cleaning London homes 102 Imperial advertisements and everyday cleaning 105 Selling labour savers: a case study of the carpet sweeper 113 Personal hygiene in (and out of) the home 122 Doing dirty laundry in public: class, race, and sending laundry out 129 Conclusion 136 5 Infant empires: Childcare and the wider world 140 Imperial childcare at home: ayahs in London 142 ‘French or German preferred’: foreign governesses in London homes 158 The English girl’s garden: German-style kindergartens in London 166 Conclusions 171 6 Conclusion: Global homes in London houses 175 Bibliography Index 184 208 Illustrations Figures 1.1 Caricature of Benjamin Disraeli as a laundress called ‘Mrs Dizzy’, cleansing the British flag of the ‘dirt’ of Zulu warriors 3.1 Embossed dinner menu from 21 De Vere Gardens, in French, c.1884 3.2 Linley Sambourne-designed menu for dinner, presumed at 18 Stafford Terrace, c.1884 3.3 An advertisement for Gatti’s Cafe, 1880 3.4 An Italian-made ice-cream maker, c.1880 3.5 An advertisement for Fuller’s American Confectionery, including a mention of ‘American Indian Basket Work’ 3.6 An advertisement for The American Confectionary Company (i.e. Fuller’s) 3.7 An advertising flyer for Banks’ Curry Restaurant, 1886 4.1 A full-page advertisement for Imperial Cold Water Soap, featuring Britannia promoting the ‘strength’, ‘durability’, and ‘cleansing properties’ of imperial rule and soap 4.2 An advertisement for Nubian Blacking, c.1879 4.3 An advertisement for Nubian Blacking 4.4 An advertisement for Ebonite Blacking by S. & H. Harris 4.5 The Bissell ‘Grand Rapids’ carpet sweeper, c.1895 4.6 An advertisement for the Ewbank carpet sweeper 4.7 The British manufacturer mark on the Ewbank ‘Success’ model, Patent 23610, c.1902 4.8 ‘Maids never grumble’ advertisement for Ewbank carpet sweepers 4.9 An advertisement for Bissell carpet sweepers with no mention of their American origins 4.10 Part of a flyer for the Savoy Turkish bath, decorated with geometric Arabic motifs and depicting a Middle Eastern interior 1 67 69 77 79 82 84 87 106 107 108 109 115 117 118 119 121 126 x List of illustrations 4.11 Tapping into the American reputation for laundry innovation; Uncle Sam advertising the Newington Sanitary Laundry and its London locations, 1890 5.1 The interior of the Ayah’s Home, appearing to show 10–12 ayahs reading, writing, and sewing, with two staff members 5.2 A group of ayahs stood outside the Ayah’s Home on King Edward’s Road, Hackney, c.1900 5.3 ‘The Ayah’, accompanying The Graphic’s article on ‘Humourous Indian Types’ 5.4 An illustration of Bertha Ronge’s kindergarten at Tavistock Square, showing children of various ages playing games 134 149 150 151 168 Tables 2.1 2.2 3.1 Percentage of total population of England and Wales working in personal service Percentage of total population of London working in domestic service, as per the Census Records, 1851–1921 Top ten foreign cookery books published in Britain, 1850–1914, by number of editions 32 32 63 Acknowledgements In 2012, I applied to do a PhD in historical geography on an impulse. I was completely unprepared and had no idea I was getting myself into an eightyear process that would end with this book. It remains one of the best and most foolish things I have ever done, and I owe its completion and my sanity to the help and support of a good many people along the way. First, my thanks to the British Newspaper Archive, University of Florida Libraries, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Internet Archive via the University of California, and the Science Museum Group for providing images to use in this book free of charge. Image rights can be a prohibitive cost for early career academics and published research often suffers because of it, so all credit to those institutions that remove those barriers. Thanks to series editors Rosie Cox and Victor Buchli, and to Kangan Gupta and Katherine Ong at Routledge for their help getting the manuscript into shape. I am especially indebted to Rosie, who convinced me it was worth the work to turn the PhD into a book, and whose scholarship on contemporary domestic work I greatly admire and have taken many lessons from. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers for two very honest but very helpful reviews that have made this a much better book. I have my suspicions as to your identities and owe you both a drink the next time I see you. Alison Blunt and Alastair Owens supervised the PhD on which this book is based, and it was an incredible boost to a young academic to receive their expert advice and friendship. I continue to enjoy working with them on other projects, and I hope that will continue. My thanks also to the colleagues I found at the Centre for Studies of Home, a collaboration between Queen Mary, University of London, and the Museum of the Home (formerly the Geffrye Museum). This is a research community that I have greatly benefitted from being involved in, and one that continues to grow in all directions. Colleagues at the Science Museum, and before them, at Royal Museums Greenwich, have often provided tea, biscuits and a chance to pick their brains while the kettle was boiling. I have benefitted greatly from working in curatorial teams at both institutions that were collegiate, supportive and generous with their expertise. Thanks to Glyn Morgan and James Davey for xii Acknowledgements their advice on navigating the academic book market for the first time, to Aaron Jaffer for helping me get my head around the mechanics of monsoon season, to Helen Peavitt for being ever-generous with her domestic history knowledge and our shared love of all things Kenwood, and to Natasha McEnroe for reading over the final draft and always being happy to talk carpet sweepers. The Deacy, Reynolds and Humphreys families have been providing morale boosts to the finishing of this work since 2012 – with the Zoom calls of the 2020 pandemic proving a highlight that got me over the final hurdles. A number of friends have gone above and beyond to keep me going – Katy Barrett, Daniel Carroll-Cawley, Rob Lane, Emily Yates, Sarah Rossiter and Kate Hooper have all been absolute superstars. Kate Summers in particular has provided a steady stream of motivational quotes and unhelpful distractions via WhatsApp, all very gratefully received and key to the writing process. Above all, my husband Matthew has been a constant support in the depths of both book and PhD despair; he deserves a medal for putting up with my rants about image rights and historic racism without complaint. My family and friends have been, without exception, amazing; they are the very definition of ‘home’ to me. The PhD on which this book is based was dedicated to my wonderful dad, Peter Humphreys, who passed away while I was writing it up. The book, however, is dedicated to my wonderful mum, Jennifer Humphreys. She is the reason I know who Mrs Beeton is, and she has proofread everything I have written since 2005 (of wildly inconsistent quality to this day). Without her love, encouragement and support I would never have finished my A-levels, let alone a book. I would be lost without her. 1 Introduction Figure 1.1 Caricature of Benjamin Disraeli as a laundress called ‘Mrs Dizzy’, cleansing the British flag of the ‘dirt’ of Zulu warriors Source: Fun Magazine, 26 February 1879. Baldwin Library of Historical Children’s Literature, Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 2 Introduction This caricature of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli appeared in Fun, a satirical magazine, in the aftermath of the decisive Zulu victory over the British at the Battle of Isandlwana in January of 1879 (Knight, 2002), the first battle of the Zulu war. It shows Disraeli as a working-class laundress, scrubbing the British flag clean of Zulu warriors in a laundry trough, while more warriors continue to fall as he cleans. The image shows a close association of race/dirt and imperialism/cleansing; Zulu warriors were explicitly linked to dirt and represented as a stain on the British flag. They were ‘worriting’ [teasing] Mrs Dizzy, falling like the smog and persistent soot that plagued London’s real homes and laundries. By likening Disraeli’s supposed task – rubbing the Zulu warriors (and the shame of the unexpected defeat at Isandlwana) off the Union Jack – to laundry, this cartoon plays upon an established trope of domestic labour, that dark skin equated to dirt, and imperialism equated to cleaning or cleansing (McClintock, 1995). At first, laundry work seems a strange choice for this kind of political cartoon. However, it speaks to an important cultural trope in late nineteenthcentury discourse: that domestic labour and domesticity, and their contribution to the idea and ideals of the ‘English home’, were widely regarded as a fundamental cornerstone of English national identity. This cartoon is not only a metaphor for cleansing Zululand through imperial force, but also a reference to English domesticity as a less violent, but no less powerful, instrument of imperial rule. As scholars such as George (1993) and Blunt (1999) have argued, making and maintaining English homes in the British Empire was an important and highly visible function of imperial families and their role in imperial governance. The English home, regardless of its location, has always been a political, global space. Much has been written about the Victorian and Edwardian home in the world, but much less has been written about the world in those homes. Tackling the subject of empire in the home, Catherine Hall and Sonia Rose make the point that ‘empire mattered to British Metropolitan life and history in both very ordinary and supremely significant ways: it was simply part of life’ in their book At Home with the Empire (Hall and Rose, 2006: 30). This is equally applicable beyond imperial borders; home had become host to the whole world in a subtle yet pervasive manner. Imperial and international trade had had a direct impact on the domesticity of the capital through the experiences of its merchants and customers; foreign commodities such as tea, curry, textiles, and jewels became so commonplace as to be an ‘incorporated’ part of the metropolitan household (Zlotnick, 1996: 52; see also McMahon, 2016). Following the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, trade in food increased significantly. International, and particularly imperial, goods were ever more available in London. Between 1860 and 1880, there was an explosion of ‘cheap foreign foods’ being imported into Britain, and for the first time, food and manufactured goods (including domestic items) overtook raw materials, including textiles, metals, and fuel, as Britain’s principal imports (Crouzet, Introduction 3 2006: 352). In perhaps the most significant example, by 1900, over 241 million pounds of tea were imported into Britain from India, Ceylon, and China, and with it Chinese porcelain modified with flourishes and handles for the British market (Fromer, 2008) – we may now consider a cup of tea in an elaborate porcelain cup and saucer to be quintessentially English, but in fact it was (and is) a perfect exemplar of how the English home is a globalised entity. One step on from large-scale trade, middle-class consumers had easy access in London to these goods. The rise of the department store in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries allowed not only for foreign goods to be purchased with relative ease, but also ‘provided shoppers with the exoticism of foreign travel without leaving the comforts of the West End’ (Cohen, 2006: 56). Advertising, itself in its infancy, began to extol the virtues of new and exciting international goods: ‘merchants were quick to trumpet foreign provenance, seeing it as an enticement to purchase’ (Hoganson, 2002: 64). Even foreign domestic servants1 were seen as ‘exotic’ and a marker of status in the wealthiest homes (Horn, 1974: 30). The flow of foreign goods and – perhaps more importantly – influences into Victorian and Edwardian homes was significant, and growing with every decade. In spite of all this, the nature and extent of people’s everyday engagement with the wider world (and empire in particular) in their domestic consumerism has been challenged (Hoganson, 2002; Porter, 2004). It did not require a deliberate action to take part in the international aspects of London life; it was at once as crucial and as unthought of as any quotidian domestic task. At Home with the Empire suggests people were so ‘at home’ that there was a perceptible metropolitan apathy towards empire: The empire’s influence on the metropole was undoubtedly uneven. There were times when it was simply there, not a subject of popular critical consciousness. At other times it was highly visible, and there was widespread awareness of matters imperial on the part of the public as well as those who were charged with governing it. The majority of Britons most of the time were probably neither ‘gung-ho’ nor avid anti-imperialists, yet their everyday lives were infused with an imperial presence. (Hall and Rose, 2006: 2) This argument – that although everyday life was in constant contact with empire it wasn’t necessarily aware of or engaged with imperialism – echoes that of Bernard Porter’s The Absent-minded Imperialists (2004). While imperialism came to define Victorian Britain (and Britons) in the late nineteenth century for contemporary visitors and modern historians alike, Porter claims that for Britons themselves it was a far less prominent feature in their lives. With particular reference to the working classes, Porter argues that ‘there is no direct evidence that this great majority of Britons supported the empire, took an interest in it, or were even aware of it for most of the 4 Introduction century’ (Porter, 2004: 115). While he also acknowledges that the relative wealth, education, and social opportunities of the middle classes allowed for a greater engagement with empire, it did not guarantee it. It is from this framework of ‘absent-minded imperialism’ that this work takes its inspiration, but seeks to both expand and narrow the scope of enquiry. First, it seeks to expand by looking not only at the British Empire but also at the influence of the wider world more broadly: did people intend, know, or care about the international aspects of their homes? Scholars have perhaps been too keen to emphasise the influence of the British Empire in Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when, in actuality, other prominent international influences were established by this point in time. Second, this book aims to narrow the scope of enquiry from looking at the whole spectrum of everyday life to look specifically at domestic labour in the metropolitan middle-class home: how did the making and maintaining of everyday life allow the rest of the world over the threshold? The homes of the Victorian and Edwardian middle classes fall between the great houses of the aristocracy and the so-called ‘slums’ of the inner cities, both of which have received more academic attention. However, their history is the history of a significant segment of society – quite possibly the largest by population. London was truly a global city, and nowhere was this more in evidence than in middle-class metropolitan homes. It is important not to overlook the domestic aspect of everyday life in middle-class history. Whereas the histories of architecture, design, and literature in these homes have been poured over, housework has been largely unexplored as a mode of expression and engagement. We constantly make small, seemingly inconsequential decisions about how we make and maintain ‘home’, no matter what ‘home’ may be. We make decisions about what to eat, what to clean, what to throw away, what to buy, all in the blink of an eye, without much conscious consideration, because it is simply necessary. It is the drudgery of domesticity that we need to perform to conform to societal norms. Although domesticity is one of the most pervasive aspects of life, it leaves very little trace in the historical record; the most common, most everyday practices of Victorian middle-class homes remain private, behind a metaphorical green baize door. We literally do not want to air our dirty laundry in public. It is an especially important window into the middle-class home, compared to the homes of the gentry and the aristocracy, because in smaller, often-rented houses, domestic labour leaves very little physical trace. It is not surprising that the large country homes of the rich tend to dominate the popular imagination when talking about domestic service, because domestic work has left a significant physical imprint there in the form of kitchens, sculleries, laundries, pantries, and icehouses. But in middle-class homes, such significant space dedicated to single tasks was not possible. That the study of the Victorian and Edwardian home, and indeed, home in its broadest sense, has become a significant feature across the humanities and Introduction 5 social sciences, is a product of the work of several decades of feminist scholarship. The work of authors such as John Tosh (1999) and Lucy Delap (2011) has argued that men may have been overlooked in domestic histories due to a dearth of archival evidence. However, the source material, both published and unpublished, is overwhelming; the historical geographies of home are largely geographies of women. While this book does not seek to focus on gender, by addressing the topic of domestic labour in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it produces an account of women and their work by default. Such historiographical traditions as separate spheres, ‘angels in the house’, and the apotheosis of motherhood during this period have been shown to be at best, over-simplified understandings of women and home by scholars such as Davidoff and Hall (2002) and Vickery (1993), and it is important not to forget that there has never been a monolithic, universal experience of ‘women’s work’ at any period in time. However, the fact remains that the work of house and home in the Victorian and Edwardian metropolis was largely the domain of female labourers and housekeepers – when men enter the historical discourse of domesticity, it is usually a significant intervention which reproduces the broader gender politics of the time. What the feminist school of thought in both history and geography has shown most clearly, however, is that women’s labour in the home had influence far beyond their thresholds (or those of their employers). Scholars such as Patricia Branca (1975) and Martha Vicinus (1977) began to establish the movement towards recognising the agency and autonomy of middle-class women in Victorian homes and promoted a more nuanced understanding of women’s role in history. In geography too, the study of the domestic has taken an outward-looking turn. For example, Dolores Hayden’s works on feminist domestic architectures (1982) claimed the house as an important physical player in the development of women’s roles, rather than simply as a backdrop to their daily life. Hayden placed domestic work and technology at the geographical heart of female lives near the turn of the twentieth century, and demonstrated the broader significance to society of ever-changing models and ideals of domesticity. Geographers such as Alison Blunt have done much to establish the socio-political importance of the domestic sphere beyond house and home in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as a tool of both national and imperial government (Blunt, 1999; Blunt and Dowling, 2006). The domestic minutiae of everyday life reverberate around the world – and with it, then, the voices of the women responsible. Domestic labour is the organising theme of this work, which aims to explore the interplay between home, work, and world. It is a complex and wide-ranging topic that was central to the experience of domesticity in London homes, and is an essential component of the historical metropolis. The chapters of this work take their themes from Leonore Davidoff’s 1974 article, ‘Mastered for Life: Servant and Wife in Victorian England’. Davidoff’s article examines the complexities of paid domestic work and the unpaid 6 Introduction work of the wife/mother, and explores several strands of symbolic ritual evident in Victorian domestic labour. Rituals of deference (for example, domestic servants mediating contact between callers and their employers through calling cards), rituals of society and etiquette (such as sport and club membership, marking out old money from new), and the ‘rituals of order’. The rituals of order as defined by Davidoff are cooking, cleaning and childcare. However, just as Davidoff moved on from a perception of these tasks as ‘ritualistic’ in her later works, so too does this study, but the assertion that these three tasks provide the bedrock of Victorian domestic labour, both in discourse and in practice, holds true. Chapter 2 of this book looks at the widely discussed failings and problems of English domesticity – a preoccupation of the nineteenth-century periodical press – and aims to provide context for the state of domestic discourse and practice during this period. It introduces key themes and problems that are prominent in the archival record, pointing to the discomfort, anxiety, and politics inherent in homemaking. The following three chapters take one task each, and explore in depth how the failings of English domesticity in cooking, cleaning, and childcare (whether real or perceived) were addressed by influences from the wider world in middle-class metropolitan households. These tasks, ‘which in wealthy households were relegated to lower servants’, were, Davidoff argues, a binding point of contact between domestic servant and employer, bringing the middle classes and their servants far closer together than other class combinations (Davidoff, 1974: 412). While the middle classes sought to emulate the rituals of deference and society of the upper classes, it was the rituals of order that ensured ‘protection … from defiling contact with the sordid or disordered parts of life’ (Davidoff, 1974: 412). In essence, it was cooking, cleaning, and childcare that took on the role of perpetuating and protecting middle-class status, making domestic labour a fundamental cornerstone of middle-class identity. Defining domestic labour as cooking, cleaning, and childcare is not without difficulties. For example, childcare was not an essential component of the middle-class home in the same way that cooking or cleaning were; despite the apotheosized position of the mother and the ideal family unit, not every middle-class household contained children or spouses (see Pooley, 2013). Also, domestic labour could be defined as reaching beyond these tasks; many suburban middle-class homes in London had gardens, ornamental and kitchen. Gardening could be seen as a facet of domestic labour, and its relation to social identity has been explored by authors such as Rebecca Preston (2003). Also, health care in the home is a prominent feature of many domestic advice manuals, and the care of ‘invalids’ was often seen as a domestic task (see Frawley, 2004). However, some initial work in London archives and with published sources revealed that cooking, cleaning, and childcare were by far the most prominent and prolific topics of domestic discourses in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and was where middle-class householders invested most of their energy. Introduction 7 Situating London homes, 1850–1914 Discourses of domesticity in England and Britain have long been couched in terms of the wider world. The idea of the home as intrinsic to an English national identity had been established by the early modern period (Wall, 2002), and ‘domestic patriotism’ had become an important cornerstone of the English home abroad in the empire and beyond (Lootens, 1994: 238). By the nineteenth century, travel writers and cultural observers had begun to remark on the well-known concept of the English home as a matter of course. The Indian scholar Behramji Malabari spoke of the English home both at home and abroad, stating that an English home was recognisable as distinct from the homes created and kept by other nationalities regardless of where it was geographically located (Malabari, 1893). American writers such as journalist Elizabeth Banks (1894) and illustrator and travel writer Blanche McManus (1911) wrote about the English home in stereotypically idyllic terms, following their own experiences of household management as immigrants in London. The English home was never static or sealed from the outside world; on the contrary, it was a cosmopolitan entity that was open to (often carefully couched) criticism, in particular of domestic labour and household management. It was open to foreign ideas, innovations, and alternatives, and was an important site of international encounter. In order to understand how domestic labour and the wider world interacted with national identity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, we must first look closely at the language in which nationality was discussed at that time. Specifically, we should consider the demonyms ‘English’ and ‘British’. At a basic geographical level, it is relatively easy to define the differences between them; English pertains to England, and British pertains to the parts of England, Scotland, and Wales that are on Great Britain, the largest island of the British Isles archipelago. British has also come to be the official demonym for residents of the United Kingdom, encompassing all the islands of the state and Northern Ireland. Culturally, however, the terms have been (and sometimes are) used unclearly and interchangeably, with consequences for their meaning and interpretation. Victorian and Edwardian domestic discourse is a source of great ambiguity with regard to what is meant by British or English. What was a British home as opposed to an English one? How and why were these different terms used? What did they intend to convey and how were they perceived? These are not questions that can be answered definitively; Victorian and Edwardian ‘Britishness’ was the product of many centuries of existence and were spatially and relationally constituted over time. The distinctive archetypes (accurate or otherwise) of nineteenth-century Britishness have been alternately characterised as part of the contemporary British national identity through ‘Victorian values’, or as part of ‘a crisis of the national identities that emerged out of that period of nation-building’ (both Ward, 2004: 170). They are both potentially loaded and inexact terms. 8 Introduction There are certain circumstances in which one word is more prominent than the other. One striking example is that in imperial matters, the ‘English Empire’ does not exist. British India transitioned from the rule of the British East India Company to the British Raj. British East Africa (now Kenya and Uganda), British Central Africa (Malawi), British Togoland (Ghana) British Bechuanaland (South Africa), the British Cameroons (Republic of Cameroon), British Columbia (unchanged), British Honduras (Belize), British Guiana (Guyana) and the British Virgin Islands (unchanged) were just some of the states and territories referred to formally by their Britishness. This was in contrast to the absence of any ‘English’ territories or countries, suggesting that British was the de facto term in the context of imperialism. However, in domestic matters – that is, domestic on the scale of the national as well as of the home – this is not the case. English was by far the predominant term. Webster (1998) argued that between 1939 and 1965, Englishness was signified in imperial sites by domestic details, and this seems to hold true for the preceding period. In periodicals, English is not only the dominant demonym; Englishness itself is the dominant national characteristic. The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine sets out clearly in its title the intended nationality of its readership; The Lady opens with an editorial proclaiming that it will be written ‘from an English point of view’ and uses the word eight times in a single paragraph;2 and Hearth and Home refers specifically to ‘the English Race’ on its first page, in opposition to French, Spanish, and Italian.3 It seems that as Britishness was bound up with empire, so Englishness was bound up with home. This is a broad view and not universal; the interchangeability of the terms cannot be discounted. The example of The Lady is one; despite professing its exclusive preference for ‘the English method of life’,4 it contains a number of features in its first issue about society in Welsh, Scottish, and Irish towns, using the word British rather than marking out their separate national identities. Using English and British as interchangeable terms in domestic advice should not be assumed to be indifference or apathy; the use of both terms was (and is) contested. As Colls (2002) and Ward have argued, ‘despite its function to unite the nation across its internal divisions, Britishness has not formed a monolithic identity’ (Ward, 2004: 37). Both acknowledge that Britishness has never existed in isolation and is mediated by class, gender, race, religion, politics, and place. As such, an English-centric (and often a London-centric) view is usually taken of the term ‘British’ by Welsh, Scottish, and Irish commentators, as well as by the Manx and Cornish, and it is rejected as imposing an English identity on Celtic nations. To recall the oftquoted Welsh Nationalist historian Gwynfor Evans (as almost all debates on Britishness do): What is Britishness? The first thing to realize is that it is another word for Englishness; it is a political word which arose from the existence of Introduction 9 the British state and which extends Englishness over the lives of the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish … Britishness is Englishness. (Evans, quoted in Pittock, 1999: 104) However, just as apathy cannot be assumed, it cannot be ruled out. Nationalism in the Celtic Nations has never been universal; for example, in an interview for the Family Life and Work Experience Before 1918 (FLAWE) oral history project, Edith Bryan (née Purvell) considered herself English, despite being born in Cardiff to a Welsh mother and Canadian-Barbadian father. She differentiated between her ‘English’ family running a boarding house and the ‘Welsh’ workers who came to Cardiff from the industrialised valleys north of the city, indicating that class was more important than place (or race) in the formulation of her own national identity. She provides no testimony that suggests the Purvell family ever engaged with their Welshness, and although her father had learned Gaelic while living in Scotland, he never learned Welsh – a distinctive marker in Bryan’s account between the ‘Welsh’ and the ‘English’ in Cardiff.5 There is perhaps an even narrower focus to be drawn from the sources on which this book is based. Beetham (1996) has stated that magazines in particular were prone to a London-centric worldview during this period. Unlike book and newspaper publishing, which spread across Britain (and indeed, the empire), women’s magazine production was largely confined to London and ‘produced an exclusively metropolitan version of femininity’ (Beetham, 1996: 7). This may be one of the reasons that ‘English’ and ‘British’ are largely transposable in domestic discourse; it is possible that not differentiating between the terms was unimportant to metropolitan editors, as both are correct for London. It is impossible to determine what was intended and what was interpreted when the terms British and English were used in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century domestic advice literature, but it is essential to be aware of its significance. In line with the vast majority of domestic writings during this period, this study uses ‘English’ as the dominant demonym in this book while recognising the importance of the broader inconsistency (and using British when it is appropriate). Even if the terms were interchangeable within a London-centric publishing world, they had powerful meaning, placing London at the epicentre of imperial rule, over the ‘home’ nations as well as distant colonies. On a topic related to home nations and imperial colonies, and much like domestic labour and national identity, the concept of the wider world can be understood in several ways. In its broadest sense, the wider world refers to the foreign. This is perhaps both the largest and the most precise understanding of the term, and it is the main definition as understood here. However, when talking about domestic space in London, the idea of the wider world is complex, and attempting to define it raises more questions than it answers. How did people view the British Empire differently to, say, Europe or the United States? Was the empire considered semi-domestic rather than 10 Introduction international? Where do the countries of the modern United Kingdom (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) fit into a metropolitan understanding of the foreign? Does the wider world, in fact, begin at the front door? The concept of the foreign in late nineteenth-century Britain was complicated by imperialism, and Britain’s relationship to the wider world complicated through its empire. The notion of empire was pervasive and complex, if not outright confused. There were tendencies in the late nineteenth century for the British Empire to be portrayed and perceived in Britain as a homogeneous whole, with a lack of understanding or appreciation of the many regions and nations that the empire encompassed (Levine, 2006; Hall and Rose, 2006), a perspective that could be viewed as an extension of Porter’s absent-minded imperialism. One of the particularly prominent examples of this is that India emerges from the historical record as the principal concern of the British Empire. Britain’s unique relationship with India is certainly evident in the domestic sphere, with curry emerging as a ‘domesticated’ British dish during this period (Zlotnick, 1996) and an increasing metropolitan population of specifically Indian migrant domestic servants. It is impossible to understand what people’s perceptions of empire on this scale were, but it is important to note that empire was understood in a variety of different ways from a metropolitan perspective, and that these perceptions had an impact on how the empire influenced metropolitan homes. Alternatively (although in line with the idea of a homogeneous imperial whole), the wider world could be seen as ‘not the British Empire’ – that is, everywhere beyond it. Perhaps understandably, the body of scholarship stemming from empire and imperialism is considerably larger than the equivalent body studying the world beyond the empire, but as Brenda Assael has argued, seeking broader perspectives about Victorian Britain’s place in the world (and indeed, the world in a place) is important (Assael, 2015). Britain and London had important relationships with the world beyond the empire, and in particular, Northern Europe and the United States of America have emerged as significant influencers of domestic labour in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. London’s individual relationships with global nations (or even regions), whether imperial or not, were unique, and changeable over time. A consistency of this research has been that different international influences enter the discourse and practice of domestic labour in inconsistent ways. One more scale on which the wider world can be understood is anything that is ‘not home’, or anything beyond the physical boundary of the house itself. This is particularly true when looking at the domestic labour of cleaning; as Davidoff’s argument about protecting ‘superiors’ from ‘disorder’ (Davidoff, 1974: 412) shows, cleaning maintained class boundaries as much as cleanliness. This definition is itself dependent on the definition of home as house, which scholars such as Blunt and Dowling have shown to be oversimplified (2006); something which is also in evidence in this study when Introduction 11 looking at Anglo-Imperial returners (and in particular those returning from India, the largest and most well-documented group in the archive). In the cookery books, memoirs, domestic advice manuals, and private papers of Anglo-Imperial returners, ‘home’ is variously regarded on the scale of nation or region as well as a house, often simultaneously (see also Buettner, 2004). Additionally, understandings and appreciations of geography and distance are complex; the influence of the wider world entering the home does not necessarily mean that there was a direct physical link to another country. As Moring writes: ‘The issue of distance is, however, relative not absolute. When a transport link exists, a place distant in miles can become close because of frequent contact” (Moring, 2004: 43). Moring was writing here about domestic servants and migration, but this is true of all domestic labour. Advances in technology and transportation contributed to decreasing relative distance, and also possibly foreignness, in the home with regard to foods, methods and technologies as well as migrant servants. As much as the wider world was a distant concept in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was also growing ever closer, more familiar, and easier to reach. By the mid-nineteenth century, London was already an established cosmopolitan city with many international communities, trading partners, and interactions ingrained in the metropolitan landscape. The Great Exhibition of 1851 signposted a growing awareness of, and interest in, the world beyond the city as well as new technologies; accents from all around the world could be heard on the streets of London (Schneer, 2001), and public architecture and ceremonial spaces brought home the far-flung ‘triumphs’ of the British Empire (Driver and Gilbert, 2003). However, this relationship was not always celebratory or uncomplicated. By 1900, London was ‘perhaps the most cosmopolitan city in Europe, but not always happily so’ (Schneer, 2001: 8). Racism blighted London’s migrant communities and perceptions of the foreign, with both conscious and subconscious ‘racialized vocabulary’ dominating the Victorian frame of mind (Hall, 2002: 8), which often equated the poor, the criminal, and the homeless with the foreign (Koven, 2004). Both Britain’s and Britons’ relationship with the outside world was complicated and inconsistent: On the one hand they were a ‘worldwide people’ who took great pride in their ability to command the seas and dispense their justice on a global scale. Yet, on the other, they were apt to retreat into their island fortress to eschew the potentially corrupting influences of Catholic Europe and the Outside World. (Thompson, 2005: 200) The racist and xenophobic tendencies of an island nation infiltrated all aspects of domestic work, but rather than keeping global influences out they often left an ugly but indelible mark on the English home. 12 Introduction Roughly bookended by the Great Exhibition, an epoch-shifting moment in globalising perspectives and dissemination of technologies, and the outbreak of the First World War, this time period of 64 years has long been recognised as important not only for London but also Britain and the world as a whole. It was a period of rapid industrialisation and technological innovation which by the late nineteenth century had begun to filter down into new domestic technologies (de Haan, 1977). This is a broad time period and it cannot be understated how different the housekeeping practices of 1850 and 1914 were for those who undertook them. However, the length of the period allows for the inclusion of significant aspects of domestic labour and for changing tastes, trends, and technologies to be mapped over time. For example, governesses as a middle-class mode of childcare were at their height in the mid-nineteenth century, and without an understanding of how internationalised this profession was, it is difficult to contextualise the evolution of the childcare and education strategies that prevailed in the early twentieth century. There has been a tendency in historical research to ‘treat the First World War like a band of scorched earth dividing Victorian from modern Britain’ (Richards, 1991: 13). However, ending the study at the turn of the century in 1900 (or Queen Victoria’s death in 1901) could be considered an even more arbitrary ‘band of scorched earth’; the Victorian home did not abruptly become the Edwardian home at the death of the monarch but rather continued changing as it always had. The outbreak of the First World War was, however, a significant turning point, and the global turmoil of the first industrialised war had a dramatic impact on home life in London. So much so that the influence of the wider world on domesticity during the four years of the First World War would generate as many pages of analysis as the preceding 64 years. While an oversimplified version of this idea seems to persist in popular domestic history – that it was the war that brought about an end to domestic service, for example (Weightman and Humphries, 1984) – the truth is far more complex. The fundamental changes in domestic labour and service were already well underway by 1914. However, there was a marked change in the discourse of domestic labour at this point, dominated by dramatic events rather than subtle changes. For example, Caroline Costello (née Warwick) told this story in her Family Life and Work Experience Before 1918 interview, about her job as a domestic servant, working for a family of German bakers in London in 1914: I think what I was keen to get quite clear in my mind was where you were, what job you were doing when the war actually started, the First World War. Were you in service then when the war actually began? COSTELLO: I was, but I didn’t stay. I was with Germans and I wasn’t there long. That was over Stamford Hill. And they interned one or two of INTERVIEWER: Introduction 13 them, and I sort of turned Charlie and packed in. Stupid, I, I can realise now that the fact that they were interned [pause]. They were all right. I should have stayed … they were really good people. ‘Course I can see that now. (Caroline Costello, FLAWE C707/261) Costello’s story about leaving her German employers because of their nationality is not unique; there are similar stories across the FLAWE collection, many of which involve particularly tragic interactions between domestic labour and the wider world in wartime. Edith Hanran tells one story of her sister, Ethel, who had been in service with the Duchess of Anglesey, sailing home from a holiday staying with the servants of the Guinness family in Ireland, whom she had met while travelling with the Anglesey family. The duchess had declined Ethel’s request to extend her holiday because she could not spare her during the busy social season, but the boat on which Ethel then returned was torpedoed. Edith recounted how the duchess felt extremely guilty over Ethel’s death and went to the docks every day to look for her body.6 Accounts such as these serve as a powerful reminder that ideas and ideals of domestic labour were central to the emotional relationships of home, but that the war dramatically changed the terms of engagement between home and world. Middle-class houses, households, and homes While the idea of home does not necessarily relate to a house (relating instead perhaps to a country, a family, or a place of the past), domesticity in the context of a Victorian or Edwardian middle-class home has a specific physical relationship with a dwelling: Through their energy and drive, the Victorians shaped the cities and industries we have inherited, just as we have inherited their houses. But in addition, something less tangible has been passed down to us – the idea of home, of a place where, at the end of our working day we can lead the life we choose behind the bay window of its façade. These homes, more than the grand houses or the monumental public buildings, represent the essence of Britain, and they should not be ignored simply because they surround us in our daily lives. The Victorian House is a symbol of Britain itself. (Marshall and Willox, 1986: 8) The idea of the English House as an expression of national character and identity is long-established; following several decades of domestic advice pointing to the same, Muthesius’s Das Englische Haus (1904–5) tied the English way of life to the dwellings in which it was lived, with a focus on the traditional middle-class house. Houses played an important role in the 14 Introduction Victorian domestic ideal; ‘Victorian domesticity was as much a spatial as an affective obsession’ (Chase and Levenson, 2000: 143). Over six million houses were built during the Victorian era by speculative builders, aping the dominant architectural styles of the famous architects of the age (Marshall and Willox, 1986). Over a million of these houses were built in the suburbs of London, taking on elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, and Arts and Crafts styles, re-inventing them for a mass market and articulating a ‘direct reflection of the importance attributed to the home in the Victorian middle-class rhetoric’ (Kay, 2008: 59). Even the designs of the surrounding landscape form another part of the threshold between house and world, but as Mona Domosh argues, the division was often only intended, and impossible to police in reality (Domosh, 1998). Some homes were explicit in their relationship to broader cultural ideals, such as those modelled on religious architecture in associating the moral ideals of home with the church. They spoke to the idea of the ‘cult of domesticity’ in a remarkably overt way through popular Gothic Revival architecture (itself European in origin – nowhere are complex international webs of influence more obvious than in the history of architecture). Houses were also capable of articulating the culture of the wider world, for example through the increasing vernacular popularity of the bungalow in the late nineteenth century (King, 1984), referencing the traditional AngloIndian homes of the subcontinent. Also, most middle-class houses were designed in an attempt to exclude work, including housework, from the family living areas; even if physical division was not feasible, then temporal segregation of household tasks could still serve to remove housework from living spaces when they were occupied by the middle class (Davidoff and Hall, 2002). The houses of middle-class Victorians were often rented; although this could be perceived as lacking security from a twenty-first-century perspective, it also gave great flexibility. It has been estimated that as few as 10 per cent of Britons owned their own homes during the late nineteenth century (Kay, 2008: 32), and Marcus (1999) has demonstrated that late nineteenth-century London specifically was well known for its short leasehold tenures. Davidoff and Hall argued that the Victorian home was ‘as much a social construct and state of mind as a reality of bricks and mortar’ (2002: 357–8), because people had very little attachment to ownership, preferring instead the flexibility of being able to move to a superior house or area. Kay also argues that the Victorian middle classes were more concerned with residence than with ownership, and the main benefit of short leases (in London in particular) was the ability to not only upgrade their accommodation (or downgrade if necessary) but also relocate, because ‘fashionable suburbs in metropolitan London died as quickly as they were born’ and a house’s location as much as its design both reflected and had an impact on a family’s social standing (Kay, 2008: 52). Introduction 15 The English house was both a symbol and a product of the English home, and its vernacular domestic architecture shaped ideas of house and home far beyond Britain (Ferriday, 1963; Marshall and Willox, 1986). The home inside the house, however, was a very complicated matter: For even those households which (to the public gaze) appeared to fulfil most nearly the middle-class Victorian paradigm were not quiet refuges, but busy workplaces, the locus of back-breaking toil for many individuals working from the early hours of the morning to late at night. (Donald, 1999: 109) As Moira Donald captures in this extract, the Victorian (and later Edwardian) home was made and maintained by ‘back-breaking toil’. Although home and work are notions that are often pitted against one another, they are in fact closely intertwined in the domestic environment. Often, it is difficult to conceptualise one without reference to the other; large swathes of domestic history have been framed in relation to various modes of work, and working patterns have similarly been theorised in terms of their relationship to home lives and the physical distance between their sites. Not without irony (or indeed, tension), one of the central devices of the middle-class home as a sanctuary free of work was the employment of working-class domestic servants to undertake this back-breaking toil. The concept of ‘the middle class’ is one that has consistently defied definition, despite many hundreds of thousands of words being dedicated to the topic. Even looking just at Victorian and Edwardian Britain, the ‘defining characteristics’ of the middle classes, as argued by academics across several disciplines, are legion. Many, such as Burnett (1974), Flanders (2004), and Tosh (1999), have argued that middle-classness was closely tied to the employment of at least one live-in servant (and Cox, 2006, contends that the employment of domestic workers still plays a part in a modern British middle-class identity). But, as Flanders and Tosh also argue, although it may have been a popular idea, it was numerically impossible for every middle-class family to have at least one servant. Even discounting the many multi-servant households of the aristocracy and upper-middle classes, there were simply not enough servants to go around the whole subset of families who would otherwise be considered middle class (see Woollard, 2002; Tosh, 1999). The Servant Problem (as this dearth of domestic employees was known) came to be one of the defining issues of the age, and a symptom of much greater socio-cultural changes underway. It was the driving force behind many of the international innovations and interventions that sought to remedy the perceived failings of English domesticity. However, it cannot be used to discount the huge swathes of middle-class householders who kept no staff. On occasion, other female family members could be used as unpaid servants, and Davidoff (1974) argues that they often made a significant financially unrewarded contribution (beyond board and lodging) to the doing of 16 Introduction domestic labour. Many others, largely single men (but increasingly single women at the turn of the twentieth century) were choosing to live in new blocks of flats (Dennis, 2008), and domestic literature began to turn towards these servantless middle-class homes: The conditions of living are fast changing, the number of gentle people living in small houses and flats run with One Maid, or with no maid at all is rapidly increasing. The One Maid Book of Cookery is specially written with a view to these modern conditions. (Congreve, 1913: Foreword) Interestingly, Congreve states that it was the publisher that chose the title, not her, and her allusion to ‘gentle people’ living alone suggests that in her mind, the book was originally intended for homes with no servants at all. How, then, can we define a middle-class household? Some have suggested income as a measure; Jane Hamlett puts the ‘middle income bracket’ at £200–500 per annum, and states that the middle class more than doubled in size between 1851 and 1871 (Hamlett, 2010: 2); Judith Flanders argues that an income of £200–300 actually put a household firmly into the ‘prosperous middle classes’ and many middling homes existed on less (Flanders, 2004: 309). John Tosh posits that the middle classes were defined by their work; they were distinct from the aristocracy ‘because they worked regularly for a living, and from the working class because they did not stoop to manual labour’ (1999: 13). But this definition is male-centred, given the limited employment options for women, relatively few middle-class women would have ‘worked regularly’ for a living, and work conducted within the home was often arduously manual. McClintock suggests that whiteness and ‘the invention of race in the urban metropoles’ was central to the self-identity of the Victorian middle classes (McClintock, 1995: 5). Langland puts women and their domestic consumption at the centre of ‘producing and consolidating the bourgeoisie’ (Langland, 1995: 25). Rachel Rich has argued that family dining and rituals around eating helped to define middle-classness in the home (2011). In The Best Circles, Leonore Davidoff argued that the most prominent division between the working and middle classes was ‘the formality of calling and visiting’ and striving for privacy (Davidoff, 1973: 39), a precursor to her later work. Family Fortunes (Davidoff and Hall, 2002), perhaps one of the most famous explorations of middle-class domesticity, puts the ideal of ‘separate spheres’ at the centre of the debate, while arguing, as all these examples do, that such defining characteristics are ideals, and a more flexible approach is necessary to understand the untidy reality of middle-class life. It is important to keep in mind that this is not an exclusively Victorian or Edwardian issue; Amanda Vickery argues that ‘the ever-emerging middle class … can be found in almost any century we care to look’ (Vickery, 1993: 412), while Dianne Lawrence explores the nuance of how ‘middle class’ Introduction 17 means (and meant) different things at different times and places (Lawrence, 2012). ‘Middle class’ has never had a static or universal meaning. Although there is much literature dedicated to understanding and defining the middle classes, there is a strong argument to be made for flexibility, as advocated by Hamlett (2010); class boundaries are never fixed, and how people self-identify or identify others varies on a case-by-case basis. This book about the middle-class home has to acknowledge that the Victorian middle classes are, in many ways, undefinable. They lived in a broad range of circumstances, both just above poverty and just below aristocracy (themselves highly subjective boundaries); they lived in homes that might appear grand to the poorest but modest to the rich; and their homes looked dramatically different to one another in various parts of London, and even more so across the country. The dividing lines of class were not static across the decades, or even for a single family unit. Therefore, this work takes a pragmatic approach to its sources. It looks at the periodicals, cookbooks, domestic manuals, and products that would have been aimed at those with disposable income but a hands-on interest in household management, while acknowledging that these things may also have found their way into workingor upper-class homes. It examines the employment and management of domestic staff but does not discount households where no paid staff were present. Although not every middle-class household employed domestic servants, a cultural preoccupation with them still shaped the landscape of house and home in Victorian and Edwardian London. The employment of servants (and working in service) is a facet of domestic labour that is strongly associated with Victorian and Edwardian Britain in popular culture. Fictional representations of service, like the Academy Award-winning Gosford Park (2001), or television shows like the revival of Upstairs, Downstairs (2010–12) and Downton Abbey (2010–2015, with a film in 2019) have, with many others, firmly established nostalgic twenty-first-century representations of service in Victorian and Edwardian Britain based in the homes of the aristocracy. The reality for vast swathes of the population, however, was one of domestic conflict and instability in middle-class homes. Although domestic work was not carried out exclusively by servants (especially in middle-class houses), scholarship on domestic work in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has traditionally been focused on paid domestic labour and on the history of service. To an extent, this is understandable, and valuable; domestic servants were a cornerstone of Victorian domestic ideals, and they generated more domestic discourse – in every possible form – than any other aspect of domestic labour. Domestic service also speaks to the wider trends in culture and society during this time; increased workers’ rights (and in particular, female workers’ rights) had an effect on, and indeed, were perhaps affected by, trends in domestic service (Schwartz, 2013). Issues of class, race, religion, and gender formed, and were formed by, what was the second largest employer of people in Britain in 18 Introduction the late nineteenth century (Horn, 1974) and the largest employer of women by some orders of magnitude. Even as service declined sharply during that period, domestic advice came with the almost universal assumption that its readers employed servants, which in itself implies that those who did not employ them were held to the same standards (Cowan, 1983). The paradigm of the ‘ideal’ Victorian home, on which much of this domestic advice is based, is long established and has been extensively analysed. Moira Donald writes that ‘the middle-class Victorian home must surely rate as one of the most consciously contrived creations of domestic space in history’ (1999: 106), which is difficult to refute. One of the cornerstones of this ‘contrived creation of domestic space’ – and the focus of much scholarship – was the placement of the family at the heart of the home. Much of the discourse of the mid- to late nineteenth century defined womanhood in terms of being a wife and mother, an ‘angel in the house’ (Peterson, 1984). The management of the home was supposedly the remit of the dutiful wife, providing a ‘tranquil haven’ for both her children and for her husband, who provided the means to finance this endeavour through a suitably bourgeois profession (Donald, 1999). The decline in the incorporated home and workspace is often cited as the driving force behind making house and home (or the private sphere) the domain of women, as men left it to work elsewhere (see Kaplan, 1998; Tosh, 1999). A woman’s role was not merely an operational one, however; it was one that formed the bedrock of Victorian society’s values at large: In the narrowest sense the angel was the one near to God, the pious one who kept the family on the Christian path. In secular terms the angel provided the home environment that promoted her husband’s and children’s well-being in the world; she also provided a haven from its worst pressures through her sound household management and sweetness of temperament. (Peterson, 1984: 677) By emphasising the role of women so strongly, not only as a domestic agent but as a guiding spiritual and moral figure, it could be argued that Victorian discourses of domesticity diminished the role of men within the home. However, as John Tosh has convincingly shown, the ‘exalted ideal of domesticity’ loomed large over men’s lives too, whether they endeavoured to meet its expectations or not (Tosh, 1999: 195). The mistress of the house could (and according to most contemporary advice, should) exercise control over household finance, management, and admittance, and some have cited this alongside the retreat of the husband from the domestic sphere as an example of Victorian empowerment of women, despite restrictions outside the home (Hepworth, 1999). However, the practical reality of the woman’s financial role in household affairs was complex. While she was advised and encouraged to take control of the Introduction 19 domestic sphere, she was likely to be financially beholden to her husband or another male relative – although, as with using servant employment as a middle-class marker, the larger female population made this a numerical impossibility (Kay, 2005). It was possible to circumvent their lack of true financial independence, and although some women were able to produce an income themselves, this appears to have had no place in the idealised version of the Victorian home (Kay, 2009). As McClintock argues, women’s place in the home was a result of ‘political subjection’ within a supposedly apolitical haven (McClintock, 1995: 35). As both a training ground for the ‘governing classes’ (Roberts, 1978: 59) and an asylum from the world outside its confines, the Victorian middle-class home was peddled as a symbol of British order and propriety amongst supposed chaos and savagery (see Davin, 1978, and de Groot, 2000). It was widely regarded as a defining characteristic of English national identity, and endures today as a recognisable trope of strict, conservative values (Samuel, 1992). The making and keeping of an English home in other countries was a culturally and politically significant action, and so was a cosmopolitan home in the English capital. It was, however, a complicated and ever-changing environment where architecture, class conflict, gender, religion, morality, labour, and leisure all interacted constantly. Just as the middle classes themselves evade definition, so too do their houses and homes. Uncovering domestic labour in the archive Although discussion of domestic labour was in many ways prolific during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there are considerable archival silences to contend with. Domestic labour is by its very nature hidden, and this is something that has carried over to the historical record. To put this into a modern context, a question: when was the last time you talked to someone about your washing machine? Whether in writing or in person, your answer is likely to be a long time ago, or when it most recently broke or needed replacing – an extraordinary event in the life of a (now) very ordinary machine. Domestic labour shapes large parts of our days and weeks; tasks that must be done to feed, clothe, clean, and raise families of all shapes and sizes are repetitive and constant. But we very rarely talk about them unless something unusual has happened. Their everydayness is lost because although they are being done all the time, they leave limited historical trace. Building on Jane Hamlett’s work in Material Relations (2010) and a range of smaller studies focused on explorations of historical domesticity, I have taken a blended approach to recovering domestic labour from the archive, reminiscent of what anthropologist Clifford Geertz called ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973). Some of the poorest residents of the city, for example in the workhouses or the ‘slums’ of the East End, may have had limited time, facilities or need to undertake domestic labour, and the very richest of the city may have been sheltered almost entirely from the domestic 20 Introduction minutiae of their own homes by an army of staff. For the middle classes, however, domestic labour was almost impossible to avoid, but the infinite labour of feeding, cleaning, and caring for a London household, happening every day in every home, is underrepresented in the historical record. It is important to understand the difference between the wider world in discourses of idealised or advisory domesticity, and the lived reality of scrubbing floors and putting food on tables; they are both important, but distinct, and necessitate an exploratory model of research. The work that was required to maintain the middle-class home was strenuous and continuous. It was often enough to fill long days of near-constant work for more than one domestic servant. However, in terms of Victorian and Edwardian ideals, domestic labour was invisible by design: Servants were ordered to remain unseen, completing the filthiest work before dawn or late at night, dodging their employers, keeping to the labyrinthine back passages, remaining, at all costs, out of sight. If they had to appear before their ‘betters’ to answer the master’s bell or open the front door to receive guests, they were obliged to change instantly from dirty work clothes to fresh, clean white ones – a ritual metamorphosis that rehearsed the century’s long transformation of domestic work from the realm of the seen to the unseen. (McClintock, 1995: 163) This account in itself portrays an idealised vision of how domestic servants and labour should remain unseen in a middle-class (or aristocratic) home. For example, the ‘back passages’ of many middle-class dwellings would have been limited or non-existent; there were not many urban (or even suburban) middle-class houses in London with space for servant staircases behind green baize doors. However, it seems also to have been a reality for many servants in middle-class homes that their work was subject to, if not physical, then temporal segregation. Hannah Cullwick was a maid of all work who kept a detailed diary of her daily labours in largely middle-class houses. Cullwick is an anomaly in this alone – servant testimony of such an early period is quite rare – but even more so because her primary reason for diarising her work was her fetishbased sexual relationship with one of her employers (and later her husband), Arthur Munby. Despite their unusual nature, Cullwick’s diaries are invaluable in the revelations of everyday domestic work they contain. Cullwick’s diaries often bemoaned the difficulty of being expected to answer the door while cleaning as it required an immediate change of outfit to disguise her work (Stanley, 1984). Edith Greeves, in a later example, wrote in her memoirs about the shock of early starts at 12 years old, to get the dirtiest jobs done before the rest of the household rose (Greeves, 1903). A significant portion of domestic work for women like Greeves and Cullwick was to keep the work itself out of sight and mind of their middle-class employers. Introduction 21 This contrived secrecy around domestic labour has carried over into the historical record. Advertisements for heavy-duty cleaning products usually depicted Victorian and Edwardian housekeepers and their servants in immaculately clean and extravagant clothes, with all evidence of dirt and labour absent (Flanders, 2004). Food was portrayed as perfectly served, even when advertising kitchen utensils and tools for making it rather than displaying it (Broomfield, 2007). Few diarists or memoir writers (with rare but notable exceptions, such as Cullwick) record details of everyday domestic labour. The lived reality of domestic work is still something that museums and archives struggle to convey through their collections (Pustz, 2010). Studying the intimate geographies of home and the motivations of householders beyond living memory has always been difficult, because in the words of Alan Baker (1997), ‘the dead don’t answer questionnaires’. That is not to say that sources for the study of domestic labour do not exist, but it must be acknowledged that such sources are relatively rare. In order to address this archival elusiveness, I have based this study on a diverse set of sources, including published domestic material (such as domestic advice manuals and women’s periodicals), private papers and diaries, memoirs, oral histories, and personal household records. In addition, where they add to the understanding of the themes, I have included information from larger datasets, including the census, historical patents, and a variety of official and institutional reports. By their nature most of these sources were not produced or preserved with the study of domestic labour in mind; more often, domestic labour is incidental to a larger theme. An initial audit of archives and museum collections across London highlighted a number of inconsistencies and limitations in the historical record as well as potential sources. For example, department stores that were operational during the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries have been an important source of information on domesticity and consumption for scholars such as Erika Rappaport (2006). However, in this instance they have proved largely inaccessible. Harvey Nichols are unable to offer access to their archives due to matters of company confidentiality. A similar response was received from Selfridges, which now holds its archives privately (formerly at the National Archives) and does not offer any research access. The staff in the Fortnum and Mason archives were helpful, but they hold only five items from the nineteenth century in their archive as most of their collection was destroyed by bombing during the Second World War. Each archive, source, and format comes with its own unique challenges and opportunities. Some sources, such as domestic advice manuals, have been extremely useful, despite their supposed shortcomings as an historical source of lived practice. Others, such as private papers, have proved useful, but not as insightful as initially hoped, due to their lack of engagement with domestic labour. Some sources that are part of mass observation archives or large datasets, such as oral histories and the census, have provided useful information on far more intimate details of everyday life in London than the 22 Introduction words ‘mass observation’ would indicate. While many of these sources have featured in other academic works, and most are in the public domain, they have not previously been brought together in such a way to recover histories of housework. This demonstrates one of the key strengths of doing historical research in London’s impressive archival collections: there is so much rich archival material in London that even the most elusive of topics have left their mark. If evidence of domestic labour in the archive is scant, evidence of domestic labour at an intersection with the wider world is rarer still. This in itself is worth reflecting upon; archival silences can sometimes speak as loudly as archival presences. As Porter (2004) has argued with regard to an overemphasis on evidence of imperial influence in Victorian Britain, evidence can be found quite easily, but without an idea of how common or rare that evidence is, it is easy to overstate its meaning. But the paucity of archival evidence directly addressing domestic labour complicates this argument. We know that domestic labour was an essential daily process in any middle-class home in some form, and that it employed over 10 per cent of Londoners in 1851.7 The lack of evidence does not communicate an absence of domestic work or its importance, then, but rather a conscious undertaking to hide the labour which went into the daily creation of the ideal home. The challenges of studying the everyday realities of domestic labour, however, do not outweigh the importance of attempting to recover this facet of London’s history. Rather, it is all the more important that some of the common misunderstandings and stereotypes of domestic labour in the past – for example, that domestic servants were most commonly found working in large, aristocratic homes – be examined, and challenged. It is also important that archival silences are scrutinised. Are accounts of domestic labour interacting with the wider world rare because it was a rare interaction? Or because foreign and working-class people are two of the groups least likely to have generated written source material and their middle-class employers sought to overtly engage with domestic work as little as possible? Unpublished sources in the form of diaries, letters, household accounts, notebooks, and private papers offer rich historical evidence for the study of home. They are more likely to yield details about the machinations of household management than an ‘official’ archive such as a government record or prescriptive domestic advice literature. However, as much as items such as diaries or letters are arguably an ‘informal’ archive, they still reflect the priorities of an individual or close-knit group and will exhibit corresponding partiality (Black, 2010). Ogborn argues that there is ‘a process of selection and destruction’ in state or government archives (2004: 13), but it could be argued that this is equally true of private archives, if not more so. In the same volume, Blunt also addresses this issue, arguing that the reasons why unpublished sources were (not) kept can be as revealing as why official records were (not) preserved (Blunt, 2004). The home-as-archive can be as political as any state repository. Introduction 23 The home itself is a valuable source of information that should not be underestimated as an archive. Far from being a passive scene for historical lives to be played out in or a simple repository of family records, homes are ‘archives that produce histories’ (Burton, 2003a: 26); they contribute at least as much to lives lived within them as they store information. As a result, houses and homes are complicated but fertile archives of historical knowledge, and in the case of historic house museums (or private residences that have been occupied by the same family for a long period), are an example of both object and archive collections coming together in one context. In his 1995 lecture at the Freud Museum, Jacques Derrida proclaimed that the evolution of a home into a museum creates a fundamental shift in its state: It is thus, in this domiciliation, in this house arrest, that archives take place. The dwelling, this place where they dwell permanently, marks this institutional passage from the private to the public, which does not always mean from the secret to the nonsecret. (It is what is happening right here, when a house, the Freuds’ last house, becomes a museum: the passage from one institution to another.) (Derrida, 1996: 2–3) This movement from the private to the public sphere has special resonance for a Victorian home, a space profoundly shaped by ideals of public and private. It is also a problematic source for the study of domestic labour; as Jennifer Pustz (2010) has identified, many of the spaces associated with housework in museums, and domestic service in particular, are sacrificed for the sake of creating administrative, educational, or events spaces, in order that the ‘family’ rooms may be preserved. The few surviving middle-class historic homes in London have suffered the erasure of domestic labour spaces to preserve the formal, but they have also provided snippets of important context for the lived reality of the interactions between home and world. Although the scholarship on the use of museum collections is more limited than that devoted to paper archives, the reason for the retention or acquisition of certain objects (and the disposal or lack of others) is an equally important factor to consider. We need look no further than the Parthenon (or ‘Elgin’) marbles at the British Museum (Hamilakis, 1999), or the display of Charles Byrne (the ‘Irish Giant’) at the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons (Doyal and Muinzer, 2011) to understand how contentious and political a museum collection can be. The distinction between museum and archive collections is often difficult to make; in the case of the Emery Walker House and the Linley Sambourne house, both of which have provided substantial material for this study, their collections are somewhat intertwined, with the houses providing the physical archival repository. In the Walker house in particular, many of the books and documents consulted in this study remained in the bureaus of the drawing room of the house, where they had apparently been left by Dorothy Walker. 24 Introduction This lack of distinction is not necessarily a bad thing. In order to address the silences and limitations of archival collections on the lived practices of domestic labour, it has been essential to blend published and unpublished sources, paper and material culture. Where an archive may offer no evidence of ice cream being a favoured dish in a house, the survival of a well-worn ice cream maker does; where a pristine new and innovative technology exists in a museum, chatter about its use (or lack of) in advice columns can help to build a picture of how widely it was ever adopted. In order to uncover the furtive history of domestic labour, a wide variety of sources from across the historical record, including material culture, is essential. By adding the wider world to domestic labour beyond living memory, this research is further complicated, and not many scholars have addressed the intersection of the two – particularly in the middle-class home. The work of scholars such as Hall and Rose (2006) on the intersection of home and empire has begun to unpick the more general relations of home and empire, and some historical migration studies (for example, Hollen Lees, 1979) have included some work on domestic servants. The research methodology for this book has been designed with these challenges and uncertainties in mind, and uses a diverse range of sources. By working with both physical and digitised archival collections, it is possible to investigate the claims of advertisements, domestic advice, and magazine columns and gauge how far tools and practices may have been adopted. Additionally, sources such as classified advertisements and magazine advice columns have been somewhat underused in previous scholarship, but they can provide a useful window on the perspective of the general public, as well as the official views of a publication. The strengths of various sources have understandably led areas of focus and case studies. The publishing boom of the late nineteenth century in particular had a dramatic effect on the discourses of domesticity, and opened up cookery and domestic advice publishing to much broader audiences and influences. As scholars such as Thrift (1996) and Sassen (2001) have argued in the modern context, global cities act as discourse-producing hubs, and this was already true of London by the late nineteenth century. London-centric domestic publishing in particular produced a metropolitan worldview that ‘bound readers into the culture of the capital’ (Beetham, 1996: 7). Different sources have been revelatory for different kinds of housework. Domestic advice manuals and cookery books are most illuminative of historical cooking practices; while they cannot indicate which recipes were used in which houses or how they may have been modified, they are a strong indicator of established norms and practices, available ingredients, and changing tastes. Domestic advice literature was less useful regarding cleaning and the wider world, however, where advertisements and physical objects were of most use. Domestic cleaning was affected more significantly during this period by the development of new domestic technologies and the promotion of the discourse of labour-saving domestic devices than cooking or childcare. Classified advertisements in particular have been an invaluable Introduction 25 source of information on the skills and experience of domestic servants and the needs of their prospective employers – and, being charged by the word, indicated people’s domestic priorities. What this blend of sources has shown is that the wider world was most certainly present in the metropolitan home, and that cosmopolitan influences clashed, compromised, and collaborated in forming many of the daily tasks of housekeeping. In this work, I have sought to uncover the doubly elusive histories of both daily life on its most intimate scale and the world beyond on a domestic stage. It is first important to understand that the intersections of these two notions did not spring up out of nowhere; the stage was set by a middle-class population that was uncomfortable and uncertain of its place in these two ever-shifting spheres. These uncertainties and discomforts are where home and world meet most regularly, so it is key that they are examined for their own sake as part of the zeitgeist of Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Notes 1 While ‘domestic servant’ is an historical term, and one that domestic servants sought to change to ‘domestic worker’ as early as the beginning of the twentieth century in order to more closely align themselves with the collective labour movements of other professions (Schwartz, 2013), domestic servants and service were the favoured terms in both published and unpublished sources well into the twentieth century, and remained a phrase in British labour laws until the mid-twentieth century (Albin, 2013); as such, these are the terms that this work will predominantly use, for the sake of consistency. 2 The Lady, 19 February 1885: 1. 3 Hearth and Home, 21 May 1891: 1. 4 The Lady, 19 February 1885: 1. 5 E. Bryan, FLAWE, C707/178. 6 Edith Mabel Hanran, FLAWE, C707/53. 7 See Table 2.1. Notes Chapter 1 1 While ‘domestic servant’ is an historical term, and one that domestic servants sought to change to ‘domestic worker’ as early as the beginning of the twentieth century in order to more closely align themselves with the collective labour movements of other professions (Schwartz, 2013), domestic servants and service were the favoured terms in both published and unpublished sources well into the twentieth century, and remained a phrase in British labour laws until the mid-twentieth century (Albin, 2013); as such, these are the terms that this work will predominantly use, for the sake of consistency. 2 The Lady, 19 February 1885: 1. 3 Hearth and Home, 21 May 1891: 1. 4 The Lady, 19 February 1885: 1. 5 E. Bryan, FLAWE, C707/178. 6 Edith Mabel Hanran, FLAWE, C707/53. 7 See Table 2.1. Chapter 2 1 Numbers taken from Woollard, 2002: The Classification of Domestic Service in England and Wales, 1851–1951: 12–22. 2 Numbers taken from Population Statistics at www.visionofbritain.org.uk, University of Portsmouth. Accessed 21 February 2016. 3 Including ‘live out’ servants (e.g. charwomen). Men begin to appear as charwomen/ office cleaners (one category) and washers/ laundry workers from 1921 onwards. 4 The British Mother’s Journal and Domestic Magazine, 1 August 1863: 185. 5 Blackburn in Illustrated Household Journal and Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 September 1880: 150. 6 A. G. Hargrave, FLAWE, C707/178. 7 ‘Household Management’, The Lady, 23 May 1901: 865. 8 ‘The Servant Problem’, The Los Angeles Herald, 25 November 1906: 33. 9 Matthew Moore, ‘The Lady Magazine Opens School for Servants’, The Times, 7 October 2019. 10 ‘Editorial’, Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 May 1852: 1. 11 Letters to The Lady, April–December 1891. 12 The Lady, 20 June 1901: 1026. 13 The Lady, 8 January 1891: 52. 14 Mrs M. Beeton is possibly the wife of Sir Mayson Beeton, Isabella and Samuel Beeton’s youngest son (after whose birth Isabella caught an infection and died in 1865). By 1891, Beeton publishing had been taken over, and though it retained the name of its founder, Samuel and his relatives remained only as employees, or possibly as a continuation of the established Beeton ‘brand’. 15 The Lady, 28 March 1901: 493. 16 The term ‘nabob’ refers to Europeans returning from (usually) India who had become rich through their work there. 17 A khitmutgar was a male servant who waited at table, and occasionally performed other household duties. In The Sign of the Four (Conan Doyle, 1890) the nameless Khitmutgar of Major Sholto seems to have duties akin to a footman or possibly a valet. 18 1881 London census: St Mary Paddington, District 16: Clifton Gardens, Randolph Road and Clarendon Gardens. 19 Ibid. 20 Heritage, 2014: ‘How dare anyone criticise British food? Indigestible dinners made this country great’, The Guardian, 2 September. www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl e/wordofmouth/2014/sep/02/criticise-british-food-us-ambassador-matthew-barzun. Accessed 21 February 2016. Chapter 3 1 The Household Books Project, volume 4 (Elizabeth Driver) and volume 5 (Dena Attar). http://householdbooks.ucdavis.edu. Accessed 21 February 2016. 2 Ibid. 3 I use the term ‘Francophone’ rather than French, as several prominent ‘French’ chefs of the period were not actually French by birth, but were French-trained, and promoting haute cuisine and French methods more broadly. For example, Charles Elmé Francatelli was Anglo-Italian, but lived and trained in France for much of his life (Currah, 1973); Gabriel Tschumi was Swiss, but a French speaker who trained under Menager at Buckingham Palace (Tschumi and Powe, 1954). 4 Jane Welsh Carlyle to Charlotte Southam, 3 September 1858. MS: Chelsea Public Lib. Pbd: Blunt, ‘CLC’ 49:286. 5 The Lady, 6 June 1901: 928. 6 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/3/513. 7 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/1/5/4. 8 Extract from diary of Marion Sambourne, 2 June 1893: ST/2/1/13. 9 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/2/1381–2. 10 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/2/1555. 11 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/1/7/3/3/24. 12 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/1/7/3/3/25. 13 The Girl’s Own Paper, 26 February 1887: 338. 14 As in Thomas, ‘How we live now’ in The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 April 1897: 179. 15 Collection ST2/1 – the diaries of Marion Sambourne. 16 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST2/1/1–35. 17 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/2/227. 18 Stafford Terrace collection, E0961. 19 The Household Books Project, volume 4 (Elizabeth Driver) and volume 5 (Dena Attar). http://householdbooks.ucdavis.edu. Accessed 21 February 2016. 20 Louis Eustache Ude, 1769–1846. Ude was a French chef, author of The French Cook (1822), who lived and worked in London for much of his career (Ude, 1822). 21 ‘French Cooks and English Eaters’, letter to Punch, 13 October 1860: 142. 22 Pocock, M., ‘French Cookery contrasted with English’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 6 October 1883: 10. 23 Emma W., ‘Household Economy and Domestic Science’, The Lady’s Newspaper, 6 December 1862: 62. 24 H.B., ‘National Cookery’ in Woman and Work, 27 June 1874: 4. 25 1901 London Census: Hammersmith, South Hammersmith (including Starch Green), District 38, Hammersmith Terrace. 26 Nicolas Soyer was the grandson of Alexis Soyer and chef at the Brooks Club, London (Morris, 2013: 117–18). 27 Untitled volume of recipes belonging to Dorothy Walker, Emery Walker Trust. 28 1901 London Census: South Hammersmith, District 38. 29 Ibid. 30 1901 London Census: Kensington Town, St Mary Abbots. District 19. 31 1901 London Census: Hammersmith Terrace, South Hammersmith, District 38. 32 Diary of Dorothy Walker, January 15, 1899. 33 The Household Books Project, volume 4 (Elizabeth Driver) and volume 5 (Dena Attar). http://householdbooks.ucdavis.edu. Accessed 21 February 2016. 34 ‘Alessandro Filipinni’, at www.cooksinfo.com. Accessed 21 February 2016. 35 1901 London Census: Kensington Town, District 19. 36 1901 London Census: South Hammersmith, District 28. 37 Although the inclusion of the year in the title of this volume indicates that it might have been an annual publication, no other volumes are extant at the British Library (where the 1893 volume was found) or at several other major archival libraries. 38 ‘The County Councils and Cottage Cookery’, The Woman’s Herald, 12 October 1893: 532. 39 ‘Italian Cookery’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 10 May 1884: 502. 40 ‘Italian Recipes’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 18 August 1894: 502 41 ‘The Chafing Dish in Daily Use’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 17 April 1897: 449. A chafing dish is a metal serving bowl that is attached to a source of heat from below, which keeps food hot at the table. 42 ‘The Englishwoman’s Conversazione’, The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 July 1879: 54. 43 ‘Correspondence’, Young England, 1 January 1886: 47. 44 Patent No. 2517, Class 85: Ice Making Machines, Ice safes, and Ice Houses. 45 Patent No. 2397, Class 85: Ice Making Machines, Ice safes, and Ice Houses. 46 Patent No. 1684, Class 85: Ice Making Machines, Ice safes, and Ice Houses. 47 Patent No. 1093, Class 85: Ice Making Machines, Ice safes, and Ice Houses. 48 See ‘Answers to Enquiries’, The Ladies’ Treasury, 1 December 1875: 331; ‘Answers to Correspondents’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 3 July 1880: 431. 49 Browne, P., ‘Home-Made Ices’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 7 February 1891: 293. 50 Peel, ‘Easily Made Ices & Iced Drinks’, Hearth & Home, 6 July 1899: 362. 51 ‘Inexpensive Ices’, Hearth & Home, 9 July 1896: 338. 52 The Times, 30 January 1899: 11. 53 The Dundee Courier & Argus, 18 January 1897: 6. 54 ‘Jokes as Merchandise’, The Owl, 23 June 1899: 14. 55 ‘Useful Hints’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 30 April 1881: 494. 56 The Ladies’ Treasury, 1 August 1884: 461. 57 See ‘American Cookery’, The Girl’s Own Paper, September 20, 1884: 811; and ‘Some American Receipts’, Routledge’s Every Girl’s Annual, 1874: 144. 58 ‘American Recipe for Stewing Oysters’, The Fishing Gazette, 9 May 1879: 227. 59 ‘Fish Chowder’, The Sporting Times, 24 June 1882: 7. 60 ‘Chowder’, The Sporting Times, 3 June 1882: 3. 61 ‘Tee Shots’, Golf Illustrated, 23 June 1899: 4. 62 Heinz Company advertisement in The London Morning Post, 30 October 1900. They also regularly advertised in The Pall Mall Gazette, The London Daily News, The Standard, and several other regional papers. 63 Ibid. 64 Young England, 1 January 1890: 38. 65 ‘Advertisement for Murray & Co’s Caramels’, 1886. British Library, Evanion Collection, 6711. 66 ‘Answers to Correspondents’, Hearth & Home, 27 December 1894: 280. 67 Bird, 2002. www.kzwp.com/lyons2/fullers.htm. Accessed 21 February 2016. 68 ‘Out and About’, The Woman’s Herald, 20 August 1892: 12. 69 It was not possible to gain access to the archives of Selfridges, which would have been useful here; not only was the shop at the vanguard of the ‘Americanisation’ of shopping in London, but the Selfridge family were upper-middle-class American immigrants, and their domestic papers may yield interesting information about American domesticity in London. However, Selfridges now holds its archives privately (formerly they were at the National Archives) and does not offer any research access. 70 ‘Household Management’, Hearth & Home, 20 December 1900: 310. 71 A cook uses ‘the makin’ of a good pumpkin-pie’ as an example of an everyday task she can do from memory in the short story, ‘The Changeling of Brandlesome’, The Monthly Packet, 1 May 1896: 505. 72 The demonstrator Mr. Veerasawmy in this story was Edward Palmer, ‘a greatgrandson of Mughal princess Begum Faiz Bux and English Lietenant-General William Palmer’ who founded Veeraswamy’s restaurant in London, which remains to this day (Monroe, 2005: 82). 73 ‘Opening of the Paris Exhibition’, Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 15 April 1900: 13. Chapter 4 1 Diary of Dorothy Walker, 14 March 1899 (Emery Walker Trust collections). ‘Short poses’ was a drawing class held instead of the daily anatomy drawing class, which took place in a larger space and therefore required better light. 2 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/7, 16 November 1887. 3 For examples, see Caroline Bessie Costello, C707/ 261, who worked in a number of homes in South London from 1907 where she had help for big cleaning jobs; Maud Agnes Baines, C707/13, who lived in a home where her mother had a laundry woman ‘once or twice a week’; and Amelia King, C707/125, who worked as an unpaid ‘drudge’ for her mother where there was a weekly washerwoman. 4 No specific dates are given for Hanran’s employment, but she worked between the ages of 14 (1908) and 25 (1919), when she left service to marry. FLAWE, Edith Mabel Hanran, C707/53. 5 Edith Mabel Hanran, FLAWE, C707/53. 6 Ibid. 7 A. G. Hargrave, FLAWE, C707/178. 8 ‘Spinnings in Town’, The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 March 1870: 170. 9 ‘Spinnings in Town’, The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 May 1871: 298. 10 ‘Spinnings in Town’, Myra’s Journal, 1 August 1881: 363. 11 ‘The Universal Carpet Sweeper’, Myra’s Journal, 1 February 1881: 52. 12 Hearth and Home, 17 November 1892: 909. 13 Smith, Katharine D., ‘Half a Dozen Housekeepers’, St. Nicholas, 1 December 1878: 130. 14 The company remains operational and produces carpet sweepers and vacuum cleaners, and since 1914 has taken the name of its most successful product, the Ewbank. www.ewbank.co.uk. Accessed 21 February 2016. 15 Kenyon’s ‘History and Origin of Ewbank Works’ is an original document held by Ewbank Products Ltd, and is quoted here by permission. 16 Advertisement for Ewbank carpet sweepers in The Queen, 27 December 1890: 81. 17 For example: ‘Spinnings in Town’, The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 March 1870: 170; ‘Spinnings in Town’, The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 May 1871: 298; ‘Novelties of the Month’, The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 November 1875: 275. 18 For example: ‘Answers to Correspondents’, Hearth & Home, 20 September 1894: 665; ‘Hints for the Household’, Myra’s Journal, 1 April 1897: 11. 19 Both Bissell and Ewbank remain operational as domestic appliance companies, and both still manufacture carpet sweepers that work on a similar principle to their Victorian and Edwardian antecedents. 20 ‘A home-made shower-bath’, The Girls Own Paper, 13 May 1893: 516. 21 ‘Bathing’, The Englishwoman’s Review and Home Newspaper, 30 October 1858: 249. 22 The diaries were in private ownership at the time of publication, but having contacted both Fraser and Bloomsbury Publishing (of whom the original publisher, Secker & Warburg, are now a subsidiary) I have been unable to find the owner to consult the originals. However, Berkeley’s insight into life with an Anglo-Indian family touches on many domestic details that are relevant to this study, so I have decided to use the published extracts despite not being able to access the originals. 23 Diary of Dorothy Walker: 16 January 1899. 24 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/9, 28 September 1889. 25 Advertisement, Myra’s Journal, 1 July 1886 and 1 November 1887. 26 ‘Medicus’, ‘The Poetry of Ablution’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 5 August 1893: 707. 27 Dame Deborah Primrose, ‘Health and Beauty’, Hearth and Home magazine, 13 September 1900: 772. 28 Anne Page, ‘Personal Appearance’, Myra’s Journal, 1 April 1900: 18. 29 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/2, 1–5 July 1882. 30 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/24, 1904. 31 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/9, 8 May 1889. 32 Diaries of Dorothy Walker, 1899–1903. 33 Flyer advertising the products of Lloyd & Co, Domestic Machinists, 1886. From the Evanion Collection of ephemera, British Library, Evan 9077. 34 ‘Occasional Notes’, Pall Mall Gazette, 16 July 1878: 4. 35 ‘Occasional Notes’, Pall Mall Gazette, 28 June 1878: 4. 36 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/4, front page (no date). 37 The Woman’s Signal, Thursday, 23 August 1894. 38 ‘Magdalen Asylums’, Pall Mall Gazette, 12 January 1866: 3. 39 ‘The Tothill Fields Injustice and the Laundry Question’, Pall Mall Gazette, 27 August 1869: 10. 40 The Country Gentleman, 27 October 1900: 1372. 41 ‘The American Floating Ball Washing Machine’, The Lady’s Newspaper, 13 September 1856: 162. 42 ‘How Women Work’, Hearth and Home, 4 January 1894: 275. 43 As advertised in The Sewing Machine Gazette: Journal of Domestic Appliances. vol. IX, no. 122, 1881. Chapter 5 1 For the purposes of this study, I define nurses and governesses as domestic servants. As Delap (2011) has argued, they may not have been a domestic servant in the strictest sense of the term, but as has been apparent elsewhere, the definition of domestic labour is shifting rather than static. Although their position was different to maids and cooks in relation to their status in the house, they were paid workers undertaking childcare for a significant number of middle-class homes in the nineteenth century. 2 Elementary Education Act 1870, London: The Stationery Office. 3 ‘A Japanese Ayah’s Revenge’, Tamworth Herald, 13 June 1885: 6. 4 ‘An Ayah’s Death’, Sheffield Evening Telegraph, 22 November 1901: 6. 5 ‘Stories of the British Flag: Nana Sahib’s Doom’, The Big Budget, 25 November 1899: 386. 6 ‘From over the Sea’, The Woman at Home, date unknown [1893–1900]: 946. 7 ‘The Five Miss Youngs’, The Illustrated Household Journal, 6 March 1880: 168. 8 Gentle, Cornelia: ‘Brave Little Madge’, Young Folk’s Weekly Budget, 9 February 1878. 9 The Times, 9 September 1867: 2. 10 1871 London Census: Aldgate, District 7, Duke Street. 11 1881 London Census: St Boltoph Aldgate, District 6, Duke Street. 12 1891 London Census: St Katherine Cree, District 10, Jewry Street. 13 1901 London Census: South East Hackney, District 14, King Edward Road. 14 1911 London Census: St John-at-Hackney, South East Hackney, District 6, King Edward Road. 15 See Report of the Committee on Distressed Colonial and Indian Subjects, with evidence from Mrs S. Dunn of the Ayah’s Home, L/PJ/6/925, India Office Records, Asian and African Studies Reading Room, British Library, St Pancras. 16 Ibid.: 72, 1321. 17 Drayson, A. W.: ‘From Keeper to Captain’, Every Boy’s Annual, 1887: 558. 18 1891 London census: Clapham, District 20, Bedford Road; and 1901 London census: Lambeth, Brixton, District 9, Bedford Road. 19 ‘Twice Abducted: A Strange Tale’, South Wales Echo, 24 November 1900: 2. 20 ‘From my Bungalow’ by Aimee L’Estrange, The Lady, 18 July 1895: 351. 21 Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1 July 1878: 48. 22 ‘Baby Life in China’, The Lady, 3 March 1885: 99. 23 The Lady, 12 March 1885: 131. 24 The Cook’s Agency referred to here is likely to be the company which became Thomas Cook travel agents, who had their headquarters in Ludgate Circus in 1911. 25 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/3, Sunday 7 October, 1883. 26 The term ‘Black nurse’ is used to refer to an Ayah in the poem ‘A Major’s Miseries’, John Bull, 4 March 1850: 139; in a story about a returning Anglo-Indian family called ‘Day Dreams’, Good Things, 1 January 1877: 27; and in ‘Only a Little Child’, Little Wide-Awake, 1 January 1878, among many other examples. The term occasionally refers to an African-American nurse from the United States, but this appears only to be used by American writers. 27 7, St Stephen’s Road, 1851 London Census, Civil Parish of Paddington, St Mary, District 10. 28 Bristol Mercury, 7 December 1861: page unknown. 29 Morning Post, 2 May 1861: 1. 30 John Bull, 28 June 1862: 402. 31 1851 London Census: St Martin in the Fields, Charing Cross, District 2P, Cecil Street. 32 1911 London Census: Ealing, District 26, Mattock Lane. 33 India, Select Births and Baptisms, 1786–1947 (ancestry.com): Eric Frazer Lamond, son of Maud Wilhelmina and John Marshall Lamond. 34 1851 London Census: St Ann Blackfriars, District 3, Pilgrim Street. 35 1911 England Census: Kent, Foots Cray, District 8, Heatherview [in Sidcup, now part of the London Borough of Bexley]. 36 1871 London Census: St George Hanover Square, Belgrave, District 31, Chester Square. 37 1891 London Census: Kew, District 20, Mortlake Road. 38 1901 London Census: Hampstead, District 54, Hilltop Villa. 39 IOR/L/PJ/1225 – Case of S. C Busby, Ayah. Letter dated 5 March 1913. 40 IOR/L/PJ/6/1260–2966. Sarah Smith, an Ayah, brought to this country and left by her mistress. August 1913. 41 IOR/L/PJ/6/936 – Case of Sarah Smith Madrassi, Ayah: May 1909. 42 ‘Answers to Correspondents’, Hearth & Home, 27 December 1900: 340. 43 ‘Employments for Women’ by Marion Leslie, The Woman at Home, [date unknown – 1893–1900]: 151. 44 Ibid. 45 ‘Snobbery and Foreign Governesses’, The Lady’s Newspaper, 22 November 1862: 34. 46 Ibid. 47 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/2, Diary of Marion Sambourne (various), 1882. 48 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/10, Tuesday 14 October, 1890. 49 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/3, Wednesday 4 April, 1883. 50 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/3, Tuesday 23 October, 1883. 51 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/6, Thursday 28 January, 1886. 52 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/9, Wednesday 16 January, 1889. 53 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/9, Tuesday 24 September, 1889. 54 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/11, Thursday 19 November, 1891. 55 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/12, Saturday 6 February, 1892. 56 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Archives, ST/2/1/13, Thursday March 9, 1893. 57 ‘Answers to Correspondents’, Hearth & Home, 27 December 1900: 340. 58 Elementary Education Act 1870, London: The Stationery Office. 59 ‘The English Girl’s Garden’, The Lady, 19 March 1885: 161. 60 The Morning Post, 1 September 1854: 1. 61 ‘Answers to Correspondents’, The Lady’s Treasury, 1 January 1869: 16. 62 ‘Questions for School-Board Candidates’, Punch, 15 November 1873: 192. 63 ‘Miss Doreck’, Journal of the Women’s Education Union, 15 October 1875: 146. 64 ‘Madame Roth’s Kindergarten’, Journal of the Women’s Education Union, 15 June 1878: 100. 65 ‘A visit to a Kindergarten’, The Englishwoman’s Review, 14 July 1877: 302. 66 ‘The Kindergarten in England’, The Graphic, 24 June 1876: 623. 67 Classified advertisement appearing repeatedly in The Illustrated Household Journal and Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, 1880. 68 ‘Answers to Correspondents’, The Girl’s Own Paper, 21 August 1880: 543. 69 ‘Doreck Scholarship’, Journal of Women’s Education Union, 15 November 1875: 161. 70 ‘The English Girl’s Garden’, The Lady, 19 March 1885: 161. Chapter 6 1 Humourous Indian Types’, The Graphic, 23 November 21878: 535. Bibliography Primary sources Archive and museum collections 18 Stafford Terrace Collections, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, London. British India Office Archive, British Library, London. The Carlyle Letters, (online) Duke University Press, South Carolina. Emery Walker Trust Collections, Hammersmith, London. Evanion Collection of Ephemera, British Library, London. Ewbank Products Ltd. Collections, Guildford, Surrey. Family Life and Work Experience Before 1918 Oral History Project, via the British Library. Historical Patents Archive at the British Library, London. The Lady Magazine Archives, Covent Garden, London. Science Museum Group Collections, London. Magazines and newspapers The Big Budget. Bristol Mercury. British Mother’s Journal. The Country Gentleman. Coventry Evening Telegraph. The Dundee Courier & Argus. The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine. The Englishwoman’s Review. The Evening Standard. Every Boy’s Annual. Every Girl’s Annual. The Fishing Gazette. Le Follet. Fun Magazine. The Girl’s Own Paper. Golf Illustrated. Good Things. The Graphic. Hearth and Home. Household Words. Illustrated Chips. Illustrated Household Journal. John Bull. Journal of the Women’s Education Union. The Lady. The Lady’s Newspaper. The Ladies’ Cabinet. The Ladies’ Treasury. Little Wide Awake. Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper. The London Morning Post. The Los Angeles Herald. Moonshine. Myra’s Journal. The Owl. The Pall Mall Gazette. Punch. The Sewing Machine Gazette. Sheffield Evening Telegraph. The South Wales Echo. The Sporting Times. St Nicholas. The Tamworth Herald. The Times. The Woman at Home. The Woman’s Herald. The Women’s Penny Paper. The Women’s Signal. Young England. Young Folk’s Weekly Budget. Published primary sources Acton, Eliza. Modern Cookery for Private Families. London: Longman, Green, Longman & Roberts, 1856. American Dishes and How to Cook Them from the Recipes of an American Lady. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1883. American Dainties and How to Prepare Them. London: L. Upcott Gill, 1897. The Australasian Cookery Book. London: Ward, Lock & Co., 1913. Banks, Elizabeth. Campaigns of Curiosity: Journalistic Adventures of an American Girl in London. Chicago and New York: F. T. Neely, 1894. Barker, Lady Mary Anne. A Year’s Housekeeping in South Africa. London: MacMillan & Co., 1877. Barnard, Henry, and Friedrich Fröbel. Papers on Fröbel’s Kindergarten, with Suggestions on Principles and Methods of Child Culture in Different Countries. Hartford: Barnard’s American Journal of Education, 1881. Bartholemew, C. Turkish Bath in Health, Sickness, & Convalescence. London: Ward & Lock, 1869. Bayliss, T. Henry. The Rights, Duties and Relations of Domestic Servants and their Masters and Mistresses. London: S. Low & Son, 1857. Beeton, Isabella. The Book of Household Management. London: S. O. Beeton, 1861. Behind the Bungalow. London, 1889. Bowditch, E. W. New Vegetarian Dishes. New York: University of the State of New York, 1893. Brisse, Baron Leon. 366 Menus and 1200 Recipes of the Baron Brisse. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1882. British India Office. The Bungalow Beautiful. Madras: Higginbotham & Co., 1909. Brontë, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. An Autobiography. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1847. Butler, Christina Violet. Domestic Service: An Enquiry by the Women’s Industrial Council. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1916. Cassell’s Household Guide. London: Cassell, 1912. Chota Mem. The English Bride in India. Madras: Higginbotham & Co., 1909. Congreve, A. E. The One Maid Book of Cookery. London: Herbert Jenkins, 1913. Conan Doyle, Arthur. The Sign of the Four. London: Spencer Blacket, 1890. Cre-Fydd’s Family Fare: The Young Housewife’s Daily Assistant. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1864. Délilée, Felix. The Franco-American Cookery Book. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1885. De Salis, Harriet Ann. Savouries à la mode. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1886. De Salis, Harriet Ann. Entrees à la mode. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1887. De Salis, Harriet Ann. Soups and Dressed Fish à la Mode. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1888. De Salis, Harriet Ann. Cakes and Confections à la Mode. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1889. Domestic Service by an Old Servant. New York: Houghton Miffin & Co., 1917. Dubois, Urbain. École des cuisinières: méthodes élémentaires économiques. Cuisine, pâtisserie, office. Paris: E. Flammarion, 1871. Duckitt, Hildagonda. Hilda’s ‘Where is it?’ of Recipes. London: Chapman & Hall, 1891. Duckitt, Hildagonda. Diary of a Cape Housekeeper. London: Chapman & Hall, 1902. Dukes, Clement. The Preservation of Health as it is Affected by Personal Habits: Such As, Cleanliness, Temperance, &c. London: Rivington, 1894. Elementary Education Act 1870. London: The Stationery Office. Edwood, May. The Autobiography of a Spin: A Story of Anglo-Indian Life. Calcutta and London: Thacker Spink & Co., 1893. EHA. Behind the Bungalow. London: W. Thacker & Co., 1889. Escoffier, Georges. A Guide to Modern Cookery. London: Heineman, 1907. Francatelli, Charles. A Plain Cookery Book for the Working Classes. London: Routledge, Warne, and Routledge, 1851. Francatelli, Charles. The Royal English and Foreign Confectionary Book. London: Chapman & Hall, 1862. Filippini, Alessandro. The Delmonico Cookbook. Bedford: Applewood, 1893. Fröbel, Friedrich. The Education of Man [Translation]. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1887. German National Cookery for English Kitchens. London: Chapman & Hall, 1873. Gironci, Maria. Recipes of Italian Cookery. Translated and arranged by M. Gironci. London, 1892. Gironci, Maria. Italian Recipes for Food Reformers. London: Bell, 1905. Glasson, Charles J. Motherhood. London, 1901. Gordon, Evaline. The Anglo-Indian Cuisine. London: Combridge, 1904. Gouffe, Joules. The Royal Cookery Book. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Skable & Rivington, 1869. Greeves, Edith. General Betty: The Autobiography of a Maid-of-all-Work. London: Robert Culley, 1903. Hervey, Henrietta a. Anglo-Indian Cookery at Home: A Short Treatise for Returned Exiles. London: Horace Cox, 1895. Hints to Governesses. London, 1856. Humphry, C. E. Housekeeping: A Guide to Domestic Management, in One Volume. London: F. V. White & Co., 1893. Ingegnoli, La Fratelli: Come si Cucinano i Legumi. Milan: 1895. Isola, Antonia [Mabel Earl McGinnis]. Simple Italian Cookery. London and New York: Harper & Bros, 1912. Johnson, Grace. Anglo-Indian and Oriental Cookery. London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1893. Keyzer, Frances. French Household Cooking. London: Country Life, n.d. Kingston, William. Ben Burton, or Born and Bred at Sea. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low & Searle, 1872. Kipling, Rudyard. Plain Tales from the Hills. London: MacMillan & Co., 1888. Kipling, Rudyard. Under the Deodars. Allahabad: A. H. Wheeler & Co., 1888. Kipling, Rudyard. Something of Myself. London: MacMillan & Co., 1937. La Cuisinière Bourgeoise. Paris, n.d. The Lancet Analytical and Sanitary Commission Report. London: 1877. Laundry Management. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son, 1893. Le Brasseur, Gabrielle. Hints on Cookery and Management of the Table (Ma Cuisine). Translated by Mary Hooper. London: Spencer Blackett, 1891. Lemcke, Gesine. European and American cuisine. New York and London: Appleton & Co., 1914. Lewis, Elinor. Domestic Service in the Present Day. London: E. Stock, 1889. MacLurcan, Hannah. The 20th century cookery book: a thousand practical recipes for everyday use. London: R. A. Everett, 1901. MacRae, Mrs Stuart (ed.). Cassell’s Household Guide: A Complete Encyclopaedia of Domestic Economy, vol. 5. London: The Waverly Book Company, 1911. Malabari, Behramji. The Indian Eye on English Life, or Rambles of a Pilgrim Reformer. London and Bombay: Apollo, 1893. Manning, E. A. ‘Some difficulties and encouragements in Kindergarten Work’. In Barnard, Henry, and Friedrich Fröbel (eds), Papers on Fröbel’s Kindergarten, with Suggestions on Principles and Methods of Child Culture in Different Countries. Hartford: Barnard’s American Journal of Education, 1881. Martin, James Ranald. The Influence of Tropical Climates on European Constitutions. London: John Churchill, 1856. Martin, James Ranald. The Influence of Tropical Climates on European Constitutions, 2nd edn. London: John Churchill, 1861. Maurice, Mary. Mothers and Governesses. London: John W. Parker, 1847. McKenzie-Daniell, E. A German Kindergarten at Kilburn. London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1874. McManus, Blanche. The American Woman Abroad. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1911. Ministry of Reconstruction. Reconstruction Problems 22: Domestic Service. London: HMSO, 1919. Ninet, Marguerite. Dainty Meals for Small Households. London: Sampson Low & Co., 1899. Platt, Kate. The Home and Health in India and the Tropical Colonies. London: Balliere, Tindall & Cox, 1923. P.O.P. The Nabob’s Cookery Book, A Manual of East and West Indian Recipes. London: Frederick Warne, 1870. Redington, Josephine. The Economic Cookery Book. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1905. Report of the Committee on Distressed Colonial and Indian Subjects. London, 1911. Ross, Janet Ann. Leaves from our Tuscan Kitchen. London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1899. Salter, Joseph. The Asiatic in England. London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday, 1873. Santiagoe, Daniel. The Curry Cook’s Assistant, or, Curries, How to Make Them in England in Their Original Style. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1889. Sargeant, Anne. The Maid-of-all-Work’s Complete Guide. London: Dean & Son, 1850. Schiller, Anne. German National Cookery for English kitchens: With Practical Descriptions of the Art of Cookery as Performed in Germany. London: Chapman & Hall, 1873. Shireff, Emily. The Kindergarten in Relation to Family Life. London, 1878. Shireff, Emily. The Kindergarten at Home. London: J. Hughes, 1884. Shireff, Emily. The Kindergarten: Principles of Fröbel’s System and Their Bearing on the Education of Women. London: C. W. Bardeen, 1889. Sims, George. Living London. London: Cassell, 1902. Soyer, Alexis. Soyer’s Charitable Cookery. London: George Routledge & Co., 1847. Soyer, Alexis. The Poor Man’s Regenerator. London: George Routledge & Co., 1848. Soyer, Alexis. A Shilling Cookery Book for the People. London: George Routledge & Co., 1855. Soyer, Nicholas. Soyer’s Paper-bag Cookery. New York: Sturgis & Walton, 1911. Steedman, M. E. Home-made Beverages and American Drinks. London: The Food and Cookery Publishing Agency, 1908. Steel, Flora Annie, and Grace Gardiner. The Complete Indian Housekeeper and Cook. London: W. Heinemann, 1888. Thackeray, William Makepeace. Vanity Fair. New York: Harper & Bros, 1848. Traill, Catherine Parr Strickland. The Female Emigrant’s Guide and Hints on Canadian Housekeeping. Toronto: Maclear & Co., 1854. Tschirky, Oscar. Oscar of the Waldorf’s Cookery Book. New York: Dover, 1896. Tucker. Edith and Her Ayah, and other stories. London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1872. Tuite, Eva. Lemco Dishes for All Seasons. London: Lemco, 1911. Various. Isobel’s Home Cookery, vol. 1. London: Home Cookery, 1896. Viard, A. Le Cuisinier Royal: Paris: C. Tresse, 1825. Ude, Louis Eustache. The French Cook. London: Evers, 1822. Waring, Edward John. The Tropical Resident at Home. London: John Churchill, 1866. Waters, Emily. The Cook’s Decameron. London: Heinemann, 1901. Wicken, H. Australian Table Dainties and Appetising Dishes. London and Melbourne: War, Lock, 1897. White, Captain. Indian Cookery; Or Fish Curries. London: Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper, 1845. Secondary sources Books and articles Adams, Iestyn. Brothers Across the Ocean: British Foreign Policy and the Origins of the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’, 1900–1905. London: Bloomsbury, 2005. Aitkens, P. J., Peter Lummel, and Derek Oddy (eds). Food and the City in Europe Since 1800. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Albin, Einat. ‘From ‘domestic servant’ to ‘domestic worker’’. In J. Fudge, S. McCrystal, and K. Sankaran (eds), Challenging the Legal Boundaries of Work Regulation. Oxford: Hart, 2013. Allen, Michelle. Cleansing the City: Sanitary Geographies in Victorian London. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2008. Amato, Sarah. ‘The white elephant in London: An episode of trickery, racism and advertising’. Journal of Social History 43 (1), 2009, 31–66. Anand, Sushila. Indian Sahib: Queen Victoria’s Dear Abdul. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1996. Anderson, Bridget. Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Politics of Domestic Labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2000. Anderson, M. Approaches to the History of the Western Family, 1500–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Ansari, Humayun. The Infidel within: The History of Muslims in Britain, 1800 to the Present. London: C. Hurst & Co., 2004. Assael, Brenda. ‘Beyond empire: Globalizing the Victorians’. Victorian Literature and Culture 43 (3), 2015, 643–650. Atkins, P. J. ‘A tale of two cities: a comparison of food systems in London and Paris in the 1850s’. In Atkins, P. J., P. Lummel, and D. J. Oddy, Food in the City in Europe since the Late Eighteenth Century. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2007. Atkinson, Diane. Love and Dirt: The Marriage of Arthur Munby and Hannah Cullwick. London: MacMillan, 2003. Attar, Dena. A Bibliography of Household Books Published In Britain 1800–1914. London: Prospect, 1987. Avery, Tracey. ‘Furniture design and colonialism: Negotiating relationships between Britain and Australia, 1880–1901’. Home Cultures 4 (1), 2007, 69–92. Auerbach, Jeffrey, and Peter Hoffenberg (eds). Britain, the Empire, and the World at the Great Exhibition of 1851. London: Routledge, 2008. Baker, Alan R. H. ‘“The dead don’t answer questionnaires”: Researching and qriting historical geography’. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21 (2), 1997, 231–243. Ball, Michael, and David Sunderland. An Economic History of London, 1800–1914. London and New York: Routledge, 2001. Basu, Shrabani. Victoria & Abdul: The True Story of the Queen’s Closest Confidant. Stroud: The History Press, 2010. Bate, Jonathan, and Eric Rasmussen. The RSC Shakespeare: The Complete Works. London: Palgrave MacmIllan, 2008. Beachy, Robert, Beatrice Craig, and Alastair Owens (eds). Women, Business, and Finance in Nineteenth-century Europe: Rethinking Separate Spheres. London: Berg Publishers, 2005. Beer, Sean. ‘Authenticity and food experience: Commercial and academic perspectives’. Journal of Foodservice 19 (1), 2008, 153–163. Beetham, Margaret. A Magazine of Her Own? Domesticity and Desire in the Woman’s Magazine, 1800–1914. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. Beetham, Margaret. ‘Good taste and sweet ordering: Dining with Mrs Beeton’. Victorian Literature and Culture 36 (2), 2008, 391–406. Beetham, Margaret, and Kay Boardman. Victorian Woman’s Magazines: An Anthology. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Bittman, Michael, James Mahmud Rice, and Judy Wajcman. ‘Appliances and their impact: The ownership of domestic technology and time spent on household work’. British Journal of Sociology 55 (3), 2004, 401–423. Bhattacharya, Sumangala. ‘Kitchen magic: Reforming the Victorian with Alexis Soyer’. In McMahon, Deirdre and Janet Myers (eds), The Objects and Textures of Everyday Life in Imperial Britain. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2016. Black, Iain S. ‘Analysing historical and archival sources’. In Clifford, Nicholas, Shaun French, and Gill Valentine (eds), Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE, 2010. Black, Jeremy, and Donald M. MacRaild. Nineteenth Century Britain. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003. Blunt, Alison. ‘Imperial geographies of home: British domesticity in India, 1886–1925’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24 (4), 1999, 421–440. Blunt, Alison. ‘Spatial Stories under Siege: British women writing from Lucknow in 1857’. Gender, Place and Culture 7 (3), 2000, 229–246. Blunt, Alison. ‘Geography and the humanities tradition’. In Blunt, Alison, Pyrs Gruffudd, Jon May, Miles Ogborn, and David Pinder (eds), Cultural Geography in Practice. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004a. Blunt, Alison. ‘Home and identity: Life stories in text and person’. In Blunt, Alison, Pyrs Gruffudd, Jon May, Miles Ogborn, and David Pinder (eds), Cultural Geography in Practice. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004b. Blunt, Alison. Domicile and Diaspora: Anglo-Indian Women and the Spatial Politics of Home. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Blunt, Alison, and Robyn Dowling. Home. Abingdon: Routledge, 2006. Bowen, H. V., Margarette Lincoln, and Nigel Rigby (eds), The Worlds of the East India Company. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2002. Branca, Patricia. Silent Sisterhood: Middle Class Women in the Victorian Home. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University Press, 1975. Brake, L., and Marysa Demoor. Dictionary of Nineteenth-century Journalism: In Great Britain and Ireland. Ghent: Academia Press, 2009. Bras, Hilde. ‘Maids to the city: Migration patterns of female domestic servants from the province of Zeeland, the Netherlands (1850–1950)’. History of the Family 8 (2), 2003, 217–246. Brehony, Kevin. ‘The kindergarten in England, 1851–1918’. In Wollons, R. (ed.), Kindergarten and Cultures: The Global Diffusion. New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Bressey, Caroline. ‘Forgotten histories: Three stories of black girls from Barnardo’s Victorian archive’. Women’s History Review, 11 (3), 2002: 351–374. Bressey, Caroline. ‘Victorian ‘anti-racisim’ and feminism in Britain’. Women: A Cultural Review, 21 (3), 2010: 279–291. Bressey, Caroline. Empire, Race and the Politics of Anti-caste: London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Brewer, Priscilla J. From Fireplace to Cookstove: Technology and the Domestic Ideal in America. New York: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Broomfield, Andrea. Food and Cooking in Victorian England: A History. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007. Broughton, TrevLynn, and Ruth Symes (eds). The Governess: An Anthology. Stroud, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1997. Bruegel, Martin. A Cultural History of Food in an Age of Empire. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Bryden, Inga, and Janet Floyd (eds). Domestic Space: Reading the Nineteenth-century Interior. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Buettner, Elizabeth. Empire Families: Britons and Late Imperial India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Buettner, Elizabeth. ‘“Going for an Indian”: South Asian restaurants and the limits of multiculturalism in Britain’. Journal of Modern History 80 (4), 2008, 865–901. Bullock, April. ‘The cosmopolitan cookbook: Class, taste, and foreign foods in Victorian cookery books’. Food, Culture & Society 15 (3), 2012, 437–454. Bunkers, Suzanne, and Cynthia Huff (eds). Inscribing the Daily: Critical Essays on Women’s Diaries. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996. Búriková, Zuzana. ‘The embarrassment of co-presence: Au pairs and their rooms’. Home Cultures 3 (2), 1996, 99–122. Burnett, John. Useful Toil: Autobiographies of Working People from the 1820s to the 1920s. London: Penguin, 1974. Burton, Antoinette. At the Heart of the Empire: Indians and the Colonial Encounter in Late Victorian Britain. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. Burton, Antoinette. Dwelling in the Archive : Women Writing House, Home, and History in Late Colonial India: Women Writing House, Home, and History in Late Colonial India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003a. Burton, Antoinette (ed). After the Imperial Turn: Thinking with and Through the Nation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003b. Burton, Antoinette. Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. Burton, Antoinette. ‘Who needs the nation? Interrogating “British” history’. In Hall, Catherine, and Sonya O. Rose. At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Burton, Antoinette. ‘Salaam, Great Britain: Thinking through resistance in an age of global empire’. In Ahmed, Rehana and Sumita Mukherjee (eds), South Asian Resistances in Britain, 1858–1947. London and New York: Continuum, 2012. Calvert, Karin. Children in the House: The Material Culture of Early Childhood, 1600–1900. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1992. Cannadine, David. Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Castree, Noel, and Niel Coe. Spaces of Work: Global Capitalism and the Geographies of Labour. London: SAGE, 2004. Chapman, Tony, and Jennifer Lorna Hockey (eds). Ideal Homes? Social Change and Domestic Life. New York: Routledge, 1999. Chase, Karen, and Michael Levenson. The Spectacle of Intimacy: A Public Life for the Victorian Family. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. Chatterjee, Piya. A Time for Tea: Women, Labor and Post/Colonial Politics on an Indian Plantation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001. Chaudhuri, Nupur. ‘Shawls, jewelry, curry, and rice in Victorian Britain’. In Chaudhuri, Nupur, and Margaret Strobel (eds), Western Women and Imperialism: Complicity and Resistance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992. Chaudhuri, Nupur, and Margaret Strobel (eds). Western Women and Imperialism: Complicity and Resistance. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992. Christian, Peter, and David Annal. Census: The Expert Guide. Kew: The National Archives, 2008. Chrystal, Paul. Chocolate: The British Chocolate Industry. Oxford: Shire, 2011. Cieraad, Irene (ed.). At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1999. Clifford, Nicholas, Shaun French, and Gill Valentine. Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE, 2010. Cloke, Paul, Jon May, and Sarah Johnsen. Swept Up Lives? Re-envisioning the Homeless City. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Codell, Julie. ‘Imperial differences and culture clashes in Victorian periodicals’ visuals: The case of Punch’. Victorian Periodicals Review, 39 (4), 2006, 410–428. Cohen, Deborah. Household Gods: The British and their Possessions. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006. Collingham, Elizabeth. Imperial Bodies: The Physical Experience of the Raj, c.1800–1947. London: Polity Press, 2001. Colls, Robert. Identity of England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. ‘The “Industrial Revolution” in the home: Household technology and social change in the 20th century’. Technology and Culture 17(1), 1976, 1–23. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books, 1983. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. A Social History of American Technology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Cowen, Ruth. Relish: The Extraordinary Life of Alexis Soyer, Victorian Celebrity Chef. London: Phoenix, 2008. Cox, Rosie. The Servant Problem: Domestic Employment in a Global Economy. London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2006. Cox, Rosie. ‘House/Work: Home as a space of work and consumption’. Geography Compass 7 (12), 2013, 821–831. Crouzet, Francois. The Victorian Economy. London: Routledge, 2006. Currah, Ann. Chef to Queen Victoria: The Recipes of Charles Elmé Francatelli. London: W. Kimber, 1973. Elizabeth Stanley. The Diaries of Hannah Cullwick: Victorian Maidservant. London: Virago Press, 1984. Daly, Suzanne. The Empire Inside: Indian Commodities in Victorian Domestic Novels. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2011. Dannehl, Karin. ‘Object biographies: From production to consumption’. In Harvey, Karen (ed.), History and Material Culture: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. Daunton, M. J. House and Home in the Victorian City: Working-class Housing 1850–1914. London: Edward Arnold, 1983. David, Deirdre. ‘Imperial chintz: Domesticity and empire’. Victorian Literature and Culture 27 (2), 569–577, 1999. Davidoff, Leonore. The Best Circles: Society, Etiquette And The Season. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1973. Davidoff, Leonore. ‘Mastered for life: Servant and wife in Victorian and Edwardian England’. Journal of Social History 7 (4), 1974, 406–428. Davidoff, Leonore, and Catherine Hall. Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class 1780–1850, rev. edn. London: Hutchinson, 2002. Davidson, C. A Woman’s Work is Never Done: A History of Housework in the British Isles, 1650–1950. London: Chatto & Windus, 1982. Davin, Anna. ‘Imperialism and motherhood’. History Workshop 5 (12), 1978, 9–65. Deane, Bradley. ‘Monkeys in the house: Commodities and competing Fetishisms in late Victorian popular culture’. In McMahon, Dierdre and Janet Myers (eds), The Objects and Textures of Everyday Life in Imperial Britain. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2016. de Groot, Joanna. ‘“Sex’ and ‘Race”: The construction of language and image in the nineteenth century’. In Hall, Catherine (ed.), Cultures of Empire: A Reader: Colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the 19th and 20th Centuries. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. de Groot, Joanna. ‘Metropolitan desires and colonial connections: Reflections on consumption and empire’. In Hall, Catherine, and Sonya O. Rose (eds), At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. de Haan, David. Antique Household Gadgets and Appliances, c.1860 to 1930. London: Blandford Press, 1977. de Vries, Jan. ‘The Industrial Revolution and the industrious revolution’. Journal of Economic History 54 (2), 1994, 249–270. Delap, Lucy. Knowing their Place: Domestic Service in Twentieth Century Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Dennis, Richard. ‘Victorian values and the division of space in nineteenth-century cities’. In Dimitriadis, E. (ed.), Space and History: Urban, Architectural and Regional Space [Skopelos Symposium Proceedings]. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki, 1989. Dennis, Richard. ‘“Babylonian flats” in Victorian and Edwardian London’. The London Journal 33 (3), 2008, 233–247. Derrida, Jacques. Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression. Translated by Eric Prenowitz. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1996. DeSoucey, Michaela. ‘Gastronationalism: Food traditions and authenticity politics in the European Union’. American Sociological Review 75 (3), 2010, 432–455. Di Leonardo, Micaela (ed.). Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991. Digby, A. Making a Medical Living: Doctors and Patients in the English Market for Medicine, 1720–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Dimitriadis, E. (ed.), Space and History: Urban, Architectural and Regional Space [Skopelos Symposium Proceedings]. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki, 1989. Domosh, Mona. ‘Geography and gender: Home, again?’ Progress in Human Geography 22 (2), 1998, 276–282. Domosh, Mona. ‘Pickles and purity: Discourses of food, empire and work in turn-ofthe-century USA’. Social and Cultural Geography 4 (1), 2003: 7–26. Domosh, Mona. ‘Selling America: Advertising, national identity and economic empire in the late nineteenth century’. In Blunt, Alison, Pyrs Gruffudd, Jon May, Miles Ogborn, and David Pinder (eds), Cultural Geography in Practice. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004. Domosh, Mona. American Commodities in an Age of Empire. London: Routledge, 2006. Donald, Moira. ‘Tranquil havens? Critiquing the idea of home as the middle-class sanctuary’. In Bryden, Inga, and Janet Floyd (eds), Domestic Space: Reading the Nineteenth-Century Interior. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London and New York: Routledge, 1966. Doyal, L., and T. Muinzer. ‘Should the skeleton of ‘the Irish giant’ be buried at sea?’ British Medical Journal 343 (20), 2011, d7597. Draznin, Yaffa. Victorian London’s Middle-class Housewife: What She Did All Day. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001. Driver, Elizabeth. A bibliography of Cookery Books Published in Britain, 1887–1914. London: Prospect Books, 1989. Driver, Felix. ‘Moral geographies: Social science and the urban environment in midnineteenth century England’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 13, 1998, 275–287. Driver, Felix, and David Gilbert (eds). Imperial Cities: Landscape, Display and Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. Dyhouse, Carol. Feminism and the Family in England, 1880–1939. London: WileyBlackwell, 1989. Dyos, Harold James. The Victorian City: Images and Realities, vol. 1. London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul, 1973. Ebury, Mark, and Brian Preston. ‘Domestic service in late Victorian and Edwardian England, 1871–1914’. University of Reading Geographical Papers, 1976. English Housing Survey 2009 to 2010: Household Report. Department for Communities and Local Government. London: The Stationery Office, 2011. Fauve-Chamoux, Antoinette, and Rafaella Sarti (eds). Domestic Service and the Formation of European Identity: Understanding the Globalization of Domestic Work 16th-21st Centuries. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004. Fearn, Jacqueline. Domestic Bygones. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1977. Ferriday, Peter (ed.). Victorian Architecture. London: Jonathan Cape, 1963. Finn, Margot C. ‘Colonial gifts: Family politics and the exchange of goods in British India, c.1780–1820’. Modern Asian Studies 40 (1), 2006, 203–231. Fisher, Michael. Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian Travellers and Settlers in Britain, 1600–1857. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004. Fisher, Michael. ‘Making London’s “oriental quarter”’. In Pandey, Gyanendra (ed.), Subalternity and Difference: Investigations from the North and the South. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011. Flanders, Judith. The Victorian House: Domestic Life from Childbirth to Deathbed. London: HarperCollins, 2004. Floyd, Janet, and Laurel Forster (eds). The Recipe Reader: Narratives, Contexts, Traditions. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Floyd, Janet. ‘Simple, honest food: Elizabeth David and the construction of nation in cookery writing’. In Floyd, Janet, and Laurel Forster (eds), The Recipe Reader: Narratives, Contexts, Traditions. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Fox, Bonnie. Hidden in the Household: Women’s Domestic Labour under Capitalism. Toronto: Canadian Women’s Educational Press, 1990. Fraser, Flora (ed). Maud: The Diaries of Maud Berkeley. London: Martin Secker & Warburg, 1985. Frawley, Maria. Invalidism and Identity in Nineteenth-century Britain. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Fromer, Julie E. ‘“Deeply indebted to the tea-plant”: Representations of English national identity in Victorian histories of tea’. Victorian Literature and Culture 36 (2), 2008, 531–547. Fromer, Julie E. A Necessary Luxury: Tea in Victorian England. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2008. Fryer, Peter. Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain. London: Pluto Press, 1984. Gantz, Carroll. The Vacuum Cleaner: A History. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012. Gartner, Lloyd. The Jewish Immigrant in England, 1870–1914. London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2001. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Geiger, Till, Niamh Moore, and Mike Savage. ‘The archive in question’. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. Manchester: Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change, University of Manchester, March 2010. Geoghegan, Hilary. ‘Museum geography: Exploring museums, collections and museum practice in the UK’. Geography Compass 4 (10), 2010, 1462–1476. George, Rosemary Marangoly. ‘Homes in the empire, empires in the home’. Cultural Critique 26, 1993, 95–127. Gerzina, Gretchen Holbrook (ed.). Black Victorians, Black Victoriana. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003. Ghosh, Durba. ‘National narratives and the politics of miscegenation: Britain and India’. In Burton, Antoinette M. (ed.), Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, edited by. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. Ginn, G. ‘Answering the “bitter cry”: Urban description and social reform in the late Victorian East End’. The London Journal 31 (2), 2006, 179–200. Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. ‘Servitude to service work: Historical continuities in the racial division of paid reproductive labour’. Signs 18 (1), 1992, 1–43. Gooday, Graeme. Domesticating Electricity: Technology, Uncertainty and Gender, 1880–1914. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2008. Gordon, Sarah A. ‘Make It Yourself’: Home Sewing, Gender, and Culture, 1890–1930. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. Gowans, Georgina. ‘A Passage from India: Geographies and experiences of repatriation, 1858–1939’. Social and Cultural Geography 3 (4), 2002, 403–424. Gowans, Georgina. ‘Imperial geographies of home: Memsahibs and miss-sahibs in India and Britain, 1915–1947’. Cultural Geographies 10, 2003, 424–441. Gowans, Georgina. ‘Travelling home: British women sailing from India’. Women’s International Studies Forum 29 (1), 2006, 81–95. Grewal, Inderpal. Home and Harem: Nation, Gender, Empire, and the Cultures of Travel. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1996. Gribben, Arthur (ed.). The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. Gubler, Fritz. Waldorf Hysteria: Hotel Manners, Misbehaviour & Minibars. Self-published: Funny Side Up, 2008. Gunn, S. The Public Culture of the Victorian Middle Class: Ritual and Authority in the English Industrial City 1840–1914. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008. Hall, Catherine. Civilizing Subjects: Metropole and Colony in the English Imagination 1830–1867. Oxford: Polity Press, 2002. Hall, Catherine, and Sonya O.Rose (eds). At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Hamilakis, Yannis. ‘Stories from exile: Fragments from the cultural biography of the Parthenon (or “Elgin”) Marbles’. World Archaeology 31 (2), 1999, 303–320. Hamlett, Jane. Material Relations: Domestic Interiors and Middle-class Families in England, 1850–1910. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010. Hamlett, Jane, and Lesley Hoskins. Special Issue: Home and Work. Home Cultures, 2011. Harris, Sharon, and Ellen Gruber Garvey (eds). Blue Pencils and Hidden Hands: Women Editing Periodicals, 1830–1910. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2004. Harrison-Moore, Abigail. ‘Aristocratic identity, Regency furniture and the Egyptian revival style’. In Sofaer, Joanna (ed.), Material Identities. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Harvey, Karen (ed.). History and Material Culture: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. Hayden, Dolores. Redesigning the American Dream: Gender, Housing and Family Life. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1982. Hayden, Dolores. The Grand Domestic Revolution: a History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighbourhoods, and Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962. Hepworth, Mike. ‘Privacy, security and respectability: The ideal Victorian home’. In Chapman, Tony, and Jennifer Lorna Hockey (eds), Ideal Homes?: Social Change and Domestic Life. London: Taylor & Francis, 1999. Hinchcliffe, T. F. M. ‘Highbury New Park: A nineteenth-century middle-class suburb’. The London Journal 7 (1), 1981, 29–44. Hitchcock, Tim. ‘Confronting the digital, or how academic history writing lost the plot’. Cultural and Social History: The Journal o the Social History Society 10 (1), 2013, 9–23. Hoerder, Dirk, Elise van Nederveen Meerkerk, and Silke Neunsinger (eds). Towards a Global History of Domestic and Caregiving Workers. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Hoganson, Kristin. ‘Cosmopolitan domesticity: Importing the American dream, 1865–1920’. American Historical Review 107 (1), 2002, 55–83. Hollen Lees, Lynn. Exiles of Erin: Irish Migrants in Victorian London. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1979. Holliss, Frances. Beyond Live/Work: The Architecture of Home-based Work. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. hooks, bell. ‘Eating the other: Desire and resistance’. In Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 1992. hooks, bell. Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. Horn, Pamela. The Rise and Fall of the Victorian Servant. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1974. Hoskins, Lesley. ‘Stories of work and home in the mid-nineteenth century’. Home Cultures 8 (2), 2011, 151–169. Hoskins, Lesley. ‘Household inventories reassessed: A “new” source for investigating nineteenth-century domestic culture in England and Wales’. Home Cultures 11 (3), 2014, 333–352. Hubbard, Kate. Serving Victoria: Life in the Royal Household. London: Chatto & Windus, 2012. Hughes, Kathryn. Victorian Governess. London: Hambledon Press, 1993. Hughes, Kathryn. The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton. London: Harper Perennial, 2006. Hughes, Thomas P. ‘The electrification of America: The system builders’. Technology and Culture 20 (1), 1979, 124–161. Hutton, Sean. ‘The Irish in London’. In Merriman, Nick (ed.), The Peopling of London: Fifteen Thousand Years of Settlement from Overseas. London: Museum of London, 1993. Hyde, Lewis. The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World. New York: Random House, 1979. Jackson, Lee (ed.). Adventures of an American Girl in London. Online: Victorian London Ebooks, 2012. Jackson, Lee (ed.). Dirty Old London: The Victorian Fight against Filth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014. Jacobs, Jane. Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City. London: Routledge, 1996. Jaffer, Aaron. Lascars and Indian Ocean Seafaring, 1780–1860: Shipboard Life, Unrest, and Mutiny. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2015. Jones, Alexandra. About Time for Change: A Report. London: The Work Foundations, 2003. Jones, D. ‘The Chinese in Britain’. New Community 7, 1979, 397–401. Jones, Janna. ‘The distance from home: The domestication of desire in interior design manuals’. Journal of Social History 31 (2), 1997, 307–326. Joy, Edward T. ‘Early nineteenth-century invalid etc. furniture’. Furniture History 10, 1974, 74–77. Kaika, Maria. ‘Interrogating the geographies of the familiar: Domesticating nature and constructing the autonomy of the modern home’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 (2), 2004, 265–286. Kaplan, Amy. ‘Manifest domesticity’. American Literature 70 (3), 1998, 581–606. Katzman, David. Seven Days a Week: Women and Domestic Service Industrialising America. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1981. Kay, Alison. ‘A little enterprise of her own: Lodging-house keeping and the accommodation business in nineteenth-century London.’ The London Journal 28 (2), 2003, 41–53. Kay, Alison. ‘Retailing, respectability and the independent woman in nineteenth-century London’. In Beachy, Robert, Beatrice Craig, and Alastair Owens (eds), Women, Business, and Finance in Nineteenth-century Europe: Rethinking Separate Spheres. London: Berg Publishers, 2005. Kay, Alison. ‘Villas, values and the Crystal Palace Company, c.1852–1911’. The London Journal 33 (1), 2008, 21–39. Kay, Alison. The Foundations of Female Entrepreneurship: Enterprise, Home and Household in London, c.1800–1870. Oxford and New York: Routledge, 2009. Kay, Christian, Simon Horobin, and Jeremy Smith (eds). New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics: Selected Papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002. Vol. I: Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002, 153–176. Kay, Sarah. ‘Yelp reviewers’ authenticity fetish is white supremacy in action’. EATER New York, 18 January 2019. Available online: https://ny.eater.com/2019/1/18/ 18183973/authenticity-yelp-reviews-white-supremacy-trap. Kelley, Victoria. Soap and Water: Cleanliness, Dirt and the Working Classes in Victorian and Edwardian Britain. London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2010. Kershen, Anne. ‘The Jewish community in London’. In Merriman, Nick (ed.), The Peopling of London: Fifteen Thousand Years of Settlement from Overseas. London: Museum of London, 1993. Kershen, Anne. Food in the Migrant Experience Studies in Migration and Diaspora. London: Ashgate, 2002. Kinealy, Christine. ‘At home with the empire: The example of Ireland’. In Hall, Catherine, and Sonya O.Rose (eds), At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. King, Anthony. The Bungalow: The Production of a Global Culture. London and Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984. Kiste, John Van der. Sons, Servants and Statesmen: The Men in Queen Victoria’s Life. Slough: The History Press, 2006. Klimaszewski, Melisa. ‘Writing the Victorian home: A nursemaid’s perspective on maternity and empire’. Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement 4 (2), 2002, 180–190. Koven, Seth. Slumming: Sexual and Social Politics in Victorian London. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004. Kriegel, Laura. ‘The pudding and the palace: Labor, print culture and imperial Britain in 1851’. In Burton, Antoinette (ed.), After the Imperial Turn: Thinking with and Through the Nation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. Knight, Ian. Isandlwana 1879: The Great Zulu Victory. Osecola, WI: Osprey Publishing, 2002. Kramer, Rita. Maria Montessori. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1976. Kuttel, M. Quadrilles and Konfyt: The Life and Journal of Hildagonda Duckitt. Johannesburg: Maskew Miller, 1954. Lahiri, Shompa. ‘Contested relations: The East India Company and lascars in London’. In Bowen, H. V., Margarette Linclon and Nigel Rigby (eds), The Worlds of the East India Company. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2002. Langland, Elizabeth. Nobody’s Angels: Middle-class Women and Domestic Ideology in Victorian Culture. London: Cornell University Press, 1995. Lawrence, Dianne. Genteel Women: Empire and Domestic Material Culture, 1840–1910. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012. Leavitt, Sarah. From Catharine Beecher to Martha Stewart: A Cultural History of Domestic Advice. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Lee, Ying S. Masculinity and the English Working Class: Studies in Victorian Autobiography and Fiction. London and New York: Routledge, 2007. Lees-Maffei, Grace. ‘Studying advice: Historiography, methodology, commentary, bibliography’. Journal of Design History 16 (1), 2003, 1–14. Lees-Maffei, Grace. Design at Home: Domestic Advice Books in Britain and the USA since 1945. London: Routledge, 2014. Leese, Peter, Piatele, Beata, and Curytto-Klag, Isabela (eds). The British Migrant Experience, 1700–2000: An Anthology. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Leong-Salobir, Cecilia. Food Culture in Colonial Asia: A Taste of Empire. London: Routledge, 2011. Levine, Philippa. ‘The humanising influences of five o’clock tea Victorian feminist periodicals’. Victorian Studies 33 (2), 1990, 293–306. Levine, Philippa. ‘Sexuality and empire’. In Hall, Catherine, and Sonya O. Rose (eds), At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lind, M. A. The Compassionate Memsahibs: Welfare Activities of British Women in India, 1900–47. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988. Lintelman, Joy. I Go to America: Swedish American Women and the Life of Mina Anderson. St Paul: Minnesota Historical Press, 2009. Loeb, Lori Anne. Consuming Angels: Advertising and Victorian Women. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Lootens, Tricia. ‘Hemans and home: Victorianism, feminine “internal enemies,” and the domestication of national identity’. PMLA 109 (2), 1994, 238–253. Lorimer, Douglas. ‘Reconstructing the Victorian racial discourse: Images of race, the language of race relations, and the context of Black resistance’. In Gerzina, GretchenHolbrook (ed.), Black Victorians, Black Victoriana. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003. Lüdtke, Alf, ed. The History of Everyday Life: Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Lundh, Christer. ‘The social mobility of servants in rural Sweden, 1740–1894’. Continuity and Change 14 (1), 1999, 57–89. Lynch-Brennan, Margaret. The Irish Bridget: Irish Immigrant Women in Domestic Service in America, 1840–1930. New York: Syracuse University Press, 2009. Maclaran, Pauline, Michael Saren, Barbara Stern, and Mark Tadajewski (eds). The Sage Handbook of Marketing Theory. London: SAGE, 2009. Mandler, Peter. The English National Character: The History of an Idea from Edmund Burke to Tony Blair. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2006. Marcus, Sharon. Apartment Stories: City and Home in Nineteenth-century Paris and London. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Marsh, Margaret. ‘Suburban men and masculine domesticity, 1870–1915’. American Quarterly 40 (2), 1988, 165–186. Marshall, John, and Ian Willox. The Victorian House. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1986. Matera, Marc. Black London: The Imperial Metropolis and Decolonisation in the Twentieth Century. Oakland: University of California Press, 2015. May, Trevor. The Victorian Domestic Servant. Oxford: Shire, 1998. McBride, Theresa M. ‘“As the twig is bent”: The Victorian nanny’. In Wohl, Anthony S. (ed.), The Victorian Family: Structures and Stresses. London: Croom Helm, 1978. McCarthy, Rebecca Lea. Origins of the Magdalene Laundries: An Analytical History. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2010. McClintock, Anne. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. London: Routledge, 1995. McMahon, Deirdre, and Janet Myers (eds). The Objects and Textures of Everyday Life in Imperial Britain. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2016. McMahon, Dierdre. ‘Tea, gender and middle-class taste’. In McMahon, Dierdre, and Janet Myers (eds), The Objects and Textures of Everyday Life in Imperial Britain. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2016. Merriman, Nick (ed.). The Peopling of London: Fifteen Thousand Years of Settlement from Overseas. London: Museum of London, 1993. Merriman, Nick, and Rozina Visram. ‘The world in a city’. In Merriman, Nick (ed.), The Peopling of London: Fifteen Thousand Years of Settlement from Overseas. London: Museum of London, 1993. Milan, Sarah. ‘Refracting the gasolier: Understanding Victorian responses to domestic gas lighting’. In Bryden, Inga, and Janet Floyd (eds), Domestic Space: Reading the Nineteenth-Century Interior. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Miller, Daniel, and Zuzana Burikova. Au Pair. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010. Milne-Smith, Amy. London Clubland: A Cultural History of Gender and Class in Late-Victorian Britain New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Mitsi, Efterpi. ‘Private rituals and public selves: The Turkish bath in women’s travel writing’. In Reus, Teresa, and Aranzazu Usandizaga (eds), Inside Out: Women Negotiating, Subverting, Appropriating Public and Private Space. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008. Monroe, J. Star of India: The Spicy Adventures of Curry. London: Wiley, 2005. Moring, Beatrice. ‘Migration, servanthood and assimilation in a new environment’. In Fauve-Chamoux, Antoinette, and Rafaella Sarti (eds), Domestic Service and the Formation of European Identity: Understanding the Globalization of Domestic Work 16th–21st Centuries. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004. Morris, Helen Soutar. Portrait of a Chef: The Life of Alexis Soyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Moxham, Roy. Tea: Addiction, Exploitation and Empire. London: Constable, 2003. Moya, Jose. ‘Domestic service in a global perspective: Gender, migration, and ethnic niches’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33 (4), 2007, 559–579. Munich, Adrienne Auslander. ‘Queen Victoria, empire, and excess’. Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 6 (2), 1987, 265–281. Mussell, Jim. ‘Teaching nineteenth-century periodicals using digital resources: Myths and methods’. Victorian Periodicals Review, 45 (2), 2012, 201–209. Muthesius, Hermann. Das Englische Haus. Transl. from the 1904/05 original by Dennis Sharpe. London: Frances Lincoln, 2007. Myers, Norma. Reconstructing the Black Past: Blacks in Britain, c.1780–1830. London and Portland: Frank Cass, 1996. Nataratajan, Nalini, and Emmanuel Sampath Nelson (eds). Handbook of TwentiethCentury Literatures of India. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996. Naylor, Simon. ‘Spacing the can: Empire, modernity, and the globalisation of food’. Environment and Planning A 32 (9), 2000, 1625–1639. Neiswander, Judith. The Cosmopolitan Interior: Liberalism and the British Home, 1870 – 1914. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Nevile, Pran. Sahibs’ India: Vignettes from the Raj. New Delhi: Penguin, 2010. Nicholson, Shirley. A Victorian Household: Based on the Diaries of Marion Sambourne. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1988. Nicholson, Shirley. An Edwardian Bachelor: Roy Sambourne, 1878–1946. London: Victorian Society, 1999. Nippert-Eng, Christena. Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Nye, David E. Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880–1940. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992. Oddy, D., and L. Petráňová (eds). The Diffusion of Food Culture in Europe from the Late Eighteenth Century to the Present Day. Prague: Academia, 2003. Ogborn, Miles. ‘Knowledge is power: Using archival research to interpret state formation’. In Blunt, Alison, Pyrs Gruffudd, JonMay, MilesOgborn, and David Pinder (eds), Cultural Geography in Practice. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004. Ogborn, Miles. ‘Finding historical sources’. In Clifford, Nicholas, Shaun French, and Gill Valentine (eds), Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE, 2010. Otter, C. ‘Cleansing and clarifying: Technology and perception in nineteenth-century London’. Journal of British Studies 43, 2004, 40–64. Owens, Alastair, and David Green. ‘Gentlewomanly capitalism? Spinsters, widows, and wealth holding in England and Wales, c.1800–1860’. Economic History Review 56 (3), 2003, 510–536. Panayi, P. ‘The immigrant impact upon London’s food since c.1850’. In Aitkens, P. J., et al. (eds), Food and the City in Europe Since 1800. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Pandey, Gyanendra (ed.). Subalternity and Difference: Investigations from the North and the South. Abingdon: Routledge, 2011. Parasecoli, Fabio. ‘A cultural history of food in the Age of Empire (1800–1900)’. In Parasecoli, Fabio, and Peter Scholliers (eds), A Cultural History of Food. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2012. Parasecoli, Fabio, and Peter Scholliers (eds). A Cultural History of Food. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2012. Parkhurst Ferguson, Priscilla. Accounting for Taste: The Triumph of French Cuisine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Pellegrino Sutcliffe, Marcella. ‘Marketing Garibaldi panoramas in Britain (1860–64)’. Journal of Modern Italian Studies 18 (2), 2013, 232–243. Pennell, Sarah. ‘Material culture, micro-histories, and the problem of scale’. In Harvey, Karen (ed.), History and Material Culture: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. Percy, Carol. ‘Consumers of correctness: Men, women, and language in eighteenthcentury classified advertisements’. In Kay, Christian, Simon Horobin, and Jeremy Smith (eds), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics: Selected Papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002. Volume I: Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002, 153–176. Peterson, M. Jeanne. ‘The Victorian governess: Status incongruence in family and society’. Victorian Studies 14 (1), 1970, 7–26. Peterson, M. Jeanne. ‘No angels in the house: The Victorian myth and the Paget women’. American Historical Review 89 (3), 1984, 677–708. Pittard, Christopher. Purity and Contamination in Late Victorian Detective Fiction. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011. Pittock, Murray. Celtic Identity and the British Image. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Ponsonby, Margaret. ‘Ideals, reality and meaning: Homemaking in England in the first half of the nineteenth century’. Journal of Design History 16 (3), 2003, 201–214. Pooley, Siân. ‘Parenthood, child-rearing, and fertility in England, 1850–1914’. History of the Family 18 (1), 2013, 83–106. Poovey, Mary. Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Porter, Bernard. The Absent-Minded Imperialists. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Powell, Margaret. Below Stairs: The Bestselling Memoirs of a 1920s Kitchen Maid. London: Pan, 1968. Powell, Margaret. Climbing the Stairs: From Kitchen Maid to Cook; the Heartwarming Memoir of a Life in Service. London: Pan, 1969. Prasch, Thomas. ‘Eating the world: London in 1851’. Victorian Literature and Culture 36 (2), 2008, 587–602. Preston, Rebecca. ‘“The scenery of the torrid zone”: Imagined travels and the culture of exotics in nineteenth-century British gardens’. In Driver, Felix, and David Gilbert (eds), Imperial Cities: Landscape, Display and Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. Preston, Rebecca. ‘Reading between the lines: Correspondence and illustrated advice from readers in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century gardening magazines’. Geffrye Museum of the Home, London, 2013. Procida, Mary A. Married to the Empire: Gender, Politics and Imperialism in India, 1883–1947. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002. Pustz, Jennifer. Voices from the Back Stairs: Interpreting Servants’ Lives at Historic House Museums. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2010. Ramamurthy, Anandi. Imperial Persuaders: Images of Africa and Asia in British Advertising. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. Rappaport, Erika. ‘“The halls of temptation”: Gender, politics, and the construction of the department store in late Victorian London’. Journal of British Studies 35 (1), 1996, 58–83. Rappaport, Erika. ‘Packaging China: Foreign articles and dangerous tastes in the mid-Victorian tea party’. In Trentmann, F. (ed.), The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, Power and Identity in the Modern World. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2006. Rappaport, Erika. ‘Imperial possessions, cultural histories, and the material turn: Response’. Victorian Studies 50 (2), 2008, 289–296. Reus, Teresa, and Aranzazu Usandizaga (eds). Inside Out: Women Negotiating, Subverting, Appropriating Public and Private Space. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008. Rich, Rachel. Bourgeois Consumption: Food, space and identity in London and Paris, 1850–1914. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011. Rich, Rachel. ‘Cookbook writers and recipe readers: Georgiana Hill, Isabella Beeton and Victorian domesticity’. Journal of Victorian Culture 25 (3), 2020, 408–423. Richards, Thomas. The Commodity Culture of Victorian England: Advertising and Spectacle, 1851–1914. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991. Riello, Giorgio. ‘Things that shape history: Material culture and historical narratives’. In Harvey, Karen (ed.), History and Material Culture: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources. Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. Ritchie, Donald. The Oxford Handbook of Oral History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Roberts, David. ‘The paterfamilias of the Victorian governing classes’. In Wohl, Anthony S. (ed.), The Victorian Family: Structures and Stresses. London: Croom Helm, 1978. Ross, Ellen. ‘Survival networks: Women’s neighbourhood sharing in London before World War I’. History Workshop Journal 15 (1), 1983, 4–28. Ryan, Deborah Sugg. The Ideal Home through the Twentieth Century. London: Hazar, 1997. Rybczynski, Witold. Home: A Short History of an Idea. New York: Penguin Books, 1987. Sambrook, Pamela. Laundry Bygones. Oxford: Shire, 1983. Samuel, Raphael. ‘Mrs Thatcher’s return to Victorian values’. Proceedings of the British Academy, 18, 1992, 9–29. Sassen, Saskia. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. Tastes of Paradise: A Social History of Spices, Stimulants, and Intoxicants. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992. Schlegel, Katharina. ‘Mistress and servant in nineteenth-century Hamburg: Employer/employee relationships in domestic service, 1880–1914’. History Workshop Journal 15 (1), 1983, 60–77. Schneer, Jonathan. London 1900: The Imperial Metropolis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Schwartz, Laura. ‘“What we feel is needed is a union for domestics such as the miners have”: The Domestic Workers’ Union of Great Britain and Ireland 1908–1914’. Twentieth-Century British History 25 (2), 2013, 173–192. Shakespeare, William. As You Like It (1599), in Bate, Jonathan, and Eric Rasmussen, The RSC Shakespeare: The Complete Works. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Shire, L. M. (ed.). Rewriting the Victorian: Theory, History and the Politics of Gender. New York: Routledge, 1992. Shuttleworth, S. ‘Demonic mothers: Ideologies of bourgeois motherhood in the midVictorian era’. In Shire, L. M. (ed.), Rewriting the Victorian: Theory, History and the Politics of Gender. New York: Routledge, 1992. Siddiqi, Yumna. ‘The cesspool of empire: Sherlock Holmes and the return of the repressed’. Victorian Literature and Culture 4 (1), 2006, 233–247. Siegel, Kristi. Gender, Genre, and Identity in Women’s Travel Writing. New York: Lang, 2004. Smithies, James. ‘Return migration and the mechanical age: Samuel Butler in New Zealand 1860–1864’. Journal of Victorian Culture 12 (2), 2007, 203–224. Sofaer, Joanna (ed.). Material Identities. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Sparke, Penny. Electrical Appliances. London: HarperCollins, 1987. Sponza, Lucio. ‘Italian “penny ice-men” in Victoria London’. In Kershen, Anne (ed.), Food in the Migrant Experience Studies in Migration and Diaspora. London: Ashgate, 2002. Stoler, Ann Laura. ‘A sentimental education: Native servants and the cultivation of children in the Netherlands Indies’. In Sears, Laurie Jo (ed.), Fantasizing the Feminine in Indonesia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996. Stoler, Ann Laura. ‘Carnal knowledge and imperial power: Gender, race, and morality in colonial Asia’. In Di Leonardo, Micaela (ed.), Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Strang, Jillian, and Joyce Toomre. ‘Alexis Soyer and the Irish Famine: “Splendid promises and abortive measures”’. In Gribben, Arthur (ed.), The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. Strange, Carolyn. ‘Reconsidering the “tragic” Scott expedition: Cheerful masculine home-making in Antarctica, 1910–1913’. Journal of Social History 46 (1), 2012, 66–88. Strasser, Susan. Never Done: A History of American Housework. New York: Pantheon Books, 1982. Suarez, Andrew V., and Niel D. Tsutsui. ‘The value of museum collections for research and society’. BioScience 54 (1), 2004, 66–74. Sutcliffe, Anthony. London: An Architectural History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Sutherland, Daniel E. Americans and Their Servants: Domestic Service in the United States from 1800 to 1920. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1981. Swafford, Kevin. Class in Late-Victorian Britain: The Narrative Concern with Social Heirarchy and its Representation. New York: Cambria, 2007. Tabili, Laura. ‘A homogenous society? Britain’s internal ‘others’, 1800–present’. In Hall, Catherine, and Sonya O. Rose (eds), At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Taylor, Helen. Refugees and the Meaning of Home: Cypriot Narratives of Loss, Longing, and Daily Life in London. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Theophano, Janet. Eat my Words: Reading Women’s Lives through the Cookbooks they Wrote. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002. Thomas, Nicola. ‘Exploring the boundaries of biography: The family and friendship networks of Lady Curzon, Vicereine of India 1898–1905’. Journal of Historical Geography 30 (3), 2004, 496–519. Thomas, Nicola. ‘Embodying imperial spectacle: Dressing Lady Curzon, Vicereine of India 1899–1905’. Cultural Geographies 14 (3), 2007, 369–400. Thompson, Andrew S. The Empire Strikes Back? The Impact of Imperialism on Britain from the Mid-nineteenth Century. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2005. Thompson, Francis Michael Longstreth. The Rise of Respectable Society: A Social History of Victorian Britain, 1830–1900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Thompson, Paul. The Edwardians: The Remaking of British Society. London: Routledge, 1975. Thrift, Nigel. Spatial Formations. London: SAGE, 1996. Tosh, John. ‘Imperial masculinity and the flight from domesticity in Britain 1880–1914’. In Foley, Timothy P., Lionel Pilkington, Seán Ryder, and Elizabeth Tilley (eds), Gender and Colonialism. Galway: Galway University Press, 1995. Tosh, John. A Man’s Place: Masculinity and the Middle-class Home in Victorian England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999. Tosh, John. Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family and Empire. Harlow: Pearson, 2005. Trentmann, Frank (ed.). The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, Power and Identity in the Modern World. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2006. Trentman, Frank, and Vanessa Taylor. ‘From users to consumers: Water politics in nineteenth-century London’. In Trentmann, Frank (ed.), The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, Power and Identity in the Modern World. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2006. Trubek, Amy. Haute Cuisine: How the French Invented the Culinary Profession. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000. Tschumi, Gabriel, and Joan Powe. Royal Chef: Forty Years with Royal Households. London: William Kimber, 1954. Turner, Tom William. Memoirs of a Gamekeeper. Hay-on-Wye: Bles, 1954. Vall, Nell Du. Domestic Technology: A Chronology of Developments. New York: G. K. Hall & Co., 1988. Vanek, Joann. ‘Time spent in housework’. Scientific American 5 (231), 1974, 116–120. Vestbro, Dick Urban. ‘From central kitchen to community co-operation: Development of collective housing in Sweden’. Open House International 17 (2), 1992, 30–38. Vicinus, Martha (ed.). A Widening Sphere: Changing Roles of Victorian Women. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1977. Vickery, Amanda. ‘Golden Age to separate spheres? A review of the categories and chronology of English women’s history’. The Historical Journal 36 (2), 1993, 383–414. Visram, Rozina. Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: Indians in Britain 1700–1947. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1986. Visram, Rozina. ‘South Asians in London’. In Merriman, Nick (ed.), The Peopling of London: Fifteen Thousand Years of Settlement from Overseas. London: Museum of London, 1993. Visram, Rozina. Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History. London: Pluto Press, 2002. Wahrman, Dror. Imagining the Middle Class: The Political Representation of Class in Britain, c.1780–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Wall, Wendy. Staging Domesticity: Household Work and English Identity in Early Modern Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Walter, Bronwen. ‘Irish domestic servants and English national identity’. In FauveChamoux, Antoinette, and Rafaella Sarti (eds), Domestic Service and the Formation of European Identity: Understanding the Globalization of Domestic Work 16th–21st centuries. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004. Walvin, J. Fruits of Empire: Exotic Produce and British Taste, 1660–1800. London: MacMillan, 1997. Ward, David. ‘The Victorian slum: An enduring myth?’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 66 (2), 1976, 323–364. Ward, Paul. Britishness Since 1870. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. Warrington, Molly. ‘“I must get out”: The geographies of domestic violence’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26 (3), 2001, 365–382. Waters, Michael. The Garden in Victorian Literature. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1988. Webster, Wendy. Imagining Home: Gender, “Race” and National Identity, 1945–64. London: University College London Press, 1998. Weightman, Gavin, and Steve Humphries. The Making of Modern London, 1914–1939. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1984. White, C. The World of the Nursery. London: Herbert Press, 1984. White, John. The Invention of the Secondary Curriculum. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011. Wilson, A. N. The Victorians. London: Hutchinson, 2002. Wise, Sarah. The Blackest Streets: The Life and Death of a Victorian Slum. London: Random House, 2009. Wohl, Anthony. The Eternal Slum: Housing and Social Policy in Victorian London. London: Edward Arnold, 1977. Wohl, Anthony (ed.). The Victorian Family: Structure and Stresses. London: Croom Helm, 1978. Wohl, Anthony. Endangered Lives: Public Health in Victorian Britain. London: Methuen, 1983. Wollons, R. (ed). Kindergarten and Cultures: The Global Diffusion. New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Woodhead, Lindy. Shopping, Seduction, and Mr Selfridge. London: Random House, 2007. Woods, Philip, Martin Ashley, and Glenys Woods. ‘Steiner schools in England’. Research Report No. 645, University of the West of England, 2005. Available online: www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Ashley/publication/228879140_Steiner _schools_in_England/links/549149b20cf2d1800d87da81.pdf. Woollard, Matthew. ‘The classification of domestic servants in England and Wales, 1851–1951’. University of Essex, 2002. Available online: http://privatewww.essex.ac. uk/~matthew/Papers/Woollard_ClassificationofDomesticServants.pdf. Wright, Lawrence. Clean and Decent: The Fascinating History of the Bathroom and WC. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960. Young, PFK. ‘The cooking animal: Economic Man at the Great Exhibition’. Victorian Literature and Culture 36 (2), 2008, 569–586. Zlotnick, Susan. ‘Domesticating imperialism: Curry and cookbooks in Victorian England’. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 16 (2/3), 1996, 51–68. Online sources ‘18 Stafford Terrace: About us’. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.rbkc.gov.uk/subsites/museums/18staffordterrace/aboutus.aspx. ‘Alessandro Filipinni’. Cook’s Info. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.cooksinfo.com/alessa ndro-filippini. Bird, Peter. ‘Fullers Cakes Ltd’, 2002. www.kzwp.com/lyons2/fullers.htm. Accessed 26 July 2020. Emery Walker Trust. Accessed 26 July 2020. http://emerywalker.org.uk/the-trust/. ‘Family life and work experience before 1918, 1870–1973’. UK Data Service. Accessed 26 July 2020. http://ukdataservice.ac.uk/use-data/guides/dataset/family-life. Heritage, Stuart. ‘How dare anyone criticise British food? Indigestible dinners made this country great’. The Guardian, 2 September 2014. Accessed 26 July 2020. www. theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2014/sep/02/criticise-british-food-us-am bassador-matthew-barzun. ‘History’, Geffrye Museum. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.geffrye-museum.org.uk/a boutus/history/. ‘Holdings of the Magdalen Hospital Trust’. The National Archives. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=088-iv73&cid=-1#-1. ‘Home page’, History Of Advertising Trust. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.hatads. org.uk/. The Household Books Project, volume 4 (Elizabeth Driver) and volume 5 (Dena Attar). Accessed 26 July 2020. http://householdbooks.ucdavis.edu. ‘The human world: The arts and humanities in our times (2013–2018)’. Arts and Humanities Research Council, March 2013. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.ahrc.ac. uk/News-and-Events/News/Documents/AHRC-Strategy-2013-18.pdf. Humphreys, L. (ed.). ‘Research on display: A guide to collaborative exhibitions for academics’. Queen Mary University of London, 2015. Accessed 21 February 2016. www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/docs/staff/147183.pdf. Population Statistics, University of Portsmouth. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.vision ofbritain.org.uk. Response from the Museums Association to the AHRC Strategy for Supporting and Sustaining Hugh Quality Research in the UK’s Museums, Galleries, Libraries and Archives. Museums Association, March 2006. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.museum sassociation.org/publications/12199. Steel, Patrick. ‘Collections damaged in Cuming Museum fire’. Museums Journal News, 26 March 2013. Accessed 26 July 2020. www.museumsassociation.org/m useums-journal/news/26032013-collections-damaged-cuming-museum-fire. Film and television Downton Abbey. ITV, 2010–2015. Television. Gosford Park. Dir. Robert Altman, Universal. 2001. Film. Remains of the Day. Dir. James Ivory. Merchant Ivory Productions. 1993. Film. Upstairs, Downstairs. ITV, 1971–1975. Television. Upstairs Downstairs (remake). ITV, 2010–2012. Television.