Talk:Butler/Draft

[[User:Roger Lohmann 19:55, 16 August 2007 (CDT)|Roger Lohmann 19:55, 16 August 2007 (CDT)]] has nominated the version dated 19:55, 16 August 2007 (CDT) of this article for approval. One other editor currently supports the approval ([[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]]). The Sociology Workgroup is overseeing this approval. Unless this notice is removed, the article will be approved on 2007-08-18.

Article Checklist for "Butler/Draft"

Workgroup category or categories	Sociology Workgroup, Anthropology Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	John Stephenson 05:15, 13 August 2007 (CDT) Aleta Curry 23:55, 24 July 2007 (CDT) Aleta Curry 18:04, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

WP Author notice

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	In lieu of WP notice: I wrote the original for WP between January and March 2005, and edited through 2006. There was very little imput from others, and so I am not ticking the WP box. The reference to the story of Joseph was not part of my original draft, but since it's biblical I feel no qualms about including it, and in any case I have expanded upon the idea and included the chapter. I intend to maintain this article. Aleta Curry 18:07, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

Re References

I don't know how to format the citations, so I just typed in numbers by hand. If anyone can fix this before I figure it out, please do. Aleta Curry 18:08, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Done ;-) --Kjetil Ree 20:07, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Aleta, download http://sunnybar.dynip.com/pub/wikicite.exe and cite away with ease.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:21, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Images

• To use this ask these folks by mail.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:32, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

It is remarkable, and perhaps a commentary, that I have been unable after several hours of searching to find photos of modern butlers in action. I've gotten desperate and posted a message to a butler message board requesting such photos. Keeping my fingers crossed.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:18, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Obviously I found an lede image, but I think better is possible.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:17, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Joseph

The story of Joseph in the biblical book of Genesis contains an early reference to those in the role of butlers and stewards. Joseph, sold as a slave in Egypt, rises to become the head of Potiphar’s household staff, his chief steward, while the Pharaoh’s servant whose dream Joseph interprets has been translated into English as the chief butler.

Even after I weakened this, this still seems like it is reading too much into the fact that, among the literal scores of English Bible translations, just one uses dynamic equivalence to translate the Hebrew word as "butler". It seems the much stronger point would be to state that the role of chief household servant has existed across many cultures since recorded history, and give various examples, including in Egypt as depicted by the image I added to the article.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:01, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, first, not sure I understand--are you interpreting this as an attempt to prove that the English word "butler" has existed since the time of the pharaohs? I had no such intent. It's just a famous story that illustrates that such manservants were known in those times. And it's not just one--I had a quick look and the much-used Revised Standard Version uses "butler" and "chief butler" as well, as does the poetic language of the King James Version. Not sure of your use of "dynamic equivalence"--Bible translators try to use words that have currency. The only point I was making was that the position of butler--with its attending responsibilities has evolved out of duties that have existed for centuries.

Whether they were called, specifically, "wine steward", "cupbearer", "steward", or "butler" makes no difference. The point is that it is an ancient position. I can try to make this clearer.

Aleta Curry 18:04, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Go for it. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:06, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

An issue is with the use of "steward". The text tries to connect בית (bayith) with the English word "steward", but בית (bayith) is not translated as such, at least not in any of the 20 or so English Bible translations I have consulted, which includes all of the major ones. The text says "'Steward' came to mean the person in overall charge of the estate; he managed household accounts and collected estate rents", but this seems very shaky. When did this happen? In the Roman Empire, for example, it already held that connotation. I've simply removed that quote from the article for now. It does seem to read fine without it.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:25, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Explaining certain text removals

I removed the emboldened part of the footnote:

18th Century housekeepers made extra money by giving tours of the great house. See e.g. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. It would appear that at this point in history the housekeeper still outranked the butler. An episode of the television series Upstairs, Downstairs portrays a powerful housekeeper who virtually guarantees a butler position to Angus Hudson, should he decide to accept it.

Explanation: I do not think we can accurately infer and generalize a ranking of butlers at this point in their history from Pride and Prejudice. We'd need much firmer support. Citing Upstairs, Downstairs is a bad idea on its face, except in an article about the show.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:48, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

British English

Aleta began this in British English, and given its topic it is most fitting for it to remain as such. I have tried to write in that vein--I have been better at it in the past but am rusty. Would someone versed please go over this American's additions to this?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 04:01, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

DONE (I think, subject to some simultaneous editing).--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:07, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! You can tell I gave up even trying some way through. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:17, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

No problem. I didn't deal with references though: what is that mess at the beginning of Ref 12? --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:44, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

<<CHUCKLE>> - That mess is cleaned up.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:07, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I'm basically done

Like the heading says.

Left to do is:

• Copyediting
• Going over the Intro - that's always best when gone over last of all
• A bibliography of relevant books
• Creating Catalog of butlers and valets to replace all the "lists" info I removed
• I also plan to create a brief article for Robert Roberts, the African American butler I added info about
• Tidying a few things here and there
• Formatting all of the references properly
• Bolstering two of the image upload pages
• Critiquing of the material I added (or removed)!

This has been a learning experience for me about this topic. I never intended to write much about it but, for whatever reasons, got caught in.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 04:35, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, my! Where to start???

Your recent additions and deletions are certainly making me stretch my brain. Some of your changes are excellent, Stephen; a lot are good points of departure for other articles but probably don't belong here. I am less convinced by others. In general, I'm concerned about adding a sentence or two about this or that without context.

• You've had a tendency to toss in names of those you've quoted without identifying them. Sure, I know who Ferry and Puckrein are, but will the casual reader? And why Ferry, out of a score of butlers-turned-entrepreneurs? Or, why not Ferry--he actually takes the "service" attitude quite seriously, and the niche he created was in non-residential butlers, which is what I wanted to mention. I'm not sure I get this out of the present text.
• Slaves--well, if we're going to open this can of worms, we have to do it convincingly. This now reads like 21st Century perception based on a 19th Century institution, which will not do if we're talking about ancient slaves. "Uneducated"? I don't think so--the ancient world had a much more fluid understanding about slaves, slaves were acquired in all sorts of ways and came from what we would call differing classes, and they would have had to had skills commensurate with their responsibility. In some countries male slaves could have been quite well-educated compared to other sectors of society, in the same way that black workers under apartheid had to be increasingly better educated. I'd rather be a slave to a clement Roman or African master than an inclement 18-19th Century Russian or American one.
• African-American butler sits like a non-sequitur, quite out of time sequence. Why single out a) American b) black--there's a lot to be said about immigrant service in general, particularly European indentured servitude. We could write a whole "History of American Domestic Service".
• We now have a paragraph that gives lip service to gender issues but doesn't quote or refer to any specific women. Doesn't work for me as a concept.
• I think you're making a mountain out of an Egyptian molehill with Joseph. Mention in passing and leave it alone. More on bible translations later.
• Sorry, we have to lose the picture of Jeeves. I intend to write valet; let's put it there.

I'll start with these

Aleta Curry 18:34, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Aleta, some of the changes you are making are contradicted by the varied literature I used to write what I did.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:59, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Specifically, we must differentiate between household butlers during the Medieval era and the position "butler" as a member of the royal courts. Numerous sources, including EB, make a clear distinction here. The latter was a powerful governmental official who only nominally had charge of the wine, while it was the primary duty of houesehold butlers.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:37, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Must we? Why? This is an article about household butlers not e.g. Butlerage and Prisage. If you're talking about all those titles like "Chief Candlestick in Waiting" and Equerry this, that and the other and various "D'Honneur" and "Master of the Horse...Hounds..blah blah" we'll be here for ever. That's another article.

But in any case, it's moot now because I think the wording you have there now is fine. Really! :)

Aleta Curry 01:15, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

It's an article about "Butler". I included one sentence differentiating the Medieval era household butler with his counterpart who enjoyed substantial governmental power as a member of Crown administration, with only nominal care over wine stores.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:51, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Also, שקה (shaqah) is not a title. It was a description of the dutied carried out by the Egyptian butler.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:07, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not arguing the word, just the clumsiness of the present sentence. I'm asking what is it? A noun? An adjective? A position? Just the description of duties is not "a" shaqah. Do you mean the man who was the shaqah or the man who performed the shaquah? We can't write "Pharaoh's "to give to drink". this is not a big deal, it just needs a light c.e. and I can't think of a good phrasing just at the mo.

Aleta Curry 01:15, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Wording simply cannot be altered for readability when it changes the meaning. It is simply erroneous to imply that שקה (shaqah) was a Hebrew translation of a term for an Egyptian title; it merely described, the main duty of the person. I have crafted wording so it does not imply this.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:51, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Jeeves - I can find no other picture that depicts the fictional butler in a humorous way.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:34, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Jeeves is a valet. And we have to have a picture that depicts a butler in a humourous way because why? Leave it if you wish, but I don't see why it's necessary. Aleta Curry 18:11, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Large households

I think this is wrong, saying that butlers are senior servants in "large households". I stayed in Al Capp's NYC apartment in the early 1960s, for instance, and he had a butler. But absolutely no other servants. He had a cooking-serving lady at his Cambridge home but the NYC butler never had anything to do with the Cambridge establishment. So I think this opening sentence should be modified. ...said Hayford Peirce (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Was it a butler, a houseman, a housekeeper or a valet? Which was his primary residence? I doubt you'd have any butler today calling himself a "junior servant", whether or not he had direct supervisory authority. Still, the word has fluid enough usage and I take your point. It depends on what era and nowadays to a large extent on perspective. I will modify accordingly. Aleta Curry 18:40, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Already appropriately fixed. Aleta Curry 18:42, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Image mix-up

There's an image mix-up. The article has one pic from the Ferry source, but if you click on it, you get the former picture.... Hayford Peirce 17:42, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

You just gotta clear you cache. Hit CTL F5 on the image page.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:10, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Need clarification from an American historian

Does the Edwardian Age in England correspond best with the Guilded Age or the Progressive Age in the U.S.? Aleta Curry 18:45, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Progressive, more or less. Hayford Peirce 19:08, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

European, too.

"The class system was at its most inflexible" during the Edwardian period? "From the Georgian era through the nineteenth century, societal changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution led to increased stratification and a deepening of class division"? Aleta, where are you getting this from. It is just erroneous. Stratification was worse then during Feudalism?? Hardly. I have simply reverted this material for now. Let's look at sources carefully and see, will do that later tonight.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:17, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I think it is unwise to talk about stratification in the transition from feudalism to capitalism: our knowledge is impressionistic and without real measurements. In the UK, industrialisation created the new cities in order to house factory workers who had previously been starving peasants, and was thus an improvement in quality of life for them. On the other hand, their living and working conditions were bad, and capitalism allowed upward class mobility as it was the bourgeoisie who set up factories and not the aristocracy. How to characterise this complex change? Don't try!--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:34, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Precisely.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 10:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I appreciate and agree with Martin's comments above, but I'm talking about the modern class system. It is simply not true to say that the butler became a senior male servant during the 19th Century. That had happened during the Georgian period. I have never in all my chequered career had anyone argue that the English industrial revolution didn’t lead to great societal changes, or that new social classes did not develop. Of course they did. How is that not stratification?

Beginning with the agricultural revolution in the 1700s (and philosophers would probably argue earlier, for various reasons) then changes in manufacturing and industry—mills, factories, rapidly increasing population, rapid growth in and of cities—you had a completely new working class, and an increasingly diverse and powerful middle class—these are givens; I’m not making it up as I go along. I cannot believe you’re actually asking me to debate or prove this. Are you suggesting that all these classes and conditions suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the Victorian period? Because that's what the text says now. They had to develop by some impetus.

What is the problem with saying that the social system--in the sense that we're talking about--the modern era--was at its most rigid during the Edwardian era? Or that World War I and its aftermath would change that? It was, and it did.

Now, historians debate time and extent of changes, and chicken-or-egg type questions, and I’m happy to engage in those, but I’m not about to prove that the world is round, even if I could (my History of Europe is packed up with everything else, or I would hit you over the head with it). Even a cursory glance at the ‘Net shows many sites with references to the development of social classes following industrialisation. The conditions that Dickens and Hugo deplored didn't just materialize overnight. Really, I do not understand what the problem is.

Aleta Curry 17:49, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

You could get around this problem by talking about massive social inequalities, rather than using specific words like stratification and class. The feudal period was probably more stratified than the capitalist one, although you could not easily use the word class for peasantry.

I suppose the rigidity of the Edwardian period that you mention is that, after the great changes of the Victorian period there was the beginning of economic decline alongside established structures. So the new rich held onto their status and wealth very strongly; but, this was also the period of the development of the primitive early welfare state and the socialist movement... Better to avoid simple descriptions with all of these things, I think, Aleta. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:43, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Parlour

I am not convinced that you can susbtitute ground for parlour. In my understanding of the word, as it was used here, it meant the common living areas of the household [e.g. drawing room, dining room ] as opposed to the personal living quarters [such as bedrooms and bathrooms]. Maybe the parlour was located on the ground, maybe not! Is it so wrong to leave an historical word when recounting history?--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:34, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it's wrong when no one, including a reasonably educated anglophile like me, can understand what it means. At least not in a 2007 encyclopedia for the general reader. When I was a kid in Maine, living in big old houses, and then much later in San Francisco, in big old apartments (dating from the 1890s), the word "parlor" clearly meant a *second living room*, generally right next to the first one, with, often, a big archway connecting them.Hayford Peirce 23:25, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

After writing the above I decided that maybe I had been a little too curmugeonly without backing up my assertions. So I looked in the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, a pretty standard reference. On page 902 they give definitions for parlor, parlor car, parlor game, parlor grand, and parlour. No mention of parlor floor. On page 1317 of the well-received American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language of about 15 years ago we have parlor, parlor car, parlor game, parlor grand, and parlour. No mention of parlor floor. Then I consulted the majesterial Merriam-Webster Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged. On page 1779 we have parlor, parlour, parlor boarder, parlor car, parlor ivy, parlor maid (which I think I used to see a lot of in old Agatha Christie stories), parlor match, parlor moss, and parlor palm. No mention of parlor floor. Here are two suggestions:

• We call it the "main floor" or "principal floor".
• You research it a little and then you write: "...and sometimes what was occasionally called the 'parlor floor', <ref: Victoria Saxville-Fogie, "Memoirs of Celebrated Victorian Butlers", page 245 ref>

Hayford Peirce 11:15, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I had already checked some standard references when I made that comment, thus concluding that "parlour floor" was not a common term. My suggestion is to leave it as parlour floor and put a footnote, explaining what we think it means -- i.e. the main floor used by all the household.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:10, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Sure, that would work. But can you cite at least one reference giving, more or less, that meaning? Hayford Peirce 14:41, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Martin is exactly right. Emily Post described the "parlour floor" in her detailed descriptions of the workings of servants in great houses. She was, of course, American, so presumably at the turn of the Century, the sort of people who read etiquette books would know what she was talking about.

It appears to me that the location of parlour, sitting room, library etc. was all variable. As Martin says, Mrs Post would have been distinguishing between main living spaces and personal quarters. One cannot say "ground floor" because these rooms might not have been located there.

Aleta Curry 17:59, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I am so happy that my inspired guess was correct. Thank you, Aleta! The question is, whether to leave it as "main floor" [as Stephen has amended it] or some more complex explanation, along the lines that Aleta has furnished. We need to approve the article tomorrow, so it would be good to do it quickly. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:13, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Hayford, I can't find any reference to Memoirs of Celebrated Victorian Butlers, where did you find out about that publication?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:03, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm afraid that my tongue was pretty much in my cheek on that one -- I was just trying to provide an example of what I thought should be done. Hayford Peirce 14:41, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Ah, I see. My jaw was dropping at the notion of such a book, because my research turned up that such memoirs just don't really exist, for obvious reasons of the confidential nature of the position, and because, well, they were working so their boss has leisure time to do the writing.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

What the Butler Saw

Surely no lengthy discussion of butlering would be complete without at least a mention of What the Butler Saw? Hayford Peirce 11:17, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

What did he see? :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:00, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I dunno, but it was a well-known early semi-soft core peepshow attraction, I believe. The phrase entered the language for a while. And there was, I believe, a Broadway show of that name a while ago. Hayford Peirce 14:41, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Version for approval

I hope that we will be approving the current version, which is so much better than the older ones. What is the procedure for doing so? --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:14, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Sidenotes

Any thoughts on the placement of material in like that, rather than trying to work it into the article?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:16, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, it might be nice to say something brief about the design of the house: what a parlour was, etc. and place it in a sidebar.

This may not be so easy, we need references. Did anyone look on Wp? --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:43, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I mean the sidenotes about Butlers in Early America and Butlers in Art, the material boxed off and to the side.  :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:57, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I prefer it; much less disrupting to the narrative flow. Aleta Curry 18:00, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh yes, these are excellent! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Butler's pantry

A phrase sometimes seen and heard (it seems to be making a comeback in kitchen remodeling) is "butler's pantry". It's hard to do a Google for this because of a couple of commercial sites called that but I wonder if it should be mentioned. For instance, a real estate agent may tell you that "this house has a fabulous kitchen, including a butler's pantry." Hayford Peirce 15:42, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Real Estate agents don't always know what they're talking about. A butler's panty is properly a service room near the kitchen and dining room. Butlers used to have their own room(s) in the biggest houses where they could write their logs, read a paper, do prep--whatever--and the name has stuck. But I have seen real estate ads describing everything from the smallest space that qualifies as a panty, to a true walk-in pantry, as a "butler's pantry". That's not correct. Aleta Curry 18:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Nominating editor': Please check for latest version: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Butler&action=history

Done! (I think. At least I updated the template)

Based on a discussion I read on the Approval Process page, I would request NO CHANGES in this article for the next 36-38 hours. Objections or agreements only. All the principals involved appear to believe that it is finished. If you disagree object here (with reasons). Don't edit, please! Roger Lohmann 20:02, 16 August 2007 (CDT)