Posted by Cassia on August 09, 1997 at 14:17:52:
In reply to Re: the Wealthy don't need occupations. posted by Caroline, the proverbial slacker on August 05, 1997 at 23:01:32
] ] ]Yes, they did that but there was a growing feeling that one needed something to occupy one's time so that one did fall into disspation. It was always understood that one did not take up one's career for a living, rather as a wall through which idleness could not creep. ;-)
] Sounds positively Victorian to me!
Not really, the Victorians would go on about duty and honour . Still when you look at all the novels two of the faults of all of JA's bad boys are early independence and idleness. I think people have always understood that most of us need some sort of superstructure to adhere to or we become fairly useless. So if you were a gentleman you may have engaed a stewart to run your estate but you did something to fill your time. Ladies, of course, had to run those country houses. I can't remember the book but it contained an account of a rich brewers daughter who grew up as her father acquired his fortune, she compared running a house with running a hotel and she thought her mother, who'd acted as hostler go off easy.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.