Weekend Stubble

Plenty of coverage in the London papers this weekend for Liza Picard's latest in her series of London histories, Victorian London. In addition to glimpses into consumer goods -- "did you know that in the mid-1860s a top-of-the-range velocipede, complete with umbrella and sketch desk, would set you back 100 guineas?" -- the book is praised in the Guardian for its attention to everyday needs among householders:

Picard is particularly good on the sort of thing that contemporary chroniclers didn't always think to put in: her chapter on "Practicalities" is fascinating, especially with regard to water and gas supplies, refuse collection, postal services and the like. By the late 1840s, many houses were connected to a primitive water mains, the service being supplied by one of any number of private companies. Water was provided either at basement level or, for a 50% premium, the "high service" allowed it to be pumped to a height of 13 feet, thereby serving a first-floor bathroom. Charles Dickens was one of the few to pay the extra, and his frustration with the service rings clearly down the years: "My supply of water is often absurdly insufficient and ... although I pay the extra service-rate for a Bath Cistern I am usually left on a Monday morning as dry as if there was no New River Company in existence - which I sometimes devoutly wish were the case."

Picard gets not one but two reviews at the Telegraph, including a nod to two varieties of crime that I too have always had a weird fascination with when I come across them in old newspapers:

Crime was a growth industry in Victorian London. Women's hair had a sale value for use in wigs, consequently women were sometimes robbed of their hair by violent muggers. More genteel was the crime of purloining lapdogs: they were lured away from the owner using a bait of meat or a bitch on heat and then returned in answer to the advertisement by the distracted owner, in order to collect the reward.

Each of the reviews -- including one at the Times -- pegs Picard for not advancing any Grand Theory. But her book sounds tempting anyway... and if someone's appetizers are good enough, you don't always need a main course.