---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: 28 May 2002 00:00 -0500
From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
To: Recipients of VICTORIA digests <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: VICTORIA Digest - 26 May 2002 to 27 May 2002 (#2002-147)
There are 34 messages totalling 1102 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Researching costs, 1880s
2. Burial Alive (2)
3. Laboring Class--Celebrations
4. Fw: Laboring Class--Celebrations
5. Prisons and Prisoners
6. Buried Alive and Bloofer (2)
7. references to Paintings (5)
8. Who is "Jane" in Charlotte Perkins Gilman's, "The Yellow Wallpaper"?
9. "dilate" in 1831 (10)
10. FW: Ackroyd's TV series on Dickens
11. FW: Researching costs, 1880s
12. Young Alfred
13. When the Crosses and the Leweses met
14. Time$ of London
15. Anglican (3)
16. "dilate" in 1831 - Beth Sutton- Ramspeck
17. "dilate" in 1831 - Hoblyn/dictionary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 04:46:01 EDT
From: Judith Flanders <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Researching costs, 1880s
I assume you mean in Britain, although you don't specifically say. If that
is the case, try Mrs [J. E.] Panton, From Kitchen to Garret. Hints for Young
Householders (Ward & Downey, London, 1888; 4th ed.), which breaks down costs
for all household expenditure, from furnishing costs to spending on rent,
baker, buther etc. J. H. Walsh's A Manual of Domestic Economy: Suited to
Families Spending from £100 to £1000 a Year was first published in 1857, but
a revised edition was later issued (I don't have the date to hand). Even the
earlier one may be of use: he gives, as well as budgets for different
incomes, 20pp. of costs of furnishings etc.
Best
Judith Flanders
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 03:52:03 -0500
From: Richard Floyd <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Burial Alive
There's a Sherlock Holmes story in which someone is buried alive.
Sherlock saves the day at the 11th hour. For those who don't don't care
if I spoil it for them, scroll down a ways:
"The Adventure of Lady Frances Carfax." It's actually a dreadful story,
as (regrettably )are so many from _The Casebook of Sherlock HOlmes._ I
was interested to read in JOhn Bonono's obituary in _The Economist_ last
week that he was credited with inventing the "double coffin" ruse; it seems
Conan Doyle was ahead of his time.
-------------
Richard Floyd / [log in to unmask]
-------------
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~rdfloyd/index.htm
Department of History
Washington University
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 03:49:28 -0500
From: Irina Negrea <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Laboring Class--Celebrations
Useful information about May Day to be found at:
http://www.planet.net.au/innovations/may96/mayday.html
Best regards,
Irina Negrea
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:12:39 +0100
From: Paul Barlow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fw: Laboring Class--Celebrations
I think the crucial point is that May day is a secular communal celebration.
It was the only major fastival that had not been co-opted by the Christian
church. It was therefore perfect for appropriation by an emerging
secular-socialist culture.
Paul Barlow
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:09:57 +0200
From: neil davie <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Prisons and Prisoners
Hello Carolyn,
Philip Priestley, in his book *Victorian Prison Lives* (London, Pimlico, =
1999, p.20), confirms that the "broad arrow" on prison clothing was the =
mark of the Board of Ordnance, and was originally intended to avoid =
theft of government property by soldiers. Presumably in the case of =
prisoners, the risk of theft of government property was not the prime =
consideration! A rule quoted in a government report of 1810 noted that =
"Offenders shall be clothed in a coarse and uniform apparel, with =
certain obvious marks or badges affixed to the same, as well to =
humiliate the wearer, as to facilitate discovery in the case of escape". =
The broad arrows were one such "mark", but black stripes and bright =
colours (described by one observer as "the most extraordinary garb I =
have ever seen outside a pantomime") were also used.
Best wishes,
Neil Davie
Neil Davie, Universit=E9 Paris 7, Paris, France.
([log in to unmask])
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:17:16 +0100
From: Andrew Mangham <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Buried Alive and Bloofer
Chris Willis wrote:
"Having recently read Jan Bondeson's *Buried Alive,* I'm looking for
examples
of premature burial in Victorian fiction."
Angela Bryant wrote:
"Though it may not exactly fit, the fiance of Lucy Westenra (Mina Harker's
best friend in Dracula) fears she has been the victim of a premature burial
before he discovers she is the baby-eating bloofer lady!"
In Charlotte Mew's short story 'A White Night', a woman is buried alive
under a church altar by way of sacrifice in an obscure Spanish town. It is
witnessed by three English tourists who are horrified. This is not as
relevant, I think, but the chapter in which Lady Audley is placed in a
French asylum (in _Lady Audley's Secret_) is entitled 'Buried Alive'; I
think there is the same suggestion in _The Woman in White_ when Laura is
placed in the asylum and Anne is buried in her grave. You get the impression
that Laura was buried prematurely - especially as she later stands beside
the grave she is meant to be in. A good book on this subject is _Over Her
Dead Body_ by Elisabeth Bronfen.
Regarding 'The Bloofer Lady' of _Dracula_, does anyone know what 'bloofer'
means? I was always puzzled by it and was reminded by Angela's post to ask
the group.
Many Thanks,
Andrew Mangham
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:25:56 +0100
From: Andrew Maunder <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: references to Paintings
I'm wondering if the List can help me identify the following references to
(Pre-Raphaelite) paintings in Trollope's 1855 novel `The Warden'. They come
during a not-very-complimentary discussion of Millais but they may not be
by him of course, or even refer to actual paintings.
Any suggestions much appreciated.
Andrew Maunder
The references are:
A Lucia with her eyes in a dish
A Lorenzo with a gridiron
The virgin with her two children - (this may be `Christ in the House of
his Parents')
The wild ecstasy of St John in the Wilderness
Dr Andrew Maunder
English Literature Group
Faculty of Humanities
University of Hertfordshire
Wall Hall
Aldenham
Watford
Herts WD2 8AT
Tel: +44 (0)1707 285641
Email: [log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 05:57:26 -0500
From: Richard Floyd <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Buried Alive and Bloofer
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Andrew Mangham wrote:
>
> Regarding 'The Bloofer Lady' of _Dracula_, does anyone know what
'bloofer'
> means? I was always puzzled by it and was reminded by Angela's post to
ask
> the group.
>
I thought this was a childish (mis)pronunciation of "beautiful"--but this
could well be wrong.
-------------
Richard Floyd / [log in to unmask]
-------------
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~rdfloyd/index.htm
Department of History
Washington University
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Andrew Mangham wrote:
>
> Regarding 'The Bloofer Lady' of _Dracula_, does anyone know what 'bloofer'
> means? I was always puzzled by it and was reminded by Angela's post to ask
> the group.
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:23:36 +0100
From: Paul Barlow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: references to Paintings
St Lucy ('Lucia') is standardly represented carrying a dish containing her
eyes - put out by her torturers.
St Lawrence ('Lorenzo') was killed by being roasted on a gridiron.
As far as I know neither of these subjects were treated by the PRB. However,
Thackeray, writing a skit about G.F. Watts in Italy, describes an
(imaginary) painting of St. Lawrence by his Watts-like character. And
Millais's 'Eve of St Agnes' was referred to as 'that dreadful woman with the
gridiron' by Sir Francis Grant, the RA president. He was referring to the
pattern of light from the window panes, made on the floor over which she
stands. BAut this was painted after the novel was published! Lorenzo of
'Lorenzo and Isabella' appears in Millais's painting of that title, and in a
drawing by Hunt, but this is a different Lorenzo. The 'virgin with her two
children' seems like a deliberately silly title - as she only had one child
(of course this depends on your theology - but she only had one as a virgin,
anyway.). Obviously it refers to the convention of the 'Madonna and Child
with John the Baptist'. Like the other titles these are standard Renaissance
and Counter-Reformation subjects. It seems to me that these are references
to the allegedly 'revolting' and 'grotesque' topics preferred by Catholic
artists, often ridiculed by British commentators on Continental art, and
with which the PRB were associated. See Dickens's 'Pictures from Italy', for
example. They do not refer to actual PR paintings. Instead, Trollope seems
to be satirising the PRB's alleged love of grotesquerie (as in the awkward,
twisted poses often made fun of by cartoonists) and supposed pro-Catholic,
or at least Tractarian, sympathies - as evidenced in 'Christ in the House of
His Parents', 'Our Lady of Goode Children', 'Ecce Ancilla Domine' etc.
The joke about the virgin's two children may be a dig at the Catholic
doctrine of Mary's eternal virginity. I don't know. The 'St John in the
Wilderness' is odd. 'St Jerome in the Wilderness' is far more common a
subject. It may be another joke about garbled ideas, or nonsense art, or it
may refer to the uncommon subject of John of Patmos.
Paul Barlow
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 13:12:51 +0100
From: Paul Barlow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: references to Paintings
I should have checked this Trollope passage before writing my previous post.
The character - Tom Towers - owns an imaginary painting by Millais depicting
'a devotional lady looking intently at a lily as no lady ever looked
before.' The narrator then comments of the PRB that:
"It is, however, singular into what faults they fall as regards their
subjects: they are not quite content to take the old stock groups--a
Sebastian with his arrows, a Lucia with her eyes in a dish, a Lorenzo with a
gridiron, or the Virgin with two children. But they are anything but happy
in their change. As a rule, no figure should be drawn in a position which it
is impossible to suppose any figure should maintain. The patient endurance
of St Sebastian, the wild ecstasy of St John in the Wilderness, the maternal
love of the Virgin, are feelings naturally portrayed by a fixed posture; but
the lady with the stiff back and bent neck, who looks at her flower, and is
still looking from hour to hour, gives us an idea of pain without grace, and
abstraction without a cause."
In other words these subjects are 'the old stock groups' - not
Pre-Raphaelite pictures. St John is presumably the Baptist. The Virgin has
two children, Christ and the Baptist (not 'her two children'). While these
old (typically) Catholic subjects involve poses expressive of the feelings
or situation of the subject, the Millais woman seems to have a painful pose
- or expression - for no good reason. In other words, the painting is being
satirised for pseudo-devotional affectation. The imaginary picture seems to
refer to Millais's 'Mariana'. Mariana is stiff-backed, and has been
embroidering leaves and flowers. The fact that the painting is on a stand
rather than hanging on the wall may also refer to the little devotional
picture on a stand depicted in 'Mariana' itself. However, Collins's 'Convent
Thoughts' is also similar to this imaginary picture.
Paul Barlow
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 04:59:23 -0700
From: Jack Kolb <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: references to Paintings
For a St. Laurence by a real pre-Raphaelite, see Browning's "Fra Lippo
Lippi," 323-335.
Jack Kolb
Dept. of English, UCLA
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 08:34:49 -0400
From: Stephen Arata <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Who is "Jane" in Charlotte Perkins Gilman's,
"The Yellow Wallpaper"?
William Veeder addresses this question intricately and at some length in:
"Who Is Jane? The Intricate Feminism of Charlotte Perkins Gilman," Arizona
Quarterly. 44(3):40-79. 1988 Autumn
--Steve
---------------------------------
Stephen Arata
Associate Professor of English
University of Virginia
434-924-7105 (phone)
434-924-1478 (fax)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 07:57:40 -0500
From: Maureen Martin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: references to Paintings
"A Lorenzo with a gridiron" may be "Isabella," which features Lorenzo,
Isabella, and her murderous brothers at a feast. "The virgin with her two
children" must to "Christ in the House of His Parents" as you say. It
does feature children, Jesus and John the Baptist. Both of those
paintings were subjected to great ridicule by commentators.
I don't have a clue about the others, though they both sound like
Millais-type subjects.
-Maureen Martin
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Andrew Maunder wrote:
> I'm wondering if the List can help me identify the following references to
> (Pre-Raphaelite) paintings in Trollope's 1855 novel `The Warden'. They
> come during a not-very-complimentary discussion of Millais but they may
> not be by him of course, or even refer to actual paintings.
>
> Any suggestions much appreciated.
>
>
> Andrew Maunder
>
>
> The references are:
>
> A Lucia with her eyes in a dish
>
> A Lorenzo with a gridiron
>
> The virgin with her two children - (this may be `Christ in the House of
> his Parents')
>
> The wild ecstasy of St John in the Wilderness
>
>
> Dr Andrew Maunder
> English Literature Group
> Faculty of Humanities
> University of Hertfordshire
> Wall Hall
> Aldenham
> Watford
> Herts WD2 8AT
>
> Tel: +44 (0)1707 285641
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:21:36 -0300
From: Beth Sutton-Ramspeck <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: "dilate" in 1831
A question that arose in a discussion last week of Mary Shelley's 1831
introduction to _Frankenstein_: Shelley famously refers to "the
question, so very freqently asked me--'How I, then a young girl, came to
think of, and to dilate upon, so very hideous an idea?'"
Ellen Moers, in her classic essay on the "Female Gothic," implicitly
alludes to the most common modern use of the term "dilate," in
connection with birth, and my students instantly recognized that meaning
and were thus receptive to the interpretations of the novel that
concentrate on birth metaphors. My students were actually unfamiliar
with the use of the word in Shelley's primary sense--"to speak or write
at length." Indeed, their utter certainty of the birthing metaphor
aroused my own skepticism, and I began to wonder if Shelley really would
have had cervical dilation in mind in 1831. Study of the old print copy
of the OED that is accessible to my classroom yielded no such usage, but
I promised to check the newer edition online over the weekend and report
back.
Well, I'm still not sure. I learned that "dilatation and curettage" was
a 1906 innovation but that there was something called a "dilator" or
"dilator," invented in 1634, and illustrated with the following:
"1706 PHILLIPS (ed. Kersey), Dilatatory, or Dilater, a Surgeon's
dilating Instrument, hollow on the inside, to draw barbed Iron, &c. out
of a Wound: Also an Instrument with which the Mouth of the Womb may be
dilated."
This, however, is the OED's only illustration of the term "dilate" or
its many variations, with a gynecological association, prior to the 1906
"dilatation and curettage."
So I'm left unsure. The "dilator" was invented well before Mary
Shelley's own difficult birth or ghastly experiences with childbirth,
miscarriage, and infant death, but would she have known about it?
Obviously birth experiences wouldn't have had the same countdown-like
qualities they have nowadays, but would the word "dilated" or "dilation"
have been used?
Does anyone know how readily "dilate" would have been associated with
giving birth in 1831?
Thanks for your help.
Beth Sutton-Ramspeck
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:02:37 -0500
From: Gerri Brightwell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Burial Alive
There is an intentional premature burial in Fergus Hume's The Millionaire
Mystery (1901). A rich man trying to escape a false accusation of murder
arranges to be drugged up and buried in the family vault with the help of a
doctor friend (on the understanding he will later be rescued!).
Gerri Brightwell
PhD candidate
University of Minnesota
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:21:47 GMT
From: Lesley Hall <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
'Dilate' was/is also extensively used of the pupil of
the eye. I rather doubt the obstetrical meaning would
have necessarily been paramount in anyone's mind
outside the specific context of childbirth.
Lesley Hall
[log in to unmask]
website:
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:10:25 GMT
From: Lesley Hall <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
Richard D Hoblyn: A Dictionary of Terms Used in
Medicine and the Collateral Sciences, London, 1835
refers to dilatation as deriving from dilato, to
enlarge, and defines it in both physiological
(temporary) and pathological (permanent) usages by
reference to the _heart_ - 'as the diastole of the
heart'/'as the passive aneurysm of that organ'. The
term doesn't even feature in Hoopers 1801 _Compendious
Medical Dictionary_
Lesley Hall
[log in to unmask]
website:
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:22:05 +0100
From: Paul Lewis <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: Ackroyd's TV series on Dickens
Paul
Paul Lewis
web www.paullewis.co.uk
tel 07836 217311
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Lewis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 27 May 2002 08:39
> To: Dickens List; Wilkie List; Victoria List
> Subject: Ackroyd's TV series on Dickens
>
> A new three part series on Dickens's life written and presented by the
> ubiquitous Peter Ackroyd has just finished on BBC TV in the UK.
>
> It was an expensively made and wonderfully presented series putting
> Ackroyd's view of Dickens and making a lot of use of the knowledge he
> gained writing London - A Biography as well, of course, as his Dickens
> biography and his work with Simon Callow (op cit) on stage and radio
> productions about Dickens's life.
>
> Actors played the parts of some of Dickens's relatives, Ellen Ternan and
> some acquaintances and friends such as Forster and Thackeray. Generally
> they were given words that were established as theirs in letters or
> reminiscences, but not I think always. Much of what Ellen said was
> unfamiliar. Ackroyd came up with his own explanation of the mysterious
> coach journey from Slough to Gad's Hill the day Dickens died. It was not
> Dickens in the coach having collapsed at Ellen's brought back to Gad's
> Hill to die - as for example Tomalin suggests - but Ellen herself summoned
> by Georgina Hogarth to be at his side after the stroke that preceded his
> death. As in his book, Ackroyd gives us no sources for anything and mixes
> established facts with his own interpretation.
>
> Anton Lesser played Dickens himself - not very well though the beard and
> hair were perfect - and Ackroyd was a bulky presence as he took us to many
> sites associated with Dickens and his life, including the Boulogne home
> where he is supposed to have spent much time in the mid 60s with Ellen..
>
> The series began as it ended with the train journey in June 1865 that
> crashed at Staplehurst and it was temporally uncertain throughout -
> dashing from one time to another like a Tardis.
>
> It was interspersed with extracts from BBC productions of Dickens's
> stories, and the whole - excerpts, actors, modern footage, Ackroyd and
> Ackroydisms - were blended seemlessly into a pleasing, though at times
> annoying, whole.
>
> One extraordinary omission was anything from or about Dickens's closest
> friend and one of the strongest influences on his life and work from 1851
> until Dickens's death in 1870. Wilkie Collins's name was not even
> mentioned in the entire three hours. The omission of Collins, or just
> brief mention of him, in the contemporary biographies of Dickens was
> commonplace. But his omission now, in the light of modern morals and
> scholarship (see for example Nayder's recent _Charles Dickens, Wilkie
> Collins, and Victorian Authorship_ seems simply a mistake.
>
> But generally it was a refreshingly unhagiographic view of Dickens and no
> doubt will be issued on DVD by the BBC at some stage soon.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Lewis
> web www.paullewis.co.uk
> tel 07836 217311
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:44:42 +0100
From: Paul Lewis <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: Researching costs, 1880s
An excellent source is Leone Levi _Wages and Earnings of the Working
Classes_, London 1885 reprinted by the Irish Univ Press in 1971 ISBN 0 7165
1792 2.
It was an official report, or at least done for the Govt, and it gives not
only wages but also household budgets and what things cost. For example
there are complete 'workman's budgets' for 1857 and 1884 showing earnings
per week and the cost of food, coal and gas, sundries, tobacco, clothes etc.
Paul
Paul
Paul Lewis
web www.paullewis.co.uk
tel 07836 217311
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:54:09 -0400
From: Charles Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
A quick check in some full text journals [dilate and womb] yields
some hits, including this one from 1818:
"aided by the disposition of the uterus to dilate" is on p. 407 of
"Observations on Mr. Charles Bell's paper on the muscularity of the
uterus, originally inserted in the London Medico-Chirurgical Transactions"
Source:
Eclectic Repertory and Analytical Review, Medical and
Philosophical (1810-1820)
Source Qualifier:
Philadelphia
Date:
Jul 1818
Authors:
Wiliam P Dewees;
Volume:
8
Issue:
3
Start Page:
395
Page Count:
17
I suspect that a good number of references could be found.
Charles E. Robinson Tel: (302) 831-3654 (with voice mail)
English Department Fax: (302) 831-1586
University of Delaware email: [log in to unmask]
Newark, DE 19716-2537
U.S.A.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:25:12 +0100
From: lee jackson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
A search on www.victorianlondon.org reveals the following flowery uses from
mid-Victorian prose:
-"eyes of Israel dilate with joy"
-"He grew apace, but his pride dilated faster than his person"
-"A drop of ink from our pen, falling upon the pad of blotting - paper upon
which it is our custom to lay the narrow strips of "cream-laid" upon which
we write, suggests no inappropriate figure of the subject we are going to
write about. A round, well-defined drop at first, it gradually dilates and
expands in size"
-"I pull out the trumpet-stop of my organ of veneration; my form dilates
with the tall spars around me; "
-"I declare that when I approach this solemnly-genteel theme, my frame
dilates, my eyes kindle, my heart dances"
Is it worth me saying (and, indeed, am I correct??) that Victorian writers
who grew up with a classical education, and were relatively fluent in Latin,
were more likely to use such Latinate verbs (not sure if dilate comes from
dilato - broaden, or differo - publish, or both) than a modern writer. This
is not to say that the allusion suggested about birth is not possible, but
it is probably worth pointing out that the english "dilate" would not be so
odd to someone who knew their Virgil?
Or am I talking rubbish?
regards,
Lee
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:36:06 +0100
From: Michel Faber <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
Beth Sutton-Ramspeck wrote:
> My students were actually unfamiliar
> with the use of the word in Shelley's primary sense--"to speak or write
> at length." Indeed, their utter certainty of the birthing metaphor
> aroused my own skepticism
And so indeed it should.
Lesley Hall has already posted several evidences of the word's
other, more common meanings in pre-20th century contexts.
I would only add that the younger a student is, the more certain
they're liable to be that the current dominant meaning of a word is
the one it must always have had. I'm 42 and my doddery old age
has alerted me to the fact that even within the few decades I've been
using language, a number of words no longer mean what I once
thought they did.
Perhaps the case of 'dilate' is analogous to 'intercourse'?
An eighteen year old might find it very difficult to believe that either
word could possibly have any other reference than its current
gynaecological/sexual one -- after all, the older meanings were
already eclipsed by the time these students acquired their
vocabularies. And, if a student found the word 'intercourse' in a
nineteenth century text, they can whip out their etymological
dictionary and point out that a sexual connotation for the word was
first recorded in the late eighteenth century. Fine. But that doesn't
do justice to the fact that the word's primary meaning was non-
sexual and that most English speakers throughout the nineteenth
(and even into the 20th) century were able to use the word
'intercourse' to denote all manner of communications, without any
sexual allusion intended, acknowledged or perceived.
Pointing this out to a young person may, however, simply strike
them as the attempts of an embarrassed older generation to deny
sexual realities.
Meanwhile, over on the Histsex listserv, Jane Austen's 'ejaculations'
have been cited in a recent discussion of that messy phenomenon...
Best wishes,
Michel Faber
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:54:21 +0100
From: Paul Barlow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
I often have this problem with the phrase 'making love', which students
instantly assume means 'having sex'. It certainly makes Browning more
exciting for them.
Paul Barlow
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:05:00 +0100
From: Albert Purbrick <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Young Alfred
I would like to thank those who responded to my request for references to
the young Alfred Tennyson and the United States. I have passed these on and
my friend joins me in thanking you.
==========================
Albert Purbrick
6 Cavendish Close
1 St Johns Avenue
London SW15 2AL, England
Tel: 020 8 789 1433
email: [log in to unmask]
===========================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:07:12 -0400
From: Kathleen McCormack <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: When the Crosses and the Leweses met
Does anyone know of any meeting between George Eliot
and/or George Henry Lewes and any members of
the Cross family before 1867-69, in particular some contact
as long ago as 1853-4? I've got Herbert Spencer
introducing Lewes to some of the Crosses at the Hand
and Spear Inn in Weybridge in October 1867, and GE meeting
a bunch of them (including Johnnie Cross) in Rome in
1869. Confirmations or contrary evidence, anyone?
Many thanks.
Kathleen McCormack
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:00:52 EDT
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Time$ of London
FYI, the Times of London is now ramping up a project to charge US residents
to read the paper on-line. Previously, you had to register, answer some
skilly questions about education & income and, after a "log in" process, you
were admitted to the daily pages of the Thunderer. Now, however, you are
directed to a new screen that offers you what is touted as the "marvelous
value" of the Times on line for 40 pounds per year. Apparently, Mr
Murdoch's financial woes are to blame - despite the fact that the Times
site had the usual number of annoying pop-up ads and "click here" ads at
the top and sides of every story. I certainly understand that nothing is
free anymore but the $60 charge seems, to me, to rather high for starters.
Can nought be done?
Tom Hughes
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:35:33 -0700
From: "Peter H. Wood" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
Michel Faber wrote:
> ... Pointing this out to a young person may, however, simply strike
> them as the attempts of an embarrassed older generation to deny
> sexual realities.
> Meanwhile, over on the Histsex listserv, Jane Austen's 'ejaculations'
> have been cited in a recent discussion of that messy phenomenon...
My mind ineluctably recalls a line from the Edwardian comic paper "Ally
Sloper's Half Holiday":
"A dirty mind is a perpetual feast"
Peter Wood
<[log in to unmask]>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:34:46 EDT
From: Sally Mitchell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
Though I (like others) suspect that the students are wrong, I would point
out that my copy of W.S. Playfair's *A Treatise on the Science and Practice
of Midwifery* (7th edition 1889) uses the word much as my own physician
did -- but maybe I'd better not mention how old my children are.
SALLY MITCHELL | ENGLISH DEPT, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY | [log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:38:57 EDT
From: Sally Mitchell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Anglican
In the chapter I'm currently revising I have need to refer (often) to
"Evangelicals who are members of the Church of England" and am finding
all such phrases a real mouthful. I'd like to use "Anglican Evangelicals"
and the OED gives me all sorts of old uses for Anglican (pre-19th-century)
to mean "reformed English church" (i.e., not Roman Catholic). However I
think someone recently criticized me for using "Anglican" to describe
someone pre-Oxford-movement (in the 19th century), making me worry that the
correct *Victorian* usage is only for high-church (as opposed to
evangelical) folks. Can I have some feedback on this? What does the word
"mean" to your common (Victorian) sense?
SALLY MITCHELL | ENGLISH DEPT, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY | [log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:20:21 -0400
From: Herb Schlossberg <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Anglican
In the last half of the century it became common, but not universal, to use
"Anglican" to mean High Church only. That may be behind the criticism
you've received. Sometimes people would describe the CofE as being made up
of Low Church (or Evangelical), Broad Church and Anglican. I don't recall
ever seeing this before mid-century. On the other hand I don't think I've
seen "Anglican Evangelicals" in use during the Victorian period. There is a
convention modern scholars seem to have adopted that may be useful to you,
although there's nothing official to sanction it. This uses Evangelical
capitalized to refer to CofE only and small evangelical to refer to the
movement in general or to dissenting evangelicals.
Herb Schlossberg
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Mitchell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 5:38 PM
Subject: Anglican
> In the chapter I'm currently revising I have need to refer (often) to
> "Evangelicals who are members of the Church of England" and am finding
> all such phrases a real mouthful. I'd like to use "Anglican Evangelicals"
> and the OED gives me all sorts of old uses for Anglican (pre-19th-century)
> to mean "reformed English church" (i.e., not Roman Catholic). However I
> think someone recently criticized me for using "Anglican" to describe
> someone pre-Oxford-movement (in the 19th century), making me worry that
the
> correct *Victorian* usage is only for high-church (as opposed to
evangelical)
> folks. Can I have some feedback on this? What does the word "mean" to your
> common (Victorian) sense?
>
>
> SALLY MITCHELL | ENGLISH DEPT, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY | [log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 23:39:25 +0100
From: Arthur Burns <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Anglican
There really is no hard and fast rule on this: and there
are times when Anglican is the most convenient academic
shorthand for CoE. It is the case that it was not a common
usage in the early nineteenth century,and that esp once
Anglo-Catholicism got going it acquired a particular
partisan tone. IT would however be equally partisan to
restrict it to post-Tractarian. My own working rule of
thumb is that it depends a bit on the type of Evangelical
you are dealing with. In much the same way as "priest"
other than in the technical sense would have been
uncomfortable for some evangelicals, so I would for example
not describe Church of Ireland folk as Anglican in the
context of the new Reformation, or those CoE evangelicals
who felt strongly they had more in common with their
dissenting peers than 'orthodox' ie pre-tractarian High
Churchmen. Recent work is stressing how fluid party was
before 1830, so there is no one answer. The danger with
using Anglican pre-1830 in some ways is more acute with
High Churchmen, for whom it might imply some correlation
with later practices to soem readers. One alternative
shorthand is 'establishment evangelicals', perhaps?
The best solution is probably just to explain what you
intend to mean and emphasize that it is a modern term of
art in this context rather than a contemporary
self-description.
Arthur Burns
On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:38:57 EDT Sally
Mitchell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In the chapter I'm currently revising I have need to refer (often) to
> "Evangelicals who are members of the Church of England" and am finding
> all such phrases a real mouthful. I'd like to use "Anglican Evangelicals"
> and the OED gives me all sorts of old uses for Anglican (pre-19th-century)
> to mean "reformed English church" (i.e., not Roman Catholic). However I
> think someone recently criticized me for using "Anglican" to describe
> someone pre-Oxford-movement (in the 19th century), making me worry that
> the correct *Victorian* usage is only for high-church (as opposed to
> evangelical) folks. Can I have some feedback on this? What does the word
> "mean" to your common (Victorian) sense?
>
>
> SALLY MITCHELL | ENGLISH DEPT, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY | [log in to unmask]
----------------------
Arthur Burns
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:48:49 -0700
From: keith laycock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831 - Beth Sutton- Ramspeck
Dilate - from the Latin dilatare 1. to enlarge or widen in all
directions.
2. Surgery: - to enlarge an
opening of the body, by instrument or drug.
3. to speak fully and
copiously.
Re: - Childbirth.
Certainly used prior to 1831. Referenced in William Hunter's " The Anatomy
of the Human Gravid Uterus"., published 1774. Would be in common usage in
midwifery.
Vis: - "oris uteri dilatati margo ...". "The border, formed by the dilated
mouth of the womb....."
Hope this is helpful.
KML
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:00:40 +1000
From: David Philips <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831
Not only has "intercourse" changed its meaning since the 19th
Century, but it has virtually swapped meanings with "conversation".
The 19th Century legal term "criminal conversation" (crim.con. for
short) meant adultery, for which a husband could sue his wife's
seducer. "Intercourse", on the other hand, meant what we now call
"conversation" - talking to people. A favourite passage of mine (not
now to hand so I can't give the full passage) from one of those
mid-19th Century books about how to encourage working-class
self-improvement, says that one of the best ways of assisting working
men to improve themselves is "the intercourse of ladies". That, of
course, has modern students rolling in the aisles, imagining those
rough working men copulating with those Victorian ladies.
David Philips, University of Melbourne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 20:08:43 -0700
From: keith laycock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "dilate" in 1831 - Hoblyn/dictionary.
The reference to "diastole", which suggests origin from "dilate" from the
Latin "dilato", is wrong.
The origin of "diastole" is the Greek dia (through) and -stellein (to send).
Dilate and diastole have no common meaning.
KML
------------------------------
End of VICTORIA Digest - 26 May 2002 to 27 May 2002 (#2002-147)
***************************************************************
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
|
