-------- Original Message --------
Subject: VICTORIA Digest - 4 Dec 2003 to 5 Dec 2003 (#2003-129)
From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, December 6, 2003 5:00 am
To: Recipients of VICTORIA digests <[log in to unmask]>
There are 10 messages totalling 327 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Sherlock Holmes and cocaine
2. carriages - Victoria vs Phaeton (2)
3. Jack Shepherd (3)
4. censorship of Madame Bovary? (2)
5. female sea captains
6. Use of rural (or pastoral) in Victorian social protest novels
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:59:26 -0000
From: Valerie Gorman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Sherlock Holmes and cocaine
Liz Miller wrote:
> When I was teaching _The Sign of the Four_ yesterday, a student asked
about
> the strength of Sherlock Holmes's infamous "seven-percent solution" of
> cocaine. We were talking about the significance of Holmes's drug use,
> and the student suggested that since even coca-cola used to have
> cocaine in
it,
> a 7-percent solution may be only a mild stimulant.
Having worked in the operating theatre, I can add to the technical end
of this discussion by saying that a 7% solution of cocaine is a bit
higher than the 5% commonly used to induce numbness in patients
undergoing nasal surgery. During surgery the drug is injected into the
tissue surrounding the area and the effects seldom last more than 20-30
minutes. The effects of the cocaine that make it an appealing drug for
recreational use are ameliorated during surgery by the administration of
sedatives which counteract the "high".
Cocaine is the prototype of stimulant drugs that induce occasional
hallucinations at high doses. But it is noteworthy in the context of
the Holmes tales that an injected 7% solution would produce a condition
of hyperstimulation, over-alertness, euphoria and a feeling of great
power. The effects are similar to that of a high dose of amphetamine but
are very short-acting. Users often re-inject the drug at 10-15 minute
intervals to sustain the effects. There is no evidence that Holmes was
using the drug that regularly. Also, no physical dependence is
developed and therefore no abstinence syndrome when withdrawn, although
psychic dependence is common. In contrast to amphetamine use, there is
no buildup of tolerance to the drug so the dosage does not have to be
increased to achieve the same effects.
All of this is by way of saying that, while Holmes was demonstrably a
drug-user, he was not "addicted" to cocaine in the sense that he was
physically dependent on it. Watson seems to have voiced his displeasure
at Holmes's lack of restraint in using drugs at all rather than at any
risk he was taking with his health.
Valerie Gorman
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:05:07 -0000
From: Lee Jackson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: carriages - Victoria vs Phaeton
Hi again - list-members may remember me trying to establish a list of
carriages a while back. I am still struggling, however, in telling the
difference between a 'Victoria' and a 'phaeton.'
I *had* thought that the telling detail was that a Victoria would
normally have a coachman, whereas the phaeton was driven by its
occupant, but this is plainly wrong. Pictures in Frank Huggett's
"Carriages at Eight" of each type both seem to have a coachman's seat at
the front.
What initially drew me to this errorneous conclusion included this
picture of a park phaeton
http://www.victorianlondon.org/transport/parkphaeton.htm
but, for instance, this Mary Evans Picture Library picture also claims
to be a phaeton, despite the coachman's seat
http://www.victorianlondon.org/car-phaeton.jpg
whereas this claims to be a 'Victoria Poste' and is clearly driven by
occupant, albeit with groom at back
http://www.victorianlondon.org/car-victoria.jpg
[note to any Mary Evans Library copyright watchers - I will remove the
pictures following this academic discussion!]
Obviously I have wrong end of the stick entirely - can anyone advise ...
was phaeton perhaps a generic term for any four-wheeled open carriages,
with coachman or without, and 'Victoria' just the brand-name of
particular model?
Needless to say, I have Google-d this already and nothing I can find is
authoritative enough - I am hoping for a carriage expert to appear on
the list! (or anyone know of a carriage museum? ... I guess I could try
the Transport Museum in London, although I suspect they are better on
public transport).
regards,
Lee
www.victorianlondon.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:05:03 -0000
From: Malcolm Shifrin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: carriages - Victoria vs Phaeton
Hi
A couple of differences can be found in the SOED:
Phaeton: A species of light four-wheeled open carriage; usually drawn by
a pair of horses, and with one or two seats facing forward, 1742
Victoria: A light, low, four-wheeled carriage having a collapsible hood,
with seats (usually) for two persons and an elevated seat in front for
the driver, 1870
Hope this helps,
Malcolm
----
Malcolm Shifrin
Victorian Turkish Baths Project
[log in to unmask]
Visit our website:
http://victorianturkishbath.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:44:54 +0000
From: Andrew Maunder <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Jack Shepherd
Dear all
I was wondering if someone could illuminate the following 1873 reference
to the street thief, Jack Sheppard for me. It refers to a stage version
of the novel, and appears in `Once a Week'. My main query is why might
Sheppard be `prohibited'? Am not sure who Velvet Grawl was either.
"Jack Sheppard" is prohibited; but, quite recently, Velvet Grawl was
permitted nightly to assail Dick Wastrell with ineffectual pistol at the
Queen's Theatre:
Any suggestions very welcome
Andrew
Dr Andrew Maunder
English Literature Group
School of Humanities
University of Hertfordshire
De Havilland Campus
Hatfield
Hertfordshire
AL10 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1707 285641
Fax: +44 (0)1707 285611
Email: [log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:00:12 -0500
From: David Latane <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Jack Shepherd
With reference to Andrew Maunder's query about Jack Shepherd in 1873.
Ellis in _Harrison Ainsworth and His friends_ (1: 368) says that the
last dramatic representation of JS was at the Surrey Theatre in 1858,
but mentions a burlesque version at the Gaiety in 1888. There were
periodic bursts of moral outrage against the play version but Ellis
doesn't say that it was ever refused a licence (n.b., quick skim by me).
But the JS plot was apparently stolen by a play called _Old London_ in
1873, with Jack renamed Dick Wastrel.
Best,
David Latane
Victorians Institute: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~dlatane/VI.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:00:08 -0500
From: Julia Chavez <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: censorship of Madame Bovary?
Dear Victorianists,
I have been trying to trace the censorship of Flaubert's Madame Bovary
in Europe in the years following its publication. So far my research has
revealed that Flaubert was charged in France with "an outrage to good
manners," and the novel was placed on the Vatican's Index of prohibited
books. What I have not been able to find is information on British
censorship. Was Flaubert's novel censored in England as well as France
and Italy? And if so, was this censorship "official" or self-censorship
on the part of lending libraries? If anyone could shed light on this
issue or point me to sources for investigating it, I would be grateful.
Best,
Julia Chavez
graduate student, University of Wisconsin-Madison
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:07:35 +1100
From: Ellen Jordan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: female sea captains
I would support David Latane's comment that "The editor's "he or she"
would encourage the unwary reader to believe a thing that was not: that
"Ship Captain" was a career open to women in the 18th-19th-centuries."
Here, as in many occupations, there was a difference between women's
possible access to occupations through a family enterprise and the
complete barrier to their entering professionalised work for and within
large companies. In the former there was always some opportunity for
women to learn from fathers and husbands and take over if they died or
became inacapacited and this seems to have been the case with all the
instances of women sea captains cited in this correspondence (except for
the one who took over temporarily when her husband was taken ill in the
middle of a long voyage). On the other hand the captains of the large
ocean-going ships were employees of the major commercial shipping
companies and had followed a formalised career path restricted to males.
They entered the service of these companies as midshipman at the age of
about 15, with their parents paying out over £200 for their premiums and
equipment. If they did well they could rise through the officer ranks
to!
becoming captains in their late twenties or early thirties, by that
time having achieved the qualification of Master Mariner and being
entered on the list kept by the Company of Master Mariners. (I think
this is the name. Anyway, its records are now in the Guildhall
Library in London.) Captains earned from £400 to £700 a year, and
their shipboard accommodation was commodious enough for them to take
their wives with them on their voyages.
Ellen Jordan
University of Newcastle
Australia
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:11:52 +1100
From: Ellen Jordan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Use of rural (or pastoral) in Victorian social protest
novels
I have to disagree with Michel Faber when he argues that for Marx the
urban-rural division mirrored the distinction between alienated and
non-alienated labour.
Even at the time Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto the enclosure
movement had almost run its course, and by the time he wrote Capital he
was describing with great passion the exploitation of the rural poor and
"the bloody discipline that turned them into wage labourers".
Furthermore, as a great reader of Blue Books, Marx was well aware of the
form of "capitalist production" that preceded the factories: the
exploitative cottage industries - spinning, lace-making, straw-plaiting
- that kept women and children tied to stools in their rural cottages
while the light lasted..
Ellen Jordan
University of Newcastle
Australia
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:18:47 -0500
From: Gerri Brightwell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: censorship of Madame Bovary?
Barbara Leckie's _Culture and Adultery_ discusses Madame Bovary. I've
only just picked it up but from what I've skimmed through it seems as
though there were no court imposed restrictions in England, whereas in
France an attempt was made at prosecution. Sorry this is so general--I
wanted to point you in the direction of the book if you had no stronger
leads.
Gerri Brightwell
Dept of English
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:08:55 -0800
From: Sheldon Goldfarb <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Jack Shepherd
It seems that the dramatic version of Jack Sheppard was indeed
prohibited for a time, though not entirely successfully. The details
are in S.M. Ellis's essay, "Jack Sheppard in Literature and Drama,"
appended to Horace Bleackley's 1933 biography of Sheppard (called simply
Jack Sheppard). [see pp. 105-115]
There were actually at least 8 different dramatic versions of "Jack
Sheppard" that appeared on the London stage in 1839 while Ainsworth's
novel was still appearing in serialized form. Although no one had
seemed much bothered by the morality of the novel,the dramatic versions
(perhaps because of the audience they were reaching) sparked some moral
outrage--and when the murderer Courvoisier claimed in 1840 that he had
been inspired to commit his crime by the story of Jack Sheppard, the
Lord Chamberlain, in Ellis's words,
"took fright and for many years regarded 'Jack Sheppard' as a terrible
drama unworthy of his aegis and the very prompt-book for the
grocer's-boy to reach the gallows. Licence to perform plays of that
name was now to be refused; but it was only at the minor theatres that
the ban was enforced, and, even then, the managers circumvented the
edict by putting on Jack Sheppard plays under other titles, such as 'The
Boy Burglar,' 'The Young Housebreaker,' and so on."
Ellis adds that the Adelphi version of the play was never banned, and it
was revived in 1852.
On the other hand, an 1868 version had to appear under a different
title, with the hero's name changed to Charley Ives.
In 1870, the Lord Chamberlain ordered another version of the Jack
Sheppard story to remove the name Sheppard, so it appeared as a
"Tyburnian idyll" about someone called "High-Low Jack."
In 1873, the year being asked about, the Lord Chamberlain, in Ellis's
words, "was more terrified and terrifying than ever, so Jack masqueraded
as Dick Wastrell" in a production called "Old London."
According to Ellis, though, when the play appeared, someone in the
audience stood up and said, "Why, blast me! if it isn't 'Jack
Sheppard'!" An article on the production called it "Jack Sheppard
Redivivus."
In this same 1873 production (which opened at the Queen's Theatre in
Long Acre on February 5), the character of Jonathan Wild was disguised
as Velvet Grawl.
By 1880 the Lord Chamberlain had given up, and a new version of the
story was allowed to appear on stage under the title "Little Jack
Sheppard."
Sheldon Goldfarb
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
End of VICTORIA Digest - 4 Dec 2003 to 5 Dec 2003 (#2003-129)
*************************************************************
|
