Victorian Folklore Legend: Spring-Heeled Jack

Posted on September 24, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

220px-Mothman_prophecies_posterAs a native West Virginian, I grew up on the Mothman prophecies, the story line behind the 2002 movie of the same name, which was intermixed with the collapse of the Silver Bridge in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. The Mothman was a legendary “Devil-like” creature, who made himself known to many of the town’s people – some claiming the ten-foot moth-like man was an alien. Naturally, when I came across a similar Victorian Era legend, I was completely fascinated by the concept.

Jack6The first claim of a sighting of Spring-heeled Jack came in 1837 in Sheffield, England. The last reported sighting is said to have been in Liverpool in 1904. An entity of English folklore, “Jack” has made appearances in much of Great Britain, including Scotland. Reportedly, a girl by the name of Mary Stevens was returning to her employment in the Lavender Hill area after having spent time with her parents in Battersea. Passing through Clapham Common, the girl was accosted by a strange figure, who leapt at her from a dark alley. According to Miss Stevens, the man held her in a tight grip and kissed her face. He also ripped her clothes and pawed at with claws as cold as those of a corpse. Her attacker fled when she screamed. Residents could find no such attacker when they searched the area.

The same man supposedly attacked a second woman on the following day, very near to Miss Stevens’ attack. Eventually, the legend changed: The attacker would jump in front of a passing carriage, frightening the coachman and the horses, and causing the coachman injury. He would then make his escape over a wall, while babbling with a high-pitched laughter. The press labeled the “man” Spring-heeled Jack.

“The attacker was tall and thin, had pointed ears and fiery eyes, and wore a cloak. He tore at his female victims’ clothes and ripped their flesh with hands that felt like iron. When he escaped, he did not run; he bounced away. Those who saw his feet swore he had springs in his boot heels.” (Science: Spring-heeled Jack)

220px-Jack4On 9 January 1838, Sir John Cowan, the Lord Mayor of London, revealed an anonymous complaint at a public session held in the Mansion House. The correspondent, who signed the letter “a resident of Peckham,” wrote…

“It appears that some individuals (of, as the writer believes, the highest ranks of life) have laid a wager with a mischievous and foolhardy companion, that he durst not take upon himself the task of visiting many of the villages near London in three different disguises – a ghost, a bear, and a devil; and moreover, that he will not enter a gentleman’s gardens for the purpose of alarming the inmates of the house. The wager, has, however, been accepted, and the unmanly villain has succeeded in depriving seven ladies of their senses, two of whom are not likely to recover, but to become burdens to their families.

“At one house the man rang the bell, and on the servant coming to open the door, this worse than brute stood in no less dreadful figure than a spectre clad most perfectly. The consequence was that the poor girl immediately swooned, and has never from that moment been in her senses.

“The affair has now been going on for some time, and, strange to say, the papers are still silent on the subject. The writer has reason to believe that they have the whole history at their finger-ends but, through interested motives, are induced to remain silent.” (Simpson, Jacqueline. Spring-Heeled Jack (leaflet, January 2001) International Society for Contemporary Legend Research.)

The matter was reported in The Times on 9 January, with other newsprints following in the next week. The Lord Mayor received a large number of letters with reports of similar pranks. Stories from Hammersmith, Kensington, Ealing, Camberwell, Vauxhall, Brixton, Stockwell, Lewisham, and Blackheath poured in. The Brighton Gazette printed a like story in April 1838.

Similar entities have been reported around the world. In Chile, one finds “La Viuda” or “the widow.” The Spring Man of Prague, Pérák, is spoken of in Czechoslovakia. Other names include Krampus, London Monster, Owlman, Jiangshi, and Jersey Devil.

“In1808, a letter to the editor of the Sheffield Times recounted how ‘Years ago a famous Ghost walked and played many pranks in this historic neighbourhood.’ The writer went on to identify this entity as the ‘Park Ghost or Spring Heeled Jack,’ and briefly described its ability to take enormous leaps and frighten random passers-by, but concluded, ‘He was a human ghost as he ceased to appear when a certain number of men with with guns and sticks to test his skin.’” (The Legend of Spring Heeled Jack)

ufo-theory-010Two teenage girls were likely the most famous of the victims. Jane Alsop claimed to have answered her father’s door on the evening of 19 February 1838 to a man claiming to be a police officer. Foolishly, she followed the officer to the adjoining lane because he had requested she provide him a light as part of his investigation. Instead, the “officer” threw off the cloak he wore. The girl reported that the man vomited blue and white flames, and his eyes were upon fire. She also said he wore a large helmet and a white oilskin. He tore her gown with his claws, as well as leaving marks upon her neck and arms. The sudden appearance of one of her sisters sent the attacker fleeing from the scene.

Lucy Scales and her sister were approached some eight days later. They were returning home from a visit with their brother, a butcher in Limehouse. As the girls passed Green Dragon Alley, a man in a large cloak spit blue flames in her face, which deprived Lucy of her sight and brought on violent fits. Their brother heard the screams and came to his sisters’ rescues. The difference the Scales’ report was Lucy claimed the attacker was tall, thin, and gentlemanly in his appearance.

The Times boasted a headline reading “The Late Outrage At Old Ford” on 2 March 1838. It was a report on the Jane Alsop attack. One Thomas Millbank had bragged to his drinking buddies at the Morgan’s Arms that he was Spring-heeled Jack. Millbank was immediately arrested and tried at Lambeth Street court. The arresting officer was James Lea, who had earlier arrested William Corder, the Red Barn Murderer. (See my article on The Red Barn Murder for more details.) Millbank was shown to have been wearing white overalls and a greatcoat on the evening of the attack. The candle he dropped was also located. He escaped conviction only because Alsop swore her attacker breathed fire. Obviously, Millbank could not perform such a “skill.”

Spring-heeled Jack became one of the most popular characters of the Victorian period. He was the subject of several penny dreadfuls, as well as cheap theatricals. In the Punch and Judy shows, the devil was named “Spring-heeled Jack.” In 1843, a second wave of sightings swept England. Reports of the “devil-like” creature came from Northamptonshire and East Anglia and Teighnmouth in Devon. In 1847, Captain Finch was convicted of two charges of assault against women during which his accusers described him as being seen in a disguise with bullock’s hide, a skullcap, horns, and a mask. The legend was linked with the phenomenon of the “Devil’s Footprints,” which appeared in Devon in February 1855. Although sightings have been made into the 1990s, the last major reports came in the 1870s.

No one was ever identified as Spring-heeled Jack. The crimes were never prosecuted. Some believe there must be a logical explanation, while others choose the more fanciful approach. A popular rumor in the 1840s was that “Jack” was an Irish nobleman, the Marquess of Waterford. Waterford was known for his drunken brawls and his vandalism. Reportedly, the marquess was not so beloved by the fairer sex. E. Cobham Brewer, the compiler of Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, as well as The Reader’s Handbook, accused Waterford of the stunts, saying the Marquess was known to amuse himself by frightening unaware travelers and others often mimicked Waterford’s efforts. In 1842, the Marquess married and settled in Curraghmore House, County Waterford, and reportedly led an exemplary life until he died in a riding accident in 1859.

“The most recent of a Spring Heeled Jack type creature comes an elementary school in West Surry. Children only see him there, but they describe him as ‘all black, with red eyes and had a funny all-in-one white suit with badges on it.’ They also said he could run as fast as a car, and would approach dark haired children and tell them ‘I want you.’

“Of course, none of this means Spring Heeled Jack is supernatural, or extra-terrestrial, or anything other than the invention of a few generations of adroit, and lucky, pranksters. Some have claimed that the phenomenon is merely an exaggeration of the activities of an old religious zealot who used to dance on rooftops (i.e., E. C. Brewer). Others have identified possible Jacks: Waterford, a law student named Henry Hawkins, and somebody well connected enough to have a descendant bar the use of his name in connection with the attacks.” (The Legend of Spring Heeled Jack)

After these incidents, Spring-heeled Jack became one of the most popular characters of the period. His alleged exploits were reported in the newspapers and became the subject of several penny dreadfuls and plays performed in the cheap theatres that abounded at the time. The devil was even renamed “Spring-heeled Jack” in some Punch and Judy shows, as recounted by Henry Mayhew in his London Labour and the London Poor:

This here is Satan,-we might say the devil, but that ain’t right, and gennelfolks don’t like such words. He is now commonly called ‘Spring-heeled Jack;’ or the ‘Rossian Bear,’ – that’s since the war.

220px-Springheel_JackBut, even as his fame was growing, reports of Spring-heeled Jack’s appearances became less frequent if more widespread. In 1843, however, a wave of sightings swept the country again. A report from Northamptonshire described him as “the very image of the Devil himself, with horns and eyes of flame”, and in East Anglia reports of attacks on drivers of mail coaches became common. In July 1847 “a Spring-heeled Jack investigation” in Teighnmouth, Devon led to a Captain Finch being convicted of two charges of assault against women during which he is said to have been “disguised in a skin coat, which had the appearance of bullock’s hide, skullcap, horns and mask”. The legend was linked with the phenomenon of the “Devil’s Footprints” which appeared in Devon in February 1855.

The last reports
In the beginning of the 1870s, Spring-heeled Jack was reported again in several places distant from each other. In November 1872, the News of the World reported that Peckham was “in a state of commotion owing to what is known as the “Peckham Ghost”, a mysterious figure, quite alarming in appearance”. The editorial pointed out that it was none other than “Spring-heeled Jack, who terrified a past generation”. Similar stories were published in The Illustrated Police News. In April and May 1873, there were numerous sightings of the “Park Ghost” in Sheffield, which locals also came to identify as Spring-heeled Jack.

Aldershot
This news was followed by more reported sightings, until in August 1877 one of the most notable reports about Spring-heeled Jack came from a group of soldiers in Aldershot’s barracks. This story went as follows: a sentry on duty at the North Camp peered into the darkness, his attention attracted by a peculiar figure “advancing towards him.” The soldier issued a challenge, which went unheeded, and the figure came up beside him and delivered several slaps to his face. A guard shot at him, with no visible effect; some sources claim that the soldier may have fired blanks at him, others that he missed or fired warning shots. The strange figure then disappeared into the surrounding darkness “with astonishing bounds.”

Lord Ernest Hamilton’s 1922 memoir Forty Years On mentions the Aldershot appearances of Spring-heeled Jack; however, he (apparently erroneously) says that they occurred in the winter of 1879 after his regiment, the 60th Rifles, had moved to Aldershot, and that similar appearances had occurred when the regiment was barracked at Colchester in the winter of 1878. He adds that the panic became so great at Aldershot that sentries were issued ammunition and ordered to shoot “the night terror” on sight, following which the appearances ceased. Hamilton thought that the appearances were actually pranks, carried out by one of his fellow officers, a Lieutenant Alfrey. However, there is no record of Alfrey ever being court-martialled for the offence.

Lincolnshire
In the autumn of 1877, Spring Heeled Jack was reportedly seen at Newport Arch, in Lincoln, Lincolnshire, wearing a sheep skin. An angry mob supposedly chased him and cornered him, and just as in Aldershot a while before, residents fired at him to no effect. As usual, he was said to have made use of his leaping abilities to lose the crowd and disappear once again.

Liverpool
By the end of the 19th century the reported sightings of Spring-heeled Jack were moving towards the north west of England. Around 1888, in Everton, north Liverpool, he allegedly appeared on the rooftop of Saint Francis Xavier’s Church in Salisbury Street. In 1904 there were reports of appearances in nearby William Henry Street.

Modern sightings
In the late 1970s, residents of Attercliffe, Sheffield began to complain about a “red-eyed prowler who grabbed women and punched men.” The man was said to bound between rooftops and walk down sides of walls.

In south Herefordshire, not far from the Welsh border, a travelling salesman named Marshall claimed to have had an encounter with a similar entity in 1986. The man leaped in enormous, inhuman bounds, passed Mr. Marshall on the road, and slapped his cheek. He wore what the salesman described as a black ski-suit, and Marshall noted that he had an elongated chin.

He was sighted again at an unspecified point after by schoolchildren in west Surrey, who claimed he was “all black, with red eyes and had a funny all in one white suit with badges on it.” They also said he could run as fast as a car, and would approach dark haired children and tell them, “I want you.”

In February 2012, Scott Martin and his family were travelling home by taxi from Stoneleigh at about 10.30pm, when they saw a “dark figure with no features” run across the road in front of them, before climbing over a 15 ft (4.6 m) roadside bank in “seconds”, near Nescot College on the Ewell bypass. The family later likened the figure to the legendary Spring-heeled Jack.

Theories
No one was ever caught and identified as Spring-heeled Jack; combined with the extraordinary abilities attributed to him and the very long period during which he was reportedly at large, this has led to all sorts of theories of his nature and identity. While several researchers seek a rational explanation for the events, other authors explore the more fantastic details of the story to propose different kinds of paranormal speculation.

Sceptical positions
Sceptical investigators have dismissed the stories of Spring-heeled Jack as mass hysteria which developed around various stories of a bogeyman or devil which have been around for centuries, or from exaggerated urban myths about a man who clambered over rooftops claiming that the Devil was chasing him.

Other researchers believe that some individual(s) may have been behind its origins, being followed by imitators later on. Spring-heeled Jack was widely considered not to be a supernatural creature but rather one or more persons with a macabre sense of humour. This idea matches the contents of the letter to the Lord Mayor, which accused a group of young aristocrats as the culprits, after an irresponsible wager. A popular rumour circulating as early as 1840 pointed to an Irish nobleman, the Marquess of Waterford, as the main suspect. Haining suggested this may have been due to him having previously had bad experiences with women and police officers.

220px-Marquess_of_Waterford The Marquess was frequently in the news in the late 1830s for drunken brawling, brutal jokes and vandalism, and was said to do anything for a bet; his irregular behaviour and his contempt for women earned him the title “the Mad Marquis”, and it is also known that he was in the London area by the time the first incidents took place. In 1880 he was named as the perpetrator by E. Cobham Brewer, who said that the Marquess “used to amuse himself by springing on travellers unawares, to frighten them, and from time to time others have followed his silly example.” In 1842, the Marquess married and settled in Curraghmore House, County Waterford, and reportedly led an exemplary life until he died in a riding accident in 1859.

Sceptical investigators have asserted that the story of Spring-heeled Jack was exaggerated and altered through mass hysteria, a process in which many sociological issues may have contributed. These include unsupported rumours, superstition, oral tradition, sensationalist publications, and a folklore rich in tales of fairies and strange roguish creatures. Gossip of alleged leaping and fire-spitting powers, his alleged extraordinary features and his reputed skill in evading apprehension captured the mind of the superstitious public — increasingly so with the passing of time, which gave the impression that Spring-heeled Jack had suffered no effects from ageing. As a result, a whole urban legend was built around the character, being reflected by contemporary publications, which in turn fuelled this popular perception.

Paranormal conjectures
A variety of wildly speculative paranormal explanations have been proposed to explain the origin of Spring-heeled Jack, including that he was an extraterrestrial entity with a non-human appearance and features (e.g., retro-reflective red eyes, or phosphorus breath) and a superhuman agility deriving from life on a high-gravity world, with his jumping ability and strange behaviour, and that he was a demon, accidentally or purposefully summoned into this world by practitioners of the occult, or who made himself manifest simply to create spiritual turmoil.

Fortean authors, particularly Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, list “Springheeled Jack” in a category named “phantom attackers”, with another well-known example being the “Mad Gasser of Mattoon”. Typical “phantom attackers” appear to be human, and may be perceived as prosaic criminals, but may display extraordinary abilities (as in Springheeled Jack’s jumps, which, it is widely noted, would break the ankles of a human who replicated them) and/or cannot be caught by authorities. Victims commonly experience the “attack” in their bedrooms, homes or other seemingly secure enclosures. They may report being pinned or paralysed, or on the other hand describe a “siege” in which they fought off a persistent intruder or intruders. Many reports can readily be explained psychologically, most notably as the “Old Hag” phenomenon, recorded in folklore and recognised by psychologists as a form of hallucination. In the most problematic cases, an “attack” is witnessed by several people and substantiated by some physical evidence, but the attacker cannot be verified to exist.

In popular culture
Contemporary
The vast urban legend built around Spring-heeled Jack influenced many aspects of Victorian life, especially in contemporary popular culture. For decades, especially in London, his name was equated with the bogeyman, as a means of scaring children into behaving by telling them that if they were not good, Spring-heeled Jack would leap up and peer in at them through their bedroom windows, by night.

However, it was in fictional entertainment where the legend of Spring-heeled Jack exerted the most extensive influence, owing to his allegedly extraordinary nature. Three pamphlet publications, purportedly based on the real events, appeared almost immediately, during January and February, 1838. They were not advertised as fiction, though they likely were at least partly so. The only known copies were reported to have perished when the British Library was hit during the Blitz, but their catalog still lists the first one. The titles were:

“Authentic particulars of the awful appearance of the London Monster, alias Spring–heeled Jack, together with his extraordinary life, wonderful adventures and secret amours. Also an account of his horrible appearance to Miss N— and his singular letter to the Lord Mayor of London”

“The surprising exploits of Spring-Heel Jack in the vicinity of London, etc.”

“The Apprehension and Examination of Spring-Heel’d Jack, who has appeared as a Ghost, Demon, Bear, Baboon, etc.…”
Several plays where he assumed the main role were staged as well.

The most notable fictional Spring-heeled Jacks of the 19th and early 20th centuries were:

A play by John Thomas Haines, in 1840, Spring-Heeled Jack, the Terror of London, which shows him as a brigand who attacks women because his own sweetheart betrayed him.

An 1863 play, Spring-Heel’d Jack: or, The Felon’s Wrongs, written by Frederick Hazleton.

Spring-heel’d Jack: The Terror of London, a 40 part penny dreadful published by the Newsagents Publishing Company in 1863, then reprinted in 1867. The only known almost complete version of this penny dreadful is in the British Library, and even it is missing part 14.

Spring-heeled Jack: The Terror of London, a serial published in Charles Fox’s paper,The Boys’ Standard,1st Series, vol. 5, April, 1878. Written either by veteran author of dreadfuls George Augustus Henry Sala or by Alfred Burrage (as “Charlton Lea”). Reprinted in “The Boy’s Standard” in 1885.

Spring-Heel Jack; or, The Masked Mystery of the Tower, appearing in Beadle’s New York Dime Library #332, 4 March 1885, and written by Col. Thomas Monstery.

“Spring-Heeled Jack, The Terror of London,” A 48-part serial published in 1886, reprinted in 1889. This was published by Charles Fox, who also published “The Boy’s Standard.” but the two stories are completely different. Written by Alfred Burrage (as “Charlton Lea”) Fox also collected the parts together as a hardback book.

“The Mystery of Springheel Jack; or, the Haunted Grange,” by S. Clarke Hook, The Marvel,volume VIII, No. 189, June 1897. London: Alfred Harmsworth.

“Spring-Heeled Jack, The Terror of London,”The Boys’ Monster Weekly, 1899. A reprint of The Boy’s Standard version.

“Spring-Heeled Jack”, also known as the “Spring-Heeled Jack Library.” 1904. Twelve weekly issues with color covers, published by the Aldine Publishing Co.; Written by Alfred Burrage under the name, Charlton Lea.

Director Paul Leni’s Das Wachsfigurenkabinett (1924) presents the character as an amalgam with Jack the Ripper.

A play based on the Aldine penny dreadfuls entitled The Curse of the Wraydons, written in 1928 by surrealist Swiss author Maurice Sandoz.

Later Springheel Jack is the central, titular figure of The Wireless Theatre Company’s award-winning radio series, The Springheel Saga. The first series entitled The Strange Case Of Springheel’d Jack, starred Julian Glover, while Nicholas Parsons features in the second, called The Legend Of Springheel’d Jack. A third series has also been recorded.

More recently, Spring-heeled Jack was a major character in Mark Hodder’s Steampunk novel The Strange Affair of Spring-Heeled Jack published in 2010 as the first of three novels in the “Burton & Swinburne” series. In this book many of the seemingly bizarre appearances described above are explained in the context of time travel.

Spring-Heeled Jack is a children’s novel published in 1989 by Philip Pullman.

Spring-heeled Jack is the name of a recurring secondary antagonist that has abilities similar to the legend, in the dark fantasy book series, Skulduggery Pleasant.

He is the often mentioned nemesis of the DC Comics characters Knight and Squire, having been blamed for killing Knight’s father and setting fire to London, amongst his other crimes

Originally published in 1997, characters from the Predator: Nemesis comic book micro-series refer to the predator antagonist as “Springheeled Jack.”

Spring-heeled Jack appears in the Jackie Chan Adventures episode, “The Return of the Pussycat.” He is depicted as a short troll who always speaks in rhyme.

“Spring-Heeled Jack” is the title of a humorous song by Lemon Demon from the album View-Monster.

In the video game Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion during the Thieves Guild quest line you are asked to retrieve the boots of a dead thief named Springheel Jak from the family crypt of a man called “Jakben, Earl of Imbel” (an allusion to the poem Jack Be Nimble).

Spring-heeled Jack can be summoned in the video games Scribblenauts and Super Scribblenauts.

In series five of the TV show Primeval, a raptor enters London in 1868 via an anomaly and is mistaken for Spring-heeled Jack.

The 2012 album Horseplay by UK band Lazarus & The Plane Crash features the track “Spring Heeled Jack” telling a narrative from the perspective of the monster. It references several historical accounts of Spring-heeled Jack.

Chapters 27 and 28 of the webcomic Gunnerkrigg Court, which focus heavily on the character Jack Hyland, are titled “Spring Heeled,” in reference to the legend.

Featured as a gruesome supernatural serial-killer in the Cal Leandros novel Slashback.

In the second series of the BBC One show, Luther, Luther pursues a serial killer who emulates Spring-heeled Jack.

In the Stephen King’s anthology Night Shift, a serial killer who leaves no tracks in the snow is referred to as “Springheeled Jack”.

Wizards of the Coast released a card called Springjack Pasture for Magic The Gathering in the July 2008 set Eventide.

Spring-heeled Jack appears as a villain in the popular urban fantasy series, Skulduggery Pleasant by Derek Landy

Spring-heeled Jack was used as a vigilante super hero in the style of Batman by the UK based The Hotspur comic in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Flora’s Dare, the second of the Flora Segunda series by Ysabeau S. Wilce, features Springheel Jack as a wanted criminal whose power derives from a pair of possessed cowboy boots.

In episode 15, series one (“The Benders”) of the American supernatural drama series Supernatural, the protagonists refer to an entity known as a Spring-heeled Jack.

Posted in British history, Great Britain, Ireland, legends and myths, Living in the UK, Victorian era | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Victorian Folklore Legend: Spring-Heeled Jack

Origin of “Rub-a-dub-dub” Nursery Rhyme

Posted on September 23, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

As part of my writing of “The Prosecution of Mr. Darcy’s Cousin,” I completed research on “Rub-A-Dub-Dub,” an English language nursery rhyme first published at the end of the eighteenth century. The nursery rhyme plays out as part of the mystery in newest novel. The rhyme has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 3101.

Lyrics

This rhyme exists in many variations. Among those current today is:

Rub-a-dub-dub,
Three men in a tub,
And who do you think they were?
The butcher, the baker,
The candlestick-maker,
They all sailed out to sea,
‘Twas enough to make a man stare.

Origins and Meaning
The earliest versions of this rhyme published differ significantly in their wording. The first recorded version in Christmas Box, published in London in 1798, has wording similar to that in Mother Goose’s Quarto or Melodies Complete, published in Boston, Massachusetts around 1825. The latter ran:

Hey! rub-a-dub, ho! rub-a-dub, three maids in a tub,
And who do you think were there?
The butcher, the baker, the candlestick-maker,
And all of them gone to the fair.

This led Iona and Peter Opie to conclude that they were three respectable townsfolk “watching a dubious sideshow at a local fair.”

By around 1830 the reference to maids was being removed from the versions printed in nursery books. In 1842, James Orchard Halliwell collected the following version:

Rub a dub dub,
Three fools in a tub,
And who do you think they be?
The butcher, the baker,
The candlestick maker.
Turn them out, knaves all three.

Some believe the rhyme’s origin comes from the tale of a fair with three maids reclining in a tub. The women were being watched by a mostly male audience. As such, three men decided to join them, but they were turned out by the fair’s owner.

On Reason Behind the Rhyme on NPR, Chris Roberts, author of “Heavy Words Lightly Thrown,” describes the origin of Rub-a-dub-dub as, “The original version goes: `Hey, rub-a-dub, ho, rub-a-dub, three maids in a tub. And who do you think were there? The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, and all of them going to the fair.’ Now this version goes back to about the 14th century. And in a sense, it’s bang up to date at the same time. British tabloids love stories about respectable tradesfolk doing–being caught in places they shouldn’t be caught in. Today it would be perhaps a lap-dancing venue. They love celebrities being caught out. In this case, it’s a fairground attraction with naked ladies, which the–can you say pooge on American radio? The upper-class, the respectable tradesfolk–the candlestick maker and the butcher and the baker–are ogling, getting an eyeful of some naked young ladies in a tub. And that’s “Rub-a-Dub-Dub,” essentially.”

Posted in British history, language choices, legends and myths, Living in the UK, writing | Tagged , | Comments Off on Origin of “Rub-a-dub-dub” Nursery Rhyme

Movie Discussion ~ 1995’s Pride and Prejudice

Posted on September 22, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Movie Discussion of Pride and Prejudice 1995

In reading Jane Austen, one can easily imagine the Austen children acting out a play created by the boisterous Jane. Her novels have all the elements of drama: a small cast, limited settings, and no special effects. In this manner, Austen writes cinematic novels – those easily adapted to the screen. We find in Austen’s works very precise stage directions (“Darcy shook his head in silent acquiescence.”) and characters who disclose their inner lives through dramatic interactions with others. Translation: Austen writes telling dialogue. I spent many years in teaching theatre and acting, as well as being a major media literacy proponent. I love dissecting scenes and actions. Therefore…

Today, we discuss Andrew Davies 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice and, specifically, Colin Firth’s portrayal of Fitzwilliam Darcy. I do not wish to debate who was “the best Darcy.” What I wish to discuss is how Davie created the image of Darcy. Firth once said, “What Darcy doesn’t say” is as important as what he does say. As viewers, we observe Darcy looking disapprovingly at all the Meryton residents. He puts distance between himself and others. We watch Firth observe Jennifer Ehle’s character, and we have no doubt that as Darcy, Elizabeth Bennet’s disregard for him piques his interest. In reality, Firth has few lines in the first half of the series; yet, he “speaks” to us. He must convey Darcy’s thoughts and attitude with a raise of an eyebrow or a tightening of a jaw line.

Davies creates scenes and emotions (not expressed in the novel) to “flush out” Darcy’s character. In truth, Darcy is a MAJOR  minor character. In the novel, he meets Elizabeth at Michaelmas (the end of September) and is at Netherfield until the ball (end of November). Darcy then does not see Elizabeth until Easter at Rosings Park. They are together a fortnight before the disastrous first proposal separates them once more, leaving the suspense to build to the fateful meeting at Pemberley during the first week of August. In other words, he has been in her company three months spread over a year before his second proposal. Yet, Davie was smart enough to know that the dominant female audience would want to see Darcy fall in love with Elizabeth Bennet.

In the first half (up to the first proposal), Firth is invariably shown leaning against a mantle (usually with a mirror above) or staring out a window. Both stances are done in profile, indicating he is shutting himself off from new experiences and new people – it is his distancing technique. Even at the Meryton assembly, Firth is shot in profile when he meets the Bennet sisters for the first time. Also, at the party at Lucas Lodge, Darcy remains in profile by a mirror. (Notice that he is seen reflected in an opposite mirror. I love those types of shots for they tell the story so well!) At Netherfield, Darcy remains in profile at the window as the Bingley sisters discuss Elizabeth.
We do not see Firth in full face until the scene about an “accomplished lady.” He stares at an unseen object/person, which we viewers assume is Elizabeth. This is a pivotal point in our definition of Darcy. He is watching Elizabeth, but we are watching him watch her. Immediately following this telling scene, Davies adds an unscripted Austen scene: Darcy is in his bath. When he steps to the window to observe Elizabeth with the dog, again we watch him observe her. Did you not develop an opinion of Darcy’s growing affections for Elizabeth without Davies telling you so in words? A simple visual effect told the story.

From the bath scene onward, Darcy spends a great deal of time observing Elizabeth. This provides the viewer with characterization, but it was also a manipulative film technique to hook the obvious female audience. It was a glamorized framing of Firth as Darcy – offering him up to the feminine belief in true love. Even when Darcy returns to profile while he watches Elizabeth and Jane leave Netherfield, we know he observes her with growing interest. We automatically interpret his gaze.

From Elizabeth’s departure from Netherfield and up to the first proposal, Darcy retreats to the profile, indicating he is fighting his attraction for Elizabeth. At the Netherfield ball, we first discover Darcy in profile before he turns to look upon Elizabeth. At the Hunsford parsonage, he sits in profile when he visits with her and the Collinses, along with Col. Fitzwilliam. In the first proposal, he is back standing before a mirror; he moves in profile after the rejection and then returns to the mirror. All of this staring out windows and standing before mirrors is the filmmaker’s way of telling the viewers that Darcy’s character has never looked at his true self nor at Elizabeth as a true choice for a partner.
Davies displays Darcy’s sexual attractiveness, revealing the character as a sensitive man, as well as a physically fit one. Sensitivity is shown when he embraces a distraught Georgiana after her aborted elopement and with his distress when he discovers at Lambton Elizabeth’s grief over Lydia’s actions. Physically, this Darcy rides, hunts, fences, fishes, and swims. Although Darcy disappears from the novel for some time after the first proposal, Davies keeps the sexual tension by showing us Darcy fencing to fight his growing need for Elizabeth and then cooling his desires in the lake. Note that the fencing scene comes right before we first see Pemberley. It tell us who Darcy is, not what he owns.

When Darcy writes Elizabeth the letter of explanation (the beginning of the second half of this series), his anger and mortification is conveyed to the viewers through a man in shirt sleeves, with disheveled hair, and a grim countenance. He labors over the writing. This second half of the series creates a “new” Darcy. Even the opening shot (his leaving the parsonage) shifts the focus from Elizabeth to Darcy. Davies’ adaptation follows Austen’s book faithfully in most respects, except with Darcy. Those visual images to which we are introduced emphasize Darcy’s emotional rollercoaster. We are teased with an image of Wickham’s debauchery followed by the section of the letter where we shift scenes from Darcy’s writing to Elizabeth’s reading, creating sexual attraction.
Davies created an image of a determined Darcy, seeking Wickham and Lydia in London. Darcy is kept in our mind’s eye with images of this calculated search. Darcy buys information on the street from a penniless waif. He nearly forces his way into Mrs. Younge’s home. Later, we see Darcy standing up with Wickham at the church. Davies keeps Darcy’s character in the viewers’ minds even without Austen telling us these things. Note how Davies alternates between Elizabeth’s staring at Darcy’s portrait and Darcy’s dip in the lake. This alternation builds tension for their meeting.
When Darcy returns to Longbourn, he reverts to that stiff, proud character. Again, he is seen in profile before he stares out the window. However, it is not just Darcy who reverts. Think how Elizabeth is once again embarrassed by her mother during Bingley’s proposal, during Lady Catherine’s visit, and with their first walk out together. Returning the characters to an earlier behavior builds suspense.
At the Netherfield ball (one of 15 different dances in this adaptation), there is a sense of challenge between Darcy and Elizabeth. Firth actually said of the scene, “We see an honesty and a playfulness in Elizabeth, while there’s something slightly comical about Darcy’s trying to maintain his formal manner while holding up his end of the repartee. She’ll say something that stings him, and he has an entire eight-step circle to do before he is permitted to respond.” (pg. 102 of The Making of Pride and Prejudice by Sue Birtwistle and Susie Conklin)
So, what did you think? Did you learn something new today? Are there similar secrets you might share with the rest of us? I could go on and on, and we will discuss other facets of this adaptation later because it is one of the most successful ones.  One thing you will find about me is that I love movie trivia!!!
Posted in film, Jane Austen | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Universal Themes and Jane Austen: First Impressions

Posted on September 19, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

Universal Themes and Jane Austen: First Impressions

Have you ever met someone with whom you have corresponded several times (Facebook, Twitter, phone, or the old-fashioned way by a letter) only to be surprised by his/her appearance? He/She looks nothing like what you anticipated. First impressions are hard pressed upon our memory, and they are not easily abandoned. My vanity (Remember that Austen says there is a difference between pride and vanity. “Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves; vanity to what we would have others think of us.”) leads me to hope that those I have not met previously will find me congenial, and that I will not be a disappointment (not of the nature they had first anticipated).

500fullAs we all know, “First Impressions” was the original title for Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” First Impressions is also the theme of this classic novel. From the first line to the end, Austen reminds us over and over that First Impressions are often false ones. They are mistaken impressions. I often say that Austen hits her readers over the head with examples of false impressions. Miss Austen was a master of theme.

“It is a truth universally acknowledge, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” This famous first line in a tongue-in-cheek statement of potential theme, but the reader quickly learns that Mr. Darcy is not in want of a wife. In fact, he has likely come to Netherfield to “escape” the London Season. Obviously, with his wealth and family name, Darcy could have his choice of women. He certainly is not desperate enough to pursue a woman of poor connections and little dowry. This line sets the tone of irony for the novel. In reality, it is the mothers and single daughters of the community who are in “want” of a rich husband.

“I am sick of Mr. Bingley,” cried his wife. This line is a bit misleading. It is well matched with Mrs. Bennet’s later profession when her sister, Mrs. Philips, brings news of Bingleys return to Netherfield. The lady says, “Well, so much the better. Not that I care about it, though. He is nothing to us, you know, and I am sure I never want to see him again.” Mrs. Bennet’s obsession is finding her daughters husbands before the entail sends the family into penury. Of course, she is concerned with what happens to the richest man in the community.

Within her letter to Elizabeth regarding Darcy’s involvement in settling the scandal of Lydia’s elopement, Mrs. Gardiner says, “He generously imputed the whole of his mistaken pride, and confessed that he had before thought it beneath him, to lay his private actions open to the world. His character was to speak for itself.” Darcy’s character does speak for itself, but not in the way Elizabeth originally thought of him.

Of Mr. Darcy’s first appearance in Meryton, we learn, “…Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien; and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year.” Later in the same paragraph, the reader’s first impression of Darcy is quickly altered. “The gentlemen pronounced him to be a fine figure of a man, the ladies declared he was much handsomer than Mr. Bingley, and he was looked at with great admiration for about half the evening, till his manners gave a disgust, which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased, and not all his large estate in Derbyshire could then save him from having a most forbidding, disagreeable countenance, and being unworthy to be compared with his friend.” Austen has manipulated her readers. Our Jane has assured that we will not see through Darcy’s façade. We are ready to believe Elizabeth’s false impressions of the man, who will eventually win her heart.

Elizabeth is the first daughter that is mentioned in the story line. She is also the first one to speak. That is Austen’s way to introduce her readers to the main character of the story. Mr. Bennet says of Elizabeth, “They have none of them much to recommend them,” replied he. “They are all silly and ignorant little girls; but Lizzy has something more of quickness than her sisters.” Mr. Bennet praises Elizabeth’s intelligence, and the reader believes what the man says. Yet, Elizabeth believes all the falsehoods about Darcy and sets upon them the disaster that could have ruined her family. In fact, it is the mild-mannered Jane Bennet who recognizes Darcy’s true worth long before her sister. However, even as Jane declares Darcy incapable of the deceit that Wickham has shared of his life at Darcy’s hand, neither the reader, nor Elizabeth believes her because “Lizzy has something more of quickness than her sisters.”

Mrs. Bennet says of her second daughter, “Lizzy is not a bit better than the others; and I am sure she is not half so handsome as Jane, nor half so good-humored as Lydia.” Again, this is our first impression of Elizabeth from her mother’s lips. Yet, we know that Elizabeth possesses so much more depth of character than either Jane or Lydia.

Darcy’s says of Elizabeth, “She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me.” Oh, poor delusional Darcy!!!

pride_and_prejudice_46231_mediumOur first impression of Mr. Wickham says, “This was exactly as it should be; for the young man wanted only regimentals to make him completely charming. His appearance was greatly in his favour; he had all the best part of beauty, a fine countenance, a good figure, and a very pleasing address.” Now, if we astute readers, we would have compared this description of Wickham with the earlier one of Darcy. If we were incorrect in our first impression of a man of Darcy’s consequence, how could we be correct about the put-upon Mr. Wickham? Oh, we are so gullible, and Austen used our gullibility to mislead us once again.

At the Netherfield Ball, Elizabeth says of Darcy, “Merely to the illustration of your character,” said she, endeavouring to shake off her gravity. “I am trying to make it out.” Although she claims to have taken an interest in Darcy’s character, Elizabeth, in reality, only wishes to confirm her earlier first impressions of the man. The exchange actually speaks more to Elizabeth’s negativity and impetuosity than it does of Darcy’s character.

So, Darcyholic visitors, where are there other examples of “Mistaken First Impressions” in Pride and Prejudice? Add a few below in your comments. (By the way, I’ll leave you with another enticing “first impression.” My next Austen release will be The Prosecution of Mr. Darcy’s Cousin. Did I earn your attention with that one?

Posted in excerpt, Great Britain, Jane Austen, Regency era, word play, writing | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Universal Themes and Jane Austen: First Impressions

Maria Fagniani, Marchioness of Hertford and Regency Era Eccentric

Posted on September 18, 2014 by Regina Jeffers
Miniature Maria Fagnani, 3rd Marchioness of Hertford Richard Cosway (1742 - 1821) England 1791 Painted on ivory Image size: 7.6 x 6.3 cm Signature: 'R.d. Cosway / R.A. / Primarius Pictor /Serenissimi Walliae / Principis / Pinxit / 1791' In ink Inscription: 'Maria Fagniani by Cosway 1791.' Engraved Credit line: Presented by The Art Fund 2007.2 Boudoir Cabinet http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=64536&viewType=detailView

Miniature
Maria Fagnani, 3rd Marchioness of Hertford
Richard Cosway (1742 – 1821)
England
1791
Painted on ivory
Image size: 7.6 x 6.3 cm
Signature: ‘R.d. Cosway / R.A. / Primarius Pictor /Serenissimi Walliae / Principis / Pinxit / 1791’ In ink
Inscription: ‘Maria Fagniani by Cosway 1791.’ Engraved
Credit line: Presented by The Art Fund
2007.2
Boudoir Cabinet http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=64536&viewType=detailView

The mistresses of the Prince Regent and his brothers were as well known. The Duke of Clarence, for example, sired ten children with Mrs Jordan, and the Duke of York’s relationship with Mary Anne Clarke caused a major scandal over army commissions. The Duke of Cumberland had rumors of incest, which followed him about. Most of the by-blows sired by upper class families were given the family surname and brought up in the same household as were the legitimate heirs. Occasionally, to avoid scandal, the child was born abroad and at an appropriate age reappeared in England to find a generous “Godfather.”

Maria Fagniani was one such child. She was the daughter of the Marchesa Fagniani, a woman known for bestowing her favors on a variety of gentlemen. Three men claimed Maria as his child. The first of those was the Marchese. The others included Lord March (later the Duke of Queensberry) and George Selwyn. Selwyn left Maria £20,000 pounds as an inheritance. The Duke left her £100,000. At age one and twenty, Mie-Mie married Lord Yarmouth, a man whose reputation was as rakish as her fathers.

Maria Emilia Fagnani (24 August 1771 – 2 March 1856) was the Marchioness of Hertford.

Maria was illegitimate. Born in the 1770s, most likely, she was the daughter of Costanza Brusati, the Italian Marchesa Fagnani, and of either –

William Douglas, 4th Duke of Queensberry(1724–1810), who was famously detested by Robert Burns.
George Selwyn (1719–1791), a prominent Tory and lover of Grace Elliott. He was also a member of the Satanic Hellfire Club.
George Selwyn’s butler.
Marchese Fagniani
Each of these men believed himself to be her father and left her very large legacies.

On 18 May 1798, Maria married Francis Seymour-Conway, Earl of Yarmouth (1777–1842), the son of the Second Marquess and Isabella Ingram-Shepheard. The Marchioness was the daughter of the Viscount Irvine, and the mistress of the Prince of Wales.

By 1802 they were estranged, and she lived in Paris for the rest of her life. Their children included:

Lady Francis Maria Seymour-Conway (d. 1822)
Captain Richard Seymour-Conway, 4th Marquess of Hertford (1800–1870)
Lord Henry Seymour-Conway (1805–1859)
When George III was insane, he announced that he was going to take Lady Yarmouth as his mistress.

Later, the Marquess inherited his title in 1822. He died in 1842. The dowager Marchioness died in 1856 in Paris.

Willaim Makepeace Thackery parodied her husband as the Marquess of Steyne in his masterpiece, Vanity Fair.

Posted in British history, George IV, Great Britain, Inheritance, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Henry ‘Orator’ Hunt, British Radical of the Industrial Age

Posted on September 17, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

NPG 956,Henry Hunt,by Adam Buck Henry “Orator” Hunt (6 November 1773–15 February 1835) was a British radical speaker and agitator, who advocated parliamentary reform and the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Because of his rousing speeches at mass meetings held in Spa Fields in London in 1816-17, he became known as the ‘Orator,’ a term of disparagement accorded by his enemies. He embraced a programme that included annual parliaments and universal suffrage, promoted openly and with none of the conspiratorial element of the old Jacobin clubs. The tactic he most favored was that of ‘mass pressure,’ which he felt, if given enough weight, could achieve reform without insurrection.

Although his efforts at mass politics had the effect of radicalizing large sections of the community unrepresented in Parliament, there were clear limits as to how far this could be taken. Invited by the Patriotic Union Society, formed by the Manchester Observer, to be one of the scheduled speakers at a rally in Manchester on 16 August 1819, it became the Peterloo Massacre. Arrested and convicted, the incident cost him more than two years in prison.

The debacle at Peterloo, caused by an overreaction of the local Manchester authorities, added greatly to his prestige, but it advanced the cause not one step. Moral force was not sufficient in itself, and physical force entailed too great a risk. Although urged to do so after Peterloo, Hunt refused to give his approval to schemes for a full-scale insurrection. Thereby all momentum was lost, as more desperate souls turned to worn out cloak-and-dagger schemes, which surfaced in the Cato Street Conspiracy.

While in prison for his part in Peterloo, Hunt turned to writing, to putting his message across through a variety of forms, including an autobiography. After his release he attempted to recover some of his lost fortune by beginning new business ventures in London, which included the production and marketing of a roasted corn Breakfast Powder, the “most salubrious and nourishing Beverage that can be substituted for the use of Tea and Coffee, which are always exciting, and frequently the most irritating to the Stomach and Bowels.” He also made shoe-blacking bottles, which carried the slogan “Equal Laws, Equal Rights, Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and the Ballot.” Synthetic coal, intended specifically for the French market, was another of his schemes. After the July Revolution in 1830 he sent samples to Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette and other political heroes, along with fraternal greetings.

In his opposition to the Reform Bill Orator Hunt revived the Great Northern Union, a pressure group he set up some years before, intended to unite the northern industrial workers behind a platform of full democratic reform; and it is in this specifically that the germs of Chartism can be detected. Worn out by his struggles he died in 1835.

A monument to Hunt was erected in 1842 by “the working people,” in Every Street, Manchester, in Scholefield’s Chapel Yard. A “spiral” march was held on the anniversary of Peterloo, from Piccadilly around the town past the Peterloo site, down to Deansgate and through Ancoats to the monument. The monument’s stonework deteriorated and it was demolished in 1888.

HisCrop2 Note! The Peterloo Massacre plays a central role in my Regency era novella, “His Irish Eve,” which is paired with “His American Heartsong” in His: Two Regency Novellas (available from all major booksellers).

Posted in British history, George IV, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, political stance, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Victorian era | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Henry ‘Orator’ Hunt, British Radical of the Industrial Age

“Going Courting” Regency Style

Posted on September 16, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

“Going Courtin’” in the Regency Era

Society during the Regency era expected strict propriety from its young people. Sometimes the rules were strict and unreasonable, but somehow the youth of Jane Austen’s time managed to come together.

Young men of the time were often older than the women they courted. Men were expected to establish themselves before seeking a wife. They were expected to have sound financial prospects, especially if they were not the eldest son and expected to inherit the family property. Men often sought wives straight from the schoolroom, meaning ages 16 and 17 because childbirth was difficult for a woman of the era. It was thought that a younger wife could withstand those difficulties more easily than a “woman on the shelf” (women of 25+ years of age). An heir and a spare was expected of the marriage. In addition, the woman was expected to secure her financial future with her marriage.

pride-and-prejudiceAt age 16 a girl of the gentry made her Come Out, which was a formal introduction of the girl to Society. It was the “signal” that she was prepared to become a bride. New dresses and jewelry and riding habits and… were required for the young lady’s debut. She would be “on display” at all times, and people would be evaluating her elegance and manners. The Season in London involved balls, soirees, the theatre, assemblies, trips to the museum, etc. Finally, the young lady could participate in conversation with adults and her suitors.

In Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Lady Catherine De Bourgh is flabbergasted by the news that all five Bennet sisters are Out at the same time “The younger ones out before the elder are married!” Of course, Elizabeth Bennet defends her mother’s lax sense of propriety by saying, “I think it would be very hard upon younger sisters, that they shouldn’t have their share of society and amusement because the elder may not have the means or inclination to marry early.” When Charlotte Lucas finally marries at age 27, her sisters her happy because “hopes of coming out a year or two sooner than they might otherwise have done” arise.

A proper young lady was to have a chaperone in tow at all times. Often, a chaperone traveled with the husband and his new bride on their “honeymoon.” Eligible gentlemen were only to give their attentions to the young ladies who had made their Society debut. A young woman who was Out could engage in conversation with eligible gentlemen, could attend formal dances and social outings, and could walk out with a gentleman, if she was properly chaperoned. Girls, who were not Out, could not engage in conversation until a parent or other familial adult asked her a question. She could only walk out with a male relative (again with a chaperone). Many girls wore what is known as a “close bonnet.” This was a hat with a deep brim, which hid most of the girl’s countenance from view.

mansfield-oconnorTom Bertram in Austen’s Mansfield Park relates a story of a young lady who did not practice decorum. The girl approached Tom at a party, claiming him an acquaintance and “talked and laughed till [he] did not know which way to look.” In sharp contrast is the novel’s heroine, Fanny Price. At Fanny’s Come Out, the guests note that Fanny is “attractive…modest…Sir Thomas’s niece…and soon to be admired by Mr. Crawford. It was enough to give her general favour.”

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, dancing, Great Britain, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Regency era | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on “Going Courting” Regency Style

The Face of Jack the Ripper Revealed

Posted on September 15, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

The Face of Jack the Ripper

Last Monday (September 8), I included a post on The Brutality of Jack the Ripper. This is one of my favorite sources on the crime. In 2006, BBC News brought us a look at “Jack the Ripper” by using modern day profiling techniques. Below is a short excerpt from the article, which is well worth the read.

Jack the Ripper’s face ‘revealed’

_42334426_jacktheripper_203i

The case has fascinated people for decades
An e-fit showing what detectives believe serial killer Jack the Ripper looked like has been revealed.Using new profiling techniques, investigators have created a picture of what they believe the 19th Century murderer would have looked like.

The man, who evaded police in the 1880s, is thought to have killed and mutilated five London prostitutes.

The Scotland Yard team describe him as “frighteningly normal” but someone capable of “extraordinary cruelty.”

And investigators have admitted that police at the time were probably searching for the wrong kind of man.

Head of analysis for Scotland Yard’s Violent Crime Command, Laura Richards, who has studied serial killer Fred West and Soham murderer Ian Huntley, revisited the case using modern police techniques.

To continue reading go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6164544.stm

Posted in British history, Living in the UK, mystery, Victorian era | Tagged , | 2 Comments

From Where Does That Phrase Come?

Posted on September 12, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

Catch Word is a word under the right-hand side of the last line on a book page that repeats the first word on the following page – circa 1736. It was commonly used in printing. The phrase has come into the language via the theatre. The last word of one actor’s speech is the cue for the next actor to speak. The second actor must “catch” the first’s to know when he is to speak.

mFTYv5pUdj8Fz2ColBnueYAA triangular plot of land is often referred to as a Heater Piece. The triangle looks like a flatiron, therefore, the name. Those who live in NYC likely have heard of the Flatiron Building, which sits upon a triangular piece of land at the intersection of Twenty-third Street and Fifth Avenue. (Dictionary of Word Origins)

A phrase often found in Regency romances is Carte Blanche, customarily referring to a gentleman of the time giving his mistress “carte blanche.” The meaning has come to refer to freedom of choice or full discretionary power. In French it is literally a “white card.” The first known use was 1751. It was the custom of the time for a man of wealth or importance to sign blank sheets of paper so a trusted subordinate might fill in the necessary order or letter of business upon his behalf.

Shiver My Timbers is an oath expressing annoyance or surprise. Most likely it is purely a literary invention rather than a piratical term. In 1834, Frederick Marryat used the oath in his Jacob Faithful: “I won’t thrash you, Tom. Shiver my timbers if I do.” Robert Louis Stevenson used the phrase three times in his 1883 Treasure Island: “Well, he [Old Pew] is dead now and under hatches; but for two years before that, shiver my timbers, the man was starving!” In 1949, in Mark My Words John B. Opdyke claimed “the expression ‘shiver my timbers’ belongs to cricket, referring to scattering or strewing wickets for which ‘timbers’ is a slang substitute.” (Heavens to Betsy pg. 105)

Placing the Cart Before the Horse means exactly what it says – not putting things in the correct order. From Phrase Finder we learn, “An early reference to ‘putting the cart before the horse’ comes in George Puttenham’s The Arte of English Poesie, 1589: Ye haue another manner of disordered speach, when ye misplace your words or clauses and set that before which should be behind. We call it in English prouerbe, the cart before the horse, the Greeks call it Histeron proteron, we name it the Preposterous. cart-before-the-horse

He was probably referring back to, or possibly translating directly from, a work by Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC) – On Friendship: “We put the cart before the horse, and shut the stable door when the steed is stolen, in defiance of the old proverb.” A hysteron proteron is a figure of speech we inherited from the Greeks, in which the thing that should come second is put first; for example, ‘putting on one’s shoes and socks’. It isn’t surprising that, when needing an Anglicised proverb to express that notion, the English turned toward what they knew best, that is, agriculture, and in particular, horses. There are more ‘horse phrases’ in English than those referring to any other animal, including ‘man’s best friends’, dogs. The notion of things being the opposite of what they rightfully should be seems to have played on the minds of the English at the time when modern English began to be formed, that is, in the 16th century. It is a common theme in Shakespeare and The Tempest, Macbeth and A Midsummer Night’s Dream all contain ‘world turned upside down’ magical elements.”

Neither Hide Nor Hair is a cliché indicating no sign of a person or thing is to be had. The Phrase Finder says the current phrase is a corruption of one known in Chaucer’s time and meant “wholly or entirely.” Reportedly in the metrical Life of St. Cuthbert one finds: “Pai were destroyed, bath hare and hyde.” (Heavens to Betsy! Pg. 145) Josiah G. Holland used the phrase in his 1857’s The Bay-Path; a Tale of New England Colonial Life: “I haven’t seen hide nor hair of the piece ever since.” y.

To Grease a Person’s Palm means to act in kindness to another in hopes of future gains or favors. In present day vernacular the phrase means to give money to someone in authority in order to persuade him to do something for you, especially something wrong. According to A Hog on Ice (page 81), “The present expression has been in vogue since the beginning of the eighteenth century, changed since the early sixteenth century only in the substitution of ‘palm’ for ‘hand.’ Our present form, however, is a direct translation of a French phrase of the Middle Ages, ‘oindre la paume á quelqu’un.’ Littré, the French philologist, tells of an ancient story about an old woman whose two cows had been seized by the provost and who then received the advice that she would have saved herself from trouble had she first ‘greased his palm.’”

A Chain is Only as Strong as Its Weakest Link comes to us via the 18th Century and Thomas Reid’s Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1786):”In every chain of reasoning, the evidence of the last conclusion can be no greater than that of the weakest link of the chain, whatever may be the strength of the rest.” (Phrase Finder)

A Watched Pot Never Boils refers to how time feels longer when one is waiting for something to happen. According to Phrase Finder, the homely comes to the language via Poor Richard’s Almanac, written by the venerable Benjamin Franklin. In a report on Franz Mesmer’s controversial theory of ‘animal magnetism,’ Franklin (1785) wrote “Finally another Breakfast is ordered. One servant runs for fresh Water, another for Coals. The Bellows are plied with a will. I was very Hungry; it was so late; “a watched pot is slow to boil.” poor-richard

Preposterous means contrary to reason or common sense. Its first known use was 1542. “Pre” is a Latin prefix indicating something at the front. “Post” is a Latin root meaning at the back. So “preposterous” should mean the front is in the front and the back in the back, but it does not. It is the reverse.

He Who Laughs Last Laughs Longest is a proverb from the times of the Tudors, but not from Shakespeare. In a play entitled “Christmas Prince,” first performed at Cambridge in 1608, we find “Laugh on laugh on my freind/Hee laugheth best that laugheth to the end.”

Posted in customs and tradiitons, language choices, word play, writing | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

England Thrives Under George III

Posted on September 11, 2014 by Regina Jeffers

England Changes Under George III’s Reign

George III

George III

In 1762, the year George III and his wife Queen Charlotte gave the English people the first heir born to a ruling monarch since the “Old Pretender,” James II’s son (1688), Britain was on the brink of the Industrial Revolution. What were the changes happening in the country?

Roads: Until the early 19th Century the pack horse ruled the road, or what was supposed to be a road. Even at the turn of the century, only a few major routes could be considered more than ruts, broken stones, and muddy sand. From London to Bath, one had an easy way to go, but the more rural roads often left villages cut off for months during the winter. The development of Tarmac by the Scottish surveyor, John McAdam, resolved some of those issues.

Canal System: This was the most efficient means to move goods. The Duke of Bridgewater, at a cost of £220,000, built the first canal in 1759. Bridgewater brought coal from his mines in Worsley to Manchester and reduced the cost of coal to half. By 1815, the cost of inland transportation was reduced by 75%.

George IV

George IV

Population: When George IV was born, the combined population of England and Wales was 6.5 million. However, with the development of new medical procedures and agriculture, the population became stable – fewer deaths with childbirth and a longer life expectancy. By the time of George IV’s death in 1831, the combined populations had climbed to 16.5 million. Urban development exploded. In the mid 1700s, only London (750,000) and Bristol (60,000) had large populations.

Trade: During the same time period, imports were £11 million and exports numbered £16 million. England imported wine, spirits, tea, sugar, and coffee. Exports included woolen goods, metal works, pottery, tin, and cured fish. The Atlantic triangle thrived: Merchants transported goods to West Africa, where they picked up slaves for the West Indies and southern colonies. From the “New World,” England received sugar, tobacco, and timber. England capitalized on the Industrial Revolution, especially in the areas of iron, steel, coal, and textiles. The first steam loom appeared in Manchester in 1806, which had a developed transportation model in place.

Agriculture: The agricultural world saw several improvements: Lord Townshend’s four-crop rotation (leaving one field fallow and rotating energy rich legumes with staple crops); use of marl to enrich soils; Jethro Tull’s drill seed. In livestock trade, similar advancements took hold: the development of sheep herds for meat and a shorter fleece being the most prominent improvement.

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, George IV, Georgian Era, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, Napoleonic Wars, real life tales, War of 1812 | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments