This post is over 11 years old and may contain information that is incorrect, outdated, or no longer relevant. My views and opinions can change, and those that are expressed in this post may not necessarily reflect the ones I hold today.
History 364-0-01: Gender and Sexuality in Victorian Britain; Northwestern University, Fall 2014
Lapel Griffin
He passes the exams to enter the Indian Civil Service, the arm of the government
He seeks to make arguments against demands of Indian power through various methods of feminization of Indian men
Although all Indian men get feminized, some are more feminized than others
He states that the London liberals who are coming out to India are not as deeply engraved because they are only on several-year terms, unlike himself
Bengali Baboo
Britain brings in the Hindus into the civil service because there are not enough British men to run the whole thing by themselves
The Bengali Baboo are western educated, middle-class elite
This group will start pushing for power because they’re educated, they know how the government runs (because they are running it and making the country work)
Lapel Griffin pushes right back
“Bengali Baboo” came from the phrase “Babu” – Babu is intended as a respectable title, while the version with two Os is not
Ilbert Bill
Allows some Indian magistrates and judges some jurisdiction over the trials of some crimes committed by British men and women
If the bill was passed as-is in its original form, the tweak to the law was so minor that it was estimated that, across the next decade, only 9-10 Indian judges would preside over the trials of British men and women
The Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act of 1884
The compromise of the bill that is struck, in the actual act that gets passed, says that Indian judges and magistrates are allowed as long as there is also a European who is allowed to request a jury that is at least half European
“Indian men can’t be trusted with British women, they can’t even be trusted with their own women”
Indian Councils Act of 1892
Allows greater Indian middle-class, educated representation in legislative councils, which causes an uproar in British India
The Ilbert Bill and Indian Councils Act (Handout)
The Ilbert Bill, 1883-4
Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act, Jan 1884
This bill, proposed by Member of the Government of India in the Legislative Council by the name of Courtenay Ilbert (he was a legal advisor), proposed to give Indian judges and magistrates – who were Indians working for the colonial administration – very limited criminal jurisdiction over British subjects in certain parts of India. As it was, only white officials were allowed criminal jurisdiction over whites. The idea the Ilbert Bill proposed, that of Indians sitting in judgment over the white British subjects (Anglo Indians), was anathema to most British living in India, who regarded the Bill as a threat to British power.
The Bill was introduced in India by Viceroy Ripon but did not pass in its original version. It became law in January of 1884, but was severely compromised. Indian judges and magistrates were granted limited jurisdiction over Europeans in certain areas, but Europeans won the right to demand a trial by jury at least half of whose members were European (i.e. white).
The Indian Councils Act of 1892
The Act authorized an increase in the size of the various legislative councils in India. Enacted due to the demand of the Indian National Congress (established 1885) to expand legislative councils, the number of non-official members was increased. The non-official members of Indian legislative councils were henceforth to be nominated by the Bengal chamber of commerce and provincial legislative council.
It introduced the principle of representation for educated Indian men. For example, council members could now put questions to the government concerning matters of public interest.
Sir Lepel Henry Griffin (July 20, 1838 – March 9, 1908) was a British administrator and diplomat in India.
This post is over 11 years old and may contain information that is incorrect, outdated, or no longer relevant. My views and opinions can change, and those that are expressed in this post may not necessarily reflect the ones I hold today.
History 364-0-01: Gender and Sexuality in Victorian Britain; Northwestern University, Fall 2014
The British Empire
Expansion
The territory started small, but spreaded to modern-day Canada, Australia, India, and parts of Africa in 1886
This is a global empire – the expansion is all across the world and spread out (this is where the phrase “the sun never sets on the British Empire” phrase comes from)
Athena represents Britannia and represents British power
Empires are a place where goods can be sold – it provides a market; they also provide raw goods for manufacturing, which can be purchased from the empire and brought back elsewhere
The United Kingdom is about the size of Michigan, but the Empire was able to provide Britain’s power due to its expansion
India
The Empire starts to expand past the presidency towns in 1756-1805
By 1805, Britain still isn’t the paramount power and isn’t the dominant force
In 1805-1858, the expansion furthers such that there are no longer any regional powers challenging British authority
The British Raj (1858-1947) expands past India
The mutiny is a traumatic event for British authority because they assumed they had a natural ability to rule India, through liberal imperialism
They believed that by spreading their beliefs (i.e. about religion and culture), the inhabitants would become just as civilized as they were
This caused a shift where religion and culture were not imposed on the Indian people
India is considered the jewel in the crown of the British empire
After Queen Victoria was named Empress of India, she was seen less as a powerful person from a foreign area, and more seen as someone who was accepting and involved in the new culture
“Victorians Uncovered,” India
In Indian culture, things happened in public that would only be permitted behind closed doors in Britain
The Victorians tried to bring their culture to India and try to spread it to the Indians
Women were told they should run their household as the British run the empire
Sensuality was a trait that high Victorians thoroughly disapproved
Women who committed adultery would lose their status and would be enough for divorce; the idea of introducing an illegitimate child into the family to receive inheritances was unforgivable
Women were held at higher standards; adultery was enough for divorce, while men had to commit both adultery as well as abuse
It was rare to see someone embrace interracial marriage; to encourage this, gold coins were provided for those who had interracial babies
Wellesley refused to accept interracial relationships
Interracial relationships of sexual nature had to be kept behind closed doors; although the rules had changed, the desires remained the same
The Mutiny occurred when Indians felt their beliefs were being violated by being forced to have beef and pork fat touch their mouths
There was a siege that lasted for months, the most notable of which lasted two months and 2,000 people died; news of this reached Britain and the press overplayed the magnitude of the siege by claiming much more people had died
It was agreed to let the British surrender and escape through a river, but instead, the men were killed as they tried to leave, and the women and children were captured and slaughtered
The Victorian woman was iconized as a violated angel
A proposal was brought up that said Indian judges should be equals to their English co-workers; if passed, it would allow Indian judges to try British people
The British wrote to the press and tried to prove that the Indians were not capable because they were not delicate and overall did not possess the appropriate traits
James Hume, the government prosecutor, caught his wife committing adultery with an Indian man, and nearly beat her to death; he was advised to place the blame on the Indian man
The media framed this as an Indian servant attempting to rape an English woman, and the case was blown out of proportion
The British claimed that the Indian demons were preying on the innocent angels
The judge and jury saw the Indian man as guilty because the victim lied and did not talk of their affair; this case was used as evidence by people stating that Indian judges (and Indian people in general) were incapable
The truth was revealed only two years later by a letter written by a cousin, but it was not revealed until they were dead and the letter was discovered in their private documents
This post is over 11 years old and may contain information that is incorrect, outdated, or no longer relevant. My views and opinions can change, and those that are expressed in this post may not necessarily reflect the ones I hold today.
History 364-0-01: Gender and Sexuality in Victorian Britain; Northwestern University, Fall 2014
Sex and Murder
What was it about the Ripper murders that so captivated the Victorian public?
What motivated Stead to devote so much energy and print to the Ripper murders? Did he have any agenda(s) ancillary to the capture of the murderer?
Did the Pall Mall Gazette coverage of the murders promote public hysteria? How?
What are some common social themes between the Ripper murders, “Modern Tribute,” and Jekyll & Hyde? What was the relationship between fiction and reality during the time of the Ripper murders?
How did the Contagious Diseases Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act influence the coverage of the Ripper murders? Did they play any role in the murders themselves?
According to Showalter’s arguments, what ideas and social forces made the Ripper murders possible? Does she believe that these have changed? Do you agree?
It was asserted that “no true Englishman could commit such savage crimes” as the Ripper murders. In what ways were notions of race central to contemporary ideas about the Ripper murders?
How would you characterized contemporary attitudes about the victims of the murders? Do you think the coverage of the murders in the Pall Mall Gazette was appropriately sympathetic?
Why did some Victorians, including Stead, see the Ripper murders as part of a broader social, political, and moral crisis? Do you agree with their analyses?
Why are “Ripperology” and “Ripperature” still active fields?
This post is over 11 years old and may contain information that is incorrect, outdated, or no longer relevant. My views and opinions can change, and those that are expressed in this post may not necessarily reflect the ones I hold today.
History 364-0-01: Gender and Sexuality in Victorian Britain; Northwestern University, Fall 2014
Population of prostitutes
3 million people in London, 55,000 prostitutes in London
Police would’ve given a lower number of prostitutes because they base their statistics off arrests, and arrests were low
Britain does not have a state-controlled brothel system like other European capitals do
Legislation
1839 Vagrancy Act: criminalized loitering for the purposes of prostitution or solicitation
The Vagrancy Act was aimed at the public, in public spaces
It’s not the actual act of prostitution that is illegal, it is “loitering for the purposes of”
This meant the prostitutes would be prosecuted, but the ones looking for and using prostitutes would not – it was always the woman who was criminalized
1864, 1867, 1869 Contagious Diseases Acts
There was a high number of diseases in military men
Any woman who was suspected (social profiling) of being a prostitute could be picked up by the police and subjected to a forcible full pelvic exam (with a speculum, opening the vaginal cavity) by an army doctor
Army doctors were not used to inspecting working-class women, they usually only inspected military men
If the woman was found to have a sexually transmitted disease, she was held in a locked hospital for three months while she underwent treatment
It was working-class women and girls who were constantly paying the price of prostitution
Repealed in 1886 by Josephine Butler and the Social Purity Movement
This happens one year after the Criminal Law Amendment Act
Prostitutes
Asking young girls when and how they had fallen
Most girls say they had fallen at age 16, because it was a respectable answer – this answer was given both before and after the Criminal Law Amendment Act (few girls say they had fallen earlier)
They either said they had fallen to a boyfriend of the same class (and they may have fallen into prostitution after this)
Or, to the man of the house to which they were a servant
Girls often charged one pound per encounter – this was a lot of money for a working-class girl in the east end of London (one pound was subsistence wage)
Older prostitutes
As the girls got older, the amount they charged slipped down to about 4-8 pence and were “fourpenny knee tremblers,” the lowest of the low
Knee-trembling sex was commercial, fast, rough sex done while standing up; fourpenny knee tremblers didn’t have a place to which to take the men because they didn’t have a permanent room or bed
Jack the Ripper’s victims were fourpenny knee tremblers
“Doss money” is the money needed to purchase a cheap, temporary bed in a doss house for one night
The Ripper’s victims were in their 40s with no permanent man in their life and no permanent place to stay – these are the kinds of women who were out on the streets very late at night
Pimps/bullies
Working class girls felt they needed a man as a front to make it look like they were more reputable
Prostitution (Handout)
Fall-out of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885
The Act outlawed brothel-keeping and the procurement of women for prostitution
Brothel-keepers and their agents could now be imprisoned or fined (both clauses of the Act were opposed by W.T. Stead and Josephine Butler)
Landlords were now reluctant to rent their houses or rooms to women living alone or collectively with a small group of women
Working-class prostitutes now felt compelled to include at least one man in the household. These men were referred to as “bullies,” and they provided some protection and cover
This undermined the personal and economic independence that working-class prostitutes had enjoyed prior to 1885
Fall-out of the Whitechapel (“Ripper”) Murders
The social purity movement moved against prostitution and urged even greater regulation and police powers (opposed by Stead and Butler)
Some of the worst slums in Whitechapel were cleared, and old “common lodging houses” or “doss houses” were destroyed. New housing for respectable Jewish immigrants (usually skilled artisans) was built, but the extreme poor were forced onto the streets. Many of these were older women
Male working-class vigilance committees were set up to patrol the streets of the East End and protect women. The result was that working-class women were increasingly confined to the home
This post is over 11 years old and may contain information that is incorrect, outdated, or no longer relevant. My views and opinions can change, and those that are expressed in this post may not necessarily reflect the ones I hold today.
History 364-0-01: Gender and Sexuality in Victorian Britain; Northwestern University, Fall 2014
Male Sexuality: The Double Life and the Beast Within, Day 2
Is Showalter’s description of Stevenson’s novella as “a fable of fin-de siecle homosexual panic” accurate?
How did Victorian social mores exert pressure on men to lead double lives? Was this pressure felt more strongly by women, or less?
Women didn’t even have the outlet – they had to mask themselves in both public and private
Women-on-women homosexuality wasn’t even mentioned
Hysteria was a condition associated with femininity in Victorian Britain, but is the notion of hysteria important in the almost exclusively male world of Jekyll & Hyde?
Was Jekyll & Hyde more a tale of morality, of science, or of the supernatural?
How does Stevenson’s description of Jekyll’s physical transformation into Mr. Hyde relate to Cook’s discussion of the construction of the homosexual body?
What was the role of class in Victorian male homosexual relationships? How is this manifested in Stevenson choices in Jekyll & Hyde?
Why does Showalter think that, even in today’s time period, a “gender-swapped” Jekyll & Hyde story is impossible? Do you agree?
What is the significance of reputation in the novella? How does this reflect broader trends and events in late Victorian Britain?
Matt Cook in his discussion of homosexuality during Victorian England mentions the legal and social blurring of the private and public spheres of sexuality. Is this sense of “blurring” evident in the novella?
The Hyde portion of Jekyll’s split persona is depicted as wholly evil and sinful, and much younger. How does this representation of Jekyll’s double life resemble the double life le by men in the Victorian period?
This post is over 11 years old and may contain information that is incorrect, outdated, or no longer relevant. My views and opinions can change, and those that are expressed in this post may not necessarily reflect the ones I hold today.
History 364-0-01: Gender and Sexuality in Victorian Britain; Northwestern University, Fall 2014
Male Sexuality: The Double Life and the Beast Within, Day 1
Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-94)
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde published Jan. 1886
Born in Scotland as Robert Lewis
He knew from an early age that he wanted to become a writer
Suffered his entire life from ill health
He was privileged and had a beloved nanny whom he loved more than his mother; this nanny knew a lot of Scottish folk tales and Robert loved those stories
He qualifies as a lawyer, known in Scotland as an advocate, but he never practices law
He met Fanny Osbourne, who was American, a divorced woman, and ten years older than Robert – three strikes against her – but Robert falls in love with her
Robert ends up chasing her across America and follows her to California when she goes home, to get married
There have always been rumors about Robert’s sexuality, and the marriage didn’t do much because Fanny was masculine and dominating
Fanny was very protective of Robert, which is something that writers need – protection from the outside
Robert publishes a hit, Treasure Island, but he’s still not making much money
Robert was living at his father’s expense
His editor suggests that he write a short story for the Christmas market, which is for publication just before Christmas to be distributed to a wide audience – it usually involves elements of the supernatural and is in his financial interest
The Maiden Tribute is published in August 1885, which is about the time Robert plans out writing this story
It is documented that Robert was reading the Maiden Tribute as the articles were published, which shows that it was on his mind
Robert just barely misses the Christmas market – it is published in Jan. 1886
The editor was concerned because the story was more explicit than the editor wanted for the public market and general audience
The book gets published in Britain for 1 shilling in paperback (this is the latest Victorian technology to sell a book fast to a large audience)
The price of 1 shilling puts the book within budget for a large audience and everyone read it
This strategy was called the Shilling Shocker
Within six months, it had sold 40,000 copies
It went across the Atlantic and it sold for $1
Everyone is speculating what this story means, what Hyde was actually up to, how London is portrayed, and what Robert was implying with the story