I ran across this remarkable painting, titled “The Irritating Gentleman,” on Sheltered and Safe From Sorrow, a blog devoted to Victorian mourning rituals and other creepiness from that period. The gentleman in question seems to be a Victorian era Pickup Artist in action. He’s even peacocking, Mystery style, with that bow tie and stupid hat and even a non-ironic handlebar moustache. Probably the only thing keeping him from wearing aviator goggles is the fact that airplanes haven’t yet been invented.
What makes it all the worse is that the PUA’s target is clearly in mourning. As the blogger behind rawr I’m a tumblr notes:
She’s wearing all black in 1874. Black gloves, hat, cloak, and dress. In public. The whole nine yards. That’s not a fashion choice or a gothic thing. Back then when people wore all black like that, they were in mourning for someone who died. No one did mourning like the Victorians, that shit was an art form to them.
Someone in her family has died—she could even be a young widow. No one’s accompanying her either. With the carpet bag? She’s traveling alone while still in deep mourning. Look at the closeup. She’s got tears in her eyes. She is upset, devastated in a way that one is only when someone has died. And the guy’s still bothering her, like her problems are flippant bullshit and she needs to just smile or pay attention to him because ladies are supposed to be pleasing for men no matter what shit they’re going through. That’s not a look of “what an ass.” That’s a look of devastation that even in her pain, she’s expected to give people like him focus. She’s not mad. She’s hurt. And to add insult to injury? Everyone would be able to tell. It was a clear sign and still is in ways that someone is mourning, to dress in black crepe like that. He would know why she’s wearing all black, and he’s still demanding her attention.
What an insufferable dick.
Yep.
Not to mention that she looks a good decade younger than the f..ktard!
Victorian history? 🙂
She’s got to be at least 17, black crepe mourning wasn’t a thing for minors. And that looks like full mourning without the veil (though I guess that’d be attached to the hat)
Assuming that’s crepe, and there’s a veil in that hat, she’s either been widowed in the last year, or lost a parent (or child) in the last 6 months.
Because yes, that shit was an art form…an expensive art form, she’s a middle to upper class woman travelling alone.
That skeeve’s probably at least twenty years older than her – click on the larger version of the pic and you can see really clearly how young she is (teens, I would say) and the wrinkles on his face. (You could say in this case he’s the “mutton dressed as lamb” with his fashionable gear.)
Must look up who the artist is, I’d like to know what particular message they might have been sending with this one. I don’t want to read it through my attitude to these things, that’s irrelevant.
I’m guessin 18~20, because that’s a level of mourning that girls under 17 just didn’t do (though I’m not sure if that’d change if she was widowed at that age)
Definitely still a creep though.
Well, going by the signature on the crate, the artist is Berthold Woltze, but there doesn’t seem to be much info on him in English, at least that comes up in a quick Google search.
Argenti, yes, that’s adult mourning, all right. I don’t see a veil on the hat, at least not that shows obviously where it’s on her knee.
The train setting is interesting. I don’t know how it was done in Germany, but that would be a second-class carriage in England, or possibly third class (I don’t know whether third class was enclosed by the 1870s). It certainly wouldn’t be first class there. I’d guess she’s middle class. If she’s upper class and travelling alone and in a second-class carriage, there’s money trouble somewhere.
This painting should be called “Dudely Entitlement, 1874.”
I’m thinking either that’s the level of mourning she could afford, ergo no veil, or the money trouble is related to being a widow — whether she could inherent anything would be an interesting question of when exactly it is, the circumstances, etc.
If I really had to guess, and maybe it’s moot for a painting, but widowed and returning to her parents’ house.
“Roissy’s Great Grandfather”.
I’m also questioning if standard Victorian mourning wear is truly applicable, that tartan blanket may make this set in Scotland, and idk how strictly they followed Victorian mourning, maybe the veil just wasn’t a thing where she is.
Bwahahhahahahaaa! RAGE! Rage against (very beautifully painted) fictional scene set nearly 150 years ago!! Dissect it for meaning as tho’ it was a photograph taken yesterday!
First RAGE Against The Hobbit and now this! 😀
This whole site and it’s commenters are now a perfect example of Poe’s law.
Argenti, yes, that makes sense. I’d been thinking maybe she’d been working as a governess and was returning home after a parent’s death, but the working bit would mean there was already money trouble. Not that families didn’t practically bankrupt themselves to keep up the proper appearance, at least in England. I really don’t know anything about practices in the German states. I only know how different a society Prussia was from England, for example, because of reading a bit about Princess Victoria’s marriage. I read heaps of stuff about Victorian England years back (big fan of Prince Albert) but that’s just it, England =/= Weimar.
The woman’s hair is mostly down and she wears a hairband, so she possibly is not married. Children did go into full mourning (and half-mourning) for their parents and siblings (if they could afford to), but not as long as widows were expected to. Fiancees also went into mourning for their deceased betrothed.
If this woman were a wealthy widow, she would probably not be in that particular car. I personally suspect a daughter or fiancee who put more money into her weeds than her passage home.
Regardless, an unknown man jocularly approaching a woman in deep mourning is committing one of the severest breaches of etiquette known at the time.
Joe the Moron, doens’t it occur to you that the PAINTER of this beautifully done piece was making a social criticism in his own context? Gods you’re stupid. You’re also completely incapable of looking at anything with empathy.
Whether its ten or twenty years she’s seriously younger and portrayed as particularly vulnerable. He also looks pissed and dissolute, however it reminds me of much of the Victorian oeuvre which was warning pictures, eg don’t go off the straight and narrow, pray a lot etc. whereas Hogarth etc were more descriptive, the poor getting f..kd over, dangers of cheap gin etc.
I wonder where she is traveling to and why….
Joe don’t you even get some of the point, as long as women were able to travel independently we have been warned against the dangers of doing so.
Argenti – I’m pretty sure plaid was popular all over the place. A plaid rug wouldn’t be an identifier for a Scottish setting.
The Franco-Prussian War was fought three years before this painting, btw. It created a lot of widows, bereft fiancees, and orphans.
Sorry to make it double plus clear, this picture is about loosing the protector, husband brother or mother and therefore being exposed to the dangers this involves. Get it now?
Hey Joe? Go do some research on how art history works.
Kitteh — could be a governess if the mourning dress is something hand-made by her, but idk if that’d really make sense for a painting. I’m thinking the higher social status outfit in the not first class car isn’t meant to imply that she’s hired help, but that the loss of whomever she’s mourning has changed her social status (and now she has to put up with asshole’s like Roissy’s great grandfather)
…though I guess she could be travelling solo because now she has to be hired help. Idk though, her age, those looks? Probably just marry again if she was widowed (in some sense Victorian England was progressive — since women couldn’t really own much, or make much money, remarrying was pretty much expected except for older widows)
Stuffed Fantod – good point about her hair being down.
Many women removed the fancy trim from their clothing and dyed their entire wardrobe black when they went into mourning. That way they did not have to purchase new cloth.They embellished with jet beads and black garniture if they could afford them,
“Sorry to make it double plus clear, this picture is about loosing the protector, husband brother or mother and therefore being exposed to the dangers this involves. Get it now?”
I’m thinking husband, but yes, losing her “protector” would explain the point of the thing.
Kitteh — yeah I know, just musing if being outside the London region might change customs enough that the veil is a moot question.
“If this woman were a wealthy widow, she would probably not be in that particular car. I personally suspect a daughter or fiancee who put more money into her weeds than her passage home.
Regardless, an unknown man jocularly approaching a woman in deep mourning is committing one of the severest breaches of etiquette known at the time.”
Definitely put more money into her mourning wear than train fare (I just can’t call it weeds with a straight face). And absolutely on his breach of etiquette, approaching a complete stranger is bad enough, but a woman in mourning travelling alone? You Do Not Do That.
Could be she lost a parent, but I can’t really work out why she’d be travelling then. On the other hand, you’re right that a married woman would very probably have her hair up.
Governesses were in limbo. They usually were middle class and only doing it because of necessity; it did involve a loss of status. They were neither fish nor fowl, not accepted by the servants and not allowed to mingle with the family. It was often a seriously shit job and the pay was lousy, but it doesn’t fit in the bracket of hired help in the sense of a maid.
Whatever the specifics, I’m definitely reading money and probably status loss in this (oossibly for her whole family if her father’s died), with the contrast between her dress and her refined/pretty/very youthful looks and the carriage.
Joe: that’s ok, you’re the perfect example of a dude who knows nothing but doesn’t let that slow him down a bit. Fuck off.