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.
*possibly
though oossibly looks an interesting word, must think of a definition for it
In any case, he’s committing a gross breach of etiquette, and yeah, the point is very probably about the dangers of (young, pretty) women travelling alone.
Argent: so it’s a 19th century how to protect yourself PSA?
Stuffed Fantod – another good point about the dyeing. Purchasing complete mourning was horrendously expensive, not least since it still had to be fashionable.
Re: Joe — do any of us sound rage faced? Or intrigued? He’s certainly violating all rules of etiquette, and the contrast between her mourning wear and the caridge is interesting, but rage?
In other, obvious, things, that painting is very well executed.
And whoops on lumping a governess in with the help, I’m tired and thus have a case of the stupids!
“Argent: so it’s a 19th century how to protect yourself PSA?”
Lol, or a what to never ever do you crass bastard. His breach of etiquette is appalling. And I fear it may even be a case of “the lower classes have no manners, avoid them”.
That she’s mourning is perhaps the least bad thing going on though.
Apparently any criticism of any representation of any male behaviour = rage, as far as Joe’s concerned.
I know the look on her face, I’ve had more than few bus rides with that guy. I want to hug her.
That guy’s not lower class, not with those clothes.
I’d meant lower in comparison to her, but yeah, he really is coming off as the rude cousin of Sherlock Holmes.
Probably not “the lower class” but the “up and coming semi-monied class.” She may be a young woman on her way down in the world, and he may be a man who has come up a wee bit. They may be of equal station at this moment monetarily, but not by “breeding/birth.” The Victorian age was full of those kinds of stories.
LOL yes!
He reminds me of an engraving from a decade or so earlier called “Heavy Swells” – a couple of extreme fashion toffs (think ridiculous Dundreary weepers, tartan trousers and monocles) trying to chat up a barmaid. They’re definitely upper class, which this guy isn’t, but the creepiness and fashion are similar.
Only the Heavy Swells are about to be in strife, because barmaid’s sailor boyfriend has seen ’em through the window. If Joe wants rage, that guy’s got plenty. 😉
The carpet bag is an interesting detail. Women in mourning were generally expected to stay at home. The fact that this girl is traveling may indicate an added misfortune of poverty: losing (probably her father’s) home and having to go live with relatives. Alternatively, she may actually be traveling with the body, for burial elsewhere: we see a sliver of a pine box in the lower left-hand corner.
Stuffed Fantod, I <3 your comments. Reminding me of all sorts of details I'd forgotten. 🙂
His large, red tie would have been considered vulgar. He is also smoking a cigarette in public in front of somebody everybody would have seen as a “lady.” This would not be done by somebody who cared about the manners of the day.
Joe, the painter is clearly telling a story that the viewers of his time would have immediately understood. We are simply deciphering that story from a distance of 150 years and different cultures.
Amused – I don’t think a coffin would be put into a passenger carriage. It wouldn’t fit, for starters. There’d be a guard’s van or some such for taking travelling trunks, crates and the like.
@Unpaid_Help: I study (and teach/lecture on, depending on the quarter) religion, and have researched a lot of the material culture of different mourning customs. The Victorian age is particularly rich in such things. 🙂
And my wife has her MA in Art History, so we have a LOT of conversations about such paintings. 😉
I think that sliver of wood in the lower corner is another bench/seat. Maybe more of her belongings are in another carriage, but the one bag doesn’t seem like enough stuff for her to be moving — idk, could be more stuff elsewhere, could be that she’s returning somewhere for the burial, could be picking up or otherwise transporting the body.
I’m calling it a night I think, but damned is that dude like a rude(r) Sherlock Holmes! He’s so far beyond the pale that I’m having trouble reading this as something she should’ve avoided by not traveling alone. Or maybe I just want to see it as “gentlemen, don’t act like this or we’ll revoke your status as a gentlemen”
Or “More money does not make the gentleman.”
That would make more sense for the period!
It may be that the painter saw a scenario just like this, moments before he intervened. Any man who adhered to the mores of the day would be “honor bound” to tell “The Irritating Gentleman” (who is clearly the former and not the latter) to sit down, put out his cigarette, and cease talking to this woman.
@The First Joe
Yeah, because it’s not like MRA’s and PUA’s ever completely lose their shit over works of fiction, like “The Matrix”.
@Amused: WORD.
So the PUA was around even back then!
The Nice Guy, conversely, did not appear until the interbellum period.