where do you stand?

[RivkahChaya]

OK, someone is going to have to define "Toff" for me. I though it somehow was derived from the term "Show-off," or "Show-it-off," and was someone who was especially concerned with appearance, dress, and grooming, and had at least the financial means to indulge it, so while being a "toff" might be out of the reach of the lower and working classes, anyone who either made a good living at a trade or profession, or had some family money, even if it didn't come with a title (like Bertie Wooster) could indulge in being a "toff."

There was a sort of fad for a while where men in general were getting pedicures and expensive haircuts, and tailored suits, and wearing hats, and the term was "metrosexual," a portmanteau of "metropolitan" and "homosexual," even though it was mainly a heterosexual trend. They were men who, fifteen years earlier would have indulged in a different kind of conspicuous consumption, and bought sports cars, and big houses, and been called Yuppies. It was sort of a backlash against grunge, along with not being able to buy sports cars and SUVs anymore because gas was so expensive, and people were giving the hairy eyeball to anyone who bought anything that got less than 30mpg. I kinda pictured these guys as being sot of like toffs, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just a little off-the-mark.

Can someone who is actually British, and knows how to use the word in conversation, define it for me?

[Sally]

It means 'Posh'. Or, in other words, it means a person who gives themselves airs and graces. It's a colloquial term, and not as commonly used today as it was in the 19th century. It is, as Wikipaedia says, mildly derogatory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toff

My issue (if you can call it that) with 'Jack' being a toff, is that I think it might have been more difficult for him to gain the trust of his victims - particularly as time went on. Yes, he could've worn 'shabby genteel' clothes and what have you to blend in; but it isn't only clothes that make the man. The victims would have been more likely to trust a person whom they perceived as coming from their own social class in my view.

[RivkahChaya]

It means 'Posh'. Or, in other words, it means a person who gives themselves airs and graces. It's a colloquial term, and not as commonly used today as it was in the 19th century.

So, is it reasonable, or unreasonable to think that if JTR were, in general, a "toff," he would wear his best clothes to a situation where there was a good chance of getting them, umm, unpresentable to the point of having to dispose of them? If he were the sort of person who went in for dressing, or overdressing, and putting on airs, would we expect that on this particular occasion, knowing what he had planned for the evening, he might dress down a little?

[Sally]

So, is it reasonable, or unreasonable to think that if JTR were, in general, a "toff," he would wear his best clothes to a situation where there was a good chance of getting them, umm, unpresentable to the point of having to dispose of them? If he were the sort of person who went in for dressing, or overdressing, and putting on airs, would we expect that on this particular occasion, knowing what he had planned for the evening, he might dress down a little?

If he valued his safety and possibly his life, then yes. Wandering about the streets of Whitechapel in toff's togs would've been asking for trouble. 'Respectably' dressed probably doesn't amount to the same thing - it's all relative.

[Phil H]

Off the main streets of 1888 Whitechapel/Spitalfields (even on them) I wouldbnt give a man in white tie and tails more than five minutes.

But what people forget is the HUGE gulf between even lower middle class people in that period (and later) and the lower orders:

* in the way they spoke, not just accent but the words they used, modulation and tone of voice etc (think Eliza v Higgins and Pickering). Each public school had its own identifiable "accent" more a matter of the way words were said and setences phrased in speech that a vowel sort of thing. That is VERY difficult to overcome.

* in the way they moved;

* in the way they smelled (even though perfume for men was only just coming in - they bathed. (As an example: the rather snobbish suopernatural novelist, Dennis Wheatley wrote in "The Ka of Gifford Hilary" that the difference between upper class people and lower class people was that the latter bathed once a week, the former once a DAY!! That may well have been even more true in the 1880s.)

* their expectations of how people would respond in conversation etc - I would anticipate a member of the middle class being somewhat condescending to the lower orders. They would expect deference, meekness and respect - it was the way they met their inferiors in shops etc;

* their response to smell - the privy in No 29would almost certainly have made a middle class man puke at ten yards. They weren't used to it. Oh, they lived in a mcu more odiferous society than do we, but the extremes would rarely have intruded into a middle-class home.

* even in "diguise" I don't think a middle class man could have kept his origins hidden - he's either have seemed like a play-actor or been obvious - its the little things that give it away.

I don't believe for a moment that "Jack" worked in disguise. Just my assessment, but there you have it.

Phil

[curious4]

Disguise or change of clothes

Hello,

According to the Jack the Ripper encyclopaedia by John Eddleston, the Prince of Wales and his friends kept a room Watling street in which to change their clothes while out "firewatching".

I also remember reading about the prince being shocked and appalled by the poverty in the east end and attempting to pull out some gold coins from his pocket to give to a poor family. Fortunately his companion had more sense and stopped him, saying that they would be torn to pieces.

Regards,
C4

[Phil H]

Two points, curious4:

a) it is one thing to dress up to pass unnoticed in a crowd (a form of camoflage), another to pretend to be something you are not;

b) the incident with the coin (which I think comes from Philip Magnus' biography of the King) indicates how the then Prince acted spontaneously, even though pretending to be something he was not.

Incidentally, whatever the truth of the room on Watling Street, has anyone ever found any actual evidence that Edward did watch fires in the East End?

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,
Your "tally" is a very immature argument, and only made worse by its total wrongness. For starters, you treat all alleged sightings as equal regardless of such issues as credibility,

Well, of course you will take issue with descriptions published by police, you know best, I think that comes across loud and clear.

Credibility, begins with the police, and not with you.
Unless the police claim a witness has no credibility then we have no reason to second-guess them especially when it is known the police had no issues with the witness.
The issue, as always, is your myopic view of the case.

We dispense straight away with the discredited "evidence" from the Kelly murder (bye-bye Mr. Astrakhan, zero points for you),

Well, you have always maintained no such man existed, even though we both know Joseph Isaac's dressed in such a coat, and apparently (thankyou Mike) lived right around the corner from Dorset St.

Hutchinson claimed the man was about 34-5, and Isaac's was 30. Isaac's can quite readily be described as "of Jewish appearance", but no, you claim such a man did not exist.

Whether Isaac's was our Astrachan, right age, right neighborhood, right height, and wearing the distinct coat, can only be posed for consideration.
What cannot be claimed, is that such a man did not exist - clearly he did, and lived near enough to be Kelly's neighbour.

Isaac's is the best contender, but that does not make him her killer.

And I'm not about to repeat the tally, it spoke for itself. I suspected you would feel cornered and attempt to refute it, 5-1 stands firm. We all know what the police published, regardless of how you choose to dismiss this, or that, to align with what suits you.

Why on earth would Bowyer use the expression "evening" to describe an earlier sighting of Kelly, but use "afternoon" to describe a later one?

Bowyer only claimed to see Kelly once, not twice. Bowyer's own words were "afternoon", but we don't know what time that was. It was the press report, using the reporters own words, not Bowyer's, thats where the "night" comes from.

We can see from contemporary press articles that common people used "afternoon" to describe times which extended well into the evening.
There is no conflict, just the usual error of modern readers trying to impose modern interpretations on 19th century society.
Just because "we" no longer use afternoon to describe evening or night, means no-one else ever did. Well, clearly that assumption is wrong, and in this case we have the proof to back it up.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

We can see from contemporary press articles that common people used "afternoon" to describe times which extended well into the evening.
There is no conflict, just the usual error of modern readers trying to impose modern interpretations on 19th century society.
Just because "we" no longer use afternoon to describe evening or night, means no-one else ever did. Well, clearly that assumption is wrong, and in this case we have the proof to back it up.

I wonder if this is the same kind of issue as the clock bells. People reported time as the most recent bells they'd heard, or their best guess, and that was apparently good enough-- or every event in the 1880s happened on the quarter of an hour.

By the same token, people took terms like "afternoon," and "evening" more literally, to describe how much light there was, or whether it was after the sun was at its highest point.

I know I have heard people get into discussion that are almost arguments in recent years, when one person will say "afternoon," and another will say "but it's 6pm; that's 'evening,'" and the first person will counter with "It doesn't get dark until 8:30 this time of year."

If so, "evening" in the winter would come earlier than "evening" in the summer.

You'd think I'd know this, I've read enough Victorian novels, but I guess there aren't that many occasions where an author has paired a word like "evening" with an exact time.

[Wickerman]

Off the main streets of 1888 Whitechapel/Spitalfields (even on them) I wouldbnt give a man in white tie and tails more than five minutes.

But what people forget is the HUGE gulf between even lower middle class people in that period (and later) and the lower orders:

* in the way they spoke, not just accent but the words they used, modulation and tone of voice etc (think Eliza v Higgins and Pickering). Each public school had its own identifiable "accent" more a matter of the way words were said and setences phrased in speech that a vowel sort of thing. That is VERY difficult to overcome.

* in the way they moved;

* in the way they smelled (even though perfume for men was only just coming in - they bathed. (As an example: the rather snobbish suopernatural novelist, Dennis Wheatley wrote in "The Ka of Gifford Hilary" that the difference between upper class people and lower class people was that the latter bathed once a week, the former once a DAY!! That may well have been even more true in the 1880s.)

* their expectations of how people would respond in conversation etc - I would anticipate a member of the middle class being somewhat condescending to the lower orders. They would expect deference, meekness and respect - it was the way they met their inferiors in shops etc;

* their response to smell - the privy in No 29would almost certainly have made a middle class man puke at ten yards. They weren't used to it. Oh, they lived in a mcu more odiferous society than do we, but the extremes would rarely have intruded into a middle-class home.

* even in "diguise" I don't think a middle class man could have kept his origins hidden - he's either have seemed like a play-actor or been obvious - its the little things that give it away.

I don't believe for a moment that "Jack" worked in disguise. Just my assessment, but there you have it.

Phil

Good post Phil.

There's a lot of sound observations there, though we must bear in mind the "middle-class" person who you envisage to puke at nauseous odors, is not there by mistake, he choose to investigate these warrens of neglect.

It would be a mistake to assume all middle class people would avoid such places, many a man with middle class origins wound up in the East end due to falling on hard times.
William Fishman (East-end 1888) provides examples of a number of cases where men who had been doctors, lawyers, and in general, middle-class to upper middle-class found themselves among the doss-house dwellers.

Then, there's the select few who find their own entertainment in the back streets of the East end. They choose to fulfill their illicit desires in the grimy alley's and filthy rooms of Whitchapel, they are there by choice.

The idea of the Ripper being a Toff, or dressing like a Toff, is probably inspired more by the contemporary theatrical drama, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, playing around London at the time.
It does present a visual treat, top hat, cane, little black bag & cape swirling through the midnight fog. Who can resist such a romantic figure.

Instead, we have repeated sightings of a man in a morning suit or cutaway coat, wearing either a deerstalker, a peaked cap, or a billycock hat. Typically about 5' 6-7" height, moustache, and aged about 30-40.

This man is respectably dressed, but still not a Toff. Whether he had a condescending view of these poor creatures who lived off the streets is anyone's guess, but he probably was a local man, just not one that lived directly among them.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

I wonder if this is the same kind of issue as the clock bells. People reported time as the most recent bells they'd heard, or their best guess, and that was apparently good enough-- or every event in the 1880s happened on the quarter of an hour.

That is certainly a distinct possibility, that a rough estimate was close enough. Quite possibly anything that occurred after you hear a 5:30 chime, was timed as 5:30, until the next chime at 5:45.

I know I have heard people get into discussion that are almost arguments in recent years, when one person will say "afternoon," and another will say "but it's 6pm; that's 'evening,'" and the first person will counter with "It doesn't get dark until 8:30 this time of year."

Afternoon is only the alternate to before noon, neither one having a specific window of time associated with the expression. Both times span 12 hours each.
Its just that we have been educated to use morning and evening instead, so now we divide the daylight into three, Morning, Afternoon, and Evening. 'Before-noon' has fallen into disuse.
I remember being told that Evening began at 6:00 pm when I was a kid.

As times change, so vocabulary changes, we must avoid imposing our modern vocabulary on the words of these 19th century witnesses.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious4]

Watching fires

Two points, curious4:

a) it is one thing to dress up to pass unnoticed in a crowd (a form of camoflage), another to pretend to be something you are not;

b) the incident with the coin (which I think comes from Philip Magnus' biography of the King) indicates how the then Prince acted spontaneously, even though pretending to be something he was not.

Incidentally, whatever the truth of the room on Watling Street, has anyone ever found any actual evidence that Edward did watch fires in the East End?

Phil

Hello Phil,

Yes it does seem an odd thing to do - perhaps it was a euphemism for looking for a "hottie" lol.

The eastenders were used to visitors from the "other world" - slummers, do-gooders and socialists etc., but I don't think any visitor would have been stupid enough to venture into the east end alone.

You are quite right about the loos. I can remember my step-father reminiscing about the one they had when he was a child (born about 1916) and how much it stank. This was a bog standard (sorry) hole in the ground out in the country, but with all the people in the house using it, the one in Hanbury street can't have been that fragrant either!

Thanks for the book reference, I read quite a bit and some are library books, so it's not always easy to check. Must start writing things down!

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Fires

Just occured to me that they might have been watching FOR fires, which makes more sense - no evidence either way unfortunately.

Cheers,
C4

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Let's nip this Isaacs business in the bud before it creates any further confusion.

Firstly, we most certainly do not "both know Joseph Isaac's dressed in such a coat". It was observed by the press - and only by the press - that Isaacs resembled the man described by Hutchinson who was alleged to have worn one. This might have amounted to little more than Isaacs having the same Jewish appearance or a similar dark/pale complexion and slight/heavy moustache. Given Isaacs' lowly status as a cigar-maker of "no fixed abode", I can't see him swanning around in an expensive Astrakhan coat, unless it was something else he nicked.

Secondly, and far more importantly, Isaacs had an alibi for the Kelly murder, according to an article in the Lloyds Weekly Newspaper of 23rd December 1888 discovered by Howard Brown on JTRForums. I'm very surprised that Howard's excellent find received no commentary at all considering that Isaacs is occasionally touted as a suspect even today, and not just on message boards.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=17438

Note the relevant passage:

"The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves he could not have been connected with the murder"

Maybe it was an Astrakhan coat he stole? Who knows? Who cares? He could not have been the killer, and he could not have been Astrakhan man.

Well, of course you will take issue with descriptions published by police

No. I take issue with bogus nonsense that appeared only in the newspapers. I also take issue with statements which were initially taken seriously by the police before being thrown out and discredited.

And I'm not about to repeat the tally, it spoke for itself. I suspected you would feel cornered and attempt to refute it, 5-1 stands firm

No it doesn't. it doesn't "stand" at all. It was exposed as flawed and demolished, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't cling to the delusion that easily swattable and nonsensical attempts to elevate the ripper's social status had me in any way "cornered'.

Bowyer only claimed to see Kelly once, not twice.

Exactly, because he only saw her once, as faithfully reported to the inquest. He saw her for the last time in the court at some point on Wednesday afternoon. He did not see her afterwards with some tit with "very peculiar eyes" (because we know serial killers look weird and scary like that!) or he would have said so at the inquest. He did not see her before then because that would have been earlier in the afternoon, and not the evening, as related in that bogus filthy press report. You have provided no convincing evidence that the evening started later in Victorian times, as you keep claiming. In fact - wait a minute! - I've had another look, and the press report said Wednesday NIGHT, not "evening", whereas Bowyer stated at the inquest that he last saw her on "Wednesday afternoon".

The contradiction is thus even more blatant than I thought.

I see absolutely no evidence that "many a man with middle class origins wound up in the East end due to falling on hard times." Fishman's examples would have been in the EXTREME minority of the population, and even than, he would have been relying purely on the lodgers' say-so that they were respectable "once upon a time". Could be bollocks, and it does seem strangely reminiscent of modern-day "pub-talk". "I used to be well pucka, me, I $hit you not mate!".

Instead, we have repeated sightings of a man in a morning suit or cutaway coat

Cutaways and morning coats featured ONLY in the Stride murder, but the man or men who wore them evidently had nothing to do with her murder, less still the ripper murders as a collective. Stride was attacked by a different man who arrived intoxicated from Whitechapel; he may have been the same man seen by Lawende outside Mitre Square, i.e. the shabby, rough looking man who almost certainly killed Eddowes.

This man is respectably dressed, but still not a Toff. Whether he had a condescending view of these poor creatures who lived off the streets is anyone's guess, but he probably was a local man, just not one that lived directly among them.

No.

"This man" is nothing of the sort. He was not "respectably dressed", according to the most reliable evidence out there (with the emphasis on Lawende again) and he probably DID live directly among them, being a member of the majority population: the working class poor.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

Just occured to me that they might have been watching FOR fires, which makes more sense - no evidence either way unfortunately.

I think they would have been watching fires (if they were doing anything) - for the drama and spectacle.

I think you misunderstood me about Edward dressing up. I didn't mean he might have been whoring. I think Edward's tastes were much more refined and sophisticated. No, I meant that ANYONE can put on someone else's clothing. It is another thing to BECOME that person or pass as them.

Phil