Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Garry Wroe]

Mr Wroe criticised the unthinking presumption that Toppy had taken the test and I would agree with him. It is not known.

I did nothing of the kind, Lechmere. I questioned the significance to which you attributed both the Worshipful Company of Plumbers and the test they set prospective members.

Prevalent means widespread. In my opinion there are lots of rubbish plumbers around today. I can ‘adduce’ this from first-hand experience after engaging the services of plumbers from the Yellow Pages.

Perhaps, then, you’d care to look up another dictionary definition: ‘sampling error’.

I did not say that a majority of plumbers were bodgers. Where did you get that idea from?

From one of your previous posts. Here it is:-

… which is why I have repeatedly said that bodger plumbers would have still been prevalent after 1891. As indeed they are to this day.

And yes, prevalent does mean ‘widespread’. It also means ‘most frequent’ and ‘superior in numbers or amount’. In other words, the majority.

[Ben]

“Mr Ben by your perverse logic ‘archetypal military appearance’ can be both or either ‘tall and thin’ and ‘not tall and stout’. In other words according to you there is no such thing as a meaningful ‘archetypal military appearance’.”

My goodness, he hasn’t just gone and figured it out, has he?

He has! Fetch beer for Lechmere!

Yes, you have understood me correctly. There is almost certainly no such thing as a “meaningful ‘archetypal military appearance” in relation to a person’s physique. This is not “perverse logic”, but the obvious conclusion to deduce from the sources kindly provided by Archaic, which inform us that a military bearing or appearance, as defined by those who used the expression in the late 19th century, had far more to do with a person’s demeanour and carriage than it did their height or weight. As Jason too has suggested, the phrase is obviously far more concerned with posture than those aspects of our physique over which we cannot exercise any immediate control.

“Do you think the Hutchinson picture is of someone of a ‘military appearance’ ?”

He could easily have been, yes, but it order to cement such an impression, we would need to see the subject of that sketch move around and engage in conversation with others. The journalists who were in a position to observe these details clearly noted that the sketched man had a military appearance despite it being obvious that he hailed from the “labouring class”.

“All I have suggested is that the artist may have been struggling to know how to depict Hutchinson and came across Lewis’s evidence and used that as the basis for his drawing.”

He wouldn’t have been struggling to depict Hutchinson. There would have been no need for any such “struggle”. Either the artist had seen Hutchinson personally, or had sketched him on the basis of information supplied with regard to his personal appearance, and what an amazing non-coincidence that the result looks just like Lewis’ man. This isn’t evidence of anyone “connecting” wideawke man to Hutchinson. It is evidence – if any more is really needed – that Hutchinson was the wideawake man. Why would a mere artist use Lewis’ evidence as a basis for Hutchinson’s appearance when it hadn’t been publicly observed by any journalist or any policeman that Hutchinson might have been the man seen by Sarah Lewis?

[DVV]

Yes Jason.
Obviously Sarah Lewis couldn't say: the man was militarily loitering. It's not English.

Cheers

[jason_c]

I havent had time to read the thread. Military appearance i'd always assumed as simply meaning he stood erect, not hunched. If Lewis saw GH it could only have been for a few seconds. A few seconds while GH just stood waiting. Perhaps he also looked a healthy figure of a man.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
Do I need to repeat – yet again -that no one apart from you has said that ‘military appearance’ meant thin?
I will be interested if you can find an archetypal Victorian print that depicts a soldier as ‘not tall but stout’.
Mr Ben by your perverse logic ‘archetypal military appearance’ can be both or either ‘tall and thin’ and ‘not tall and stout’.
In other words according to you there is no such thing as a meaningful ‘archetypal military appearance’.
To you it can encompass the long, the short and the tall, the thin, the broad and the small. The lord God made them all.
I think that neatly illustrates the absurdity of the contortions you get yourself into in your quest to implicate poor Mr Hutchinson.

Do you think the Hutchinson picture is of someone of a ‘military appearance’ ?
Lucky we don’t have National Service as I think you’d be doing a lot of jankers if you think that would satisfy any sergeant major. I don’t think any self respecting NCO would agree that scruff was of ‘military appearance’.

I haven’t been trying to “convince everyone that Lewis’ wideawake man was not George Hutchinson”.
I have pointed out that he may not be and it is wrong to take it as a fact that he was. I pointed out that the police did not seem to connect them and the press did not seem to have either.
The sketch of Hutchinson was not a police sketch so I don’t know why you have said it would:
“imply an acceptance on the part of the police that Hutchinson and wideawake were one and the same”.
All I have suggested is that the artist may have been struggling to know how to depict Hutchinson and came across Lewis’s evidence and used that as the basis for his drawing. This isn’t a coincidence or that remarkable. It is possibly the only evidence that anyone did connect wideawake man to Hutchinson.

On Toppy taking the plumbing test – he may well have done, but it was only instituted in the late 1880s though and clearly took time to take root. We have no idea whether or not he did. Mr Wroe criticised the unthinking presumption that Toppy had taken the test and I would agree with him. It is not known.

[Ben]

“I have provided sufficient contemporary pictures to illustrate what was regarded as an archetypal ‘military appearance’. It most certainly would not be described as ‘not tall but stout’.”

You haven’t done any such thing, Lechmere.

“Not tall but stout” has as much association with “archetypal military appearance” as “tall and thin”. It is nonsensical to assert otherwise.

“He has crumpled trousers, is a bit podgy looking and seems to have something protruding from under his jacket.”

Exactly, and this makes perfect sense of the same journalist’s observation that Hutchinson was “apparently of the labouring class”. The clothes depicted in the sketch are precisely the sort of clothes one would expect of someone from the labouring class, crumpled trousers and all. He was at least “respectfully” dressed, however, in a waistcoat, shirt and tie, and this may have offset his labourer’s appearance to some extent. The full description from the Daily News, 13th November, read as follows;

“A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance”

The “but” word is significant insofar as the military aspect to his demeanour obviously offset his “labouring class” appearance. In other words, the man in question combined some of the traits observed in Archaic’s sources (“standing proudly erect with a respectful, confident, manly attitude”...etc) whilst still retaining the “appearance” of a man “of the labouring class”. Very much like the man depicted in the sketch. Garry has already argued very convincingly against the implausible suggestion that the sketch was purely representational, which it clearly wasn’t.

“I suspect it may indeed be representational of Lewis’s description”

Well, hang on, wasn’t it you who sought to convince everyone that Lewis’ wideawake man was not George Hutchinson? If so, why are you now suggesting that the sketch of Hutchinson was representational of Lewis’ description, which would imply an acceptance on the part of the police that Hutchinson and wideawake were one and the same? My own take is that the similarity between Lewis’ wideawake description and the sketch of Hutchinson can be attributed to Hutchinson being the wideawake man described by Lewis. Or else we're compelled to go with the "coincidence" explanation - yep, another one!

“No one has suggested that it is likely that Toppy became a bodging plumber. He may have been a good unqualified plumber. That is a different proposition.”

…Which is just as unconvincing, unfortunately, because it fails to take on board the reality that Toppy was in a fortunate position from an early age to became a good qualified plumber, like his father and grandfather before him. I have no doubt that this is what happened.

[The Good Michael]

I think I've solved this problem. Lewis said that the man had a military 'abhorrence'. I suggest that the illustration... er... illustrates that. He looks startled as if someone in uniform had just gone by.

Mike

[DVV]

Oh, that's right, Mike, sorry.

[The Good Michael]

I disagree. Even "military appearance" can't refer to the height. It would be absurd.
Do we say : "tall as a soldier" ??

David,

If you would read my post again, you would see that I was agreeing with you.

Mike

[Lechmere]

The term used by the Times on 13th November was ‘military appearance’ not ‘military bearing’.
There is a significant difference between the two terms.
Archaic unearthed some very interesting and accurate information on what was regarded as ‘military bearing’, which refers to how someone comports themselves rather than what they looked like at a distance.
The significance is that we were comparing or trying to reconcile Lewis’s testimony for the wide-awake man as being ‘not tall but stout’, with someone of ‘military appearance’. Lewis will not have been able to discern how the wide-awake man comported himself.
Having said that there is an element of description as someone of ‘military bearing’ would stand upright, as if to attention – erect. Here is Archaic’s research:

- Exhibiting an air of confidence, integrity, competence, calmness, courtesy, and respect.
- Comporting oneself with poise and dignity.
- Standing proudly erect with a respectful, confident, manly attitude.
- How one comports oneself; poise.
- A respectful manner which inspires confidence.
- A fine proud soldierly posture.
- Listening carefully and respectfully to one’s superiors; giving direct and forthright replies when spoken to.

I have provided sufficient contemporary pictures to illustrate what was regarded as an archetypal ‘military appearance’. It most certainly would not be described as ‘not tall but stout’.
I don’t think anyway has said ‘military appearance’ meant thin – contrary to Mr Ben’s assertion.

Mr Ben
The picture of Hutchinson in a low Bowler hat is of indeterminate age. I would say he bears a passing resemblance to the white East End rapper Plan B who is 27.
He has crumpled trousers, is a bit podgy looking and seems to have something protruding from under his jacket. A drill sergeant would make mincemeat of that ‘orrible little man.
He couldn’t have less of a ‘military appearance’.
Having said this it is fairly obvious that he sketch wasn’t drawn from life and is representational. I suspect it may indeed be representational of Lewis’s description – which means that it isn’t much of a coincidence that it in some ways matches it. With the added proviso that the figure is drawn as a young man – much younger than the other picture of Hutchinson from apparently a later date, which depicts him looking like a retired Guards officer.

No one has suggested that it is likely that Toppy became a bodging plumber. He may have been a good unqualified plumber. That is a different proposition.

It is obvious nonsense to claim that the signature issue has been settled one way or the other.

[DVV]

I disagree. Even "military appearance" can't refer to the height. It would be absurd.
Do we say : "tall as a soldier" ??

Cheers Mike

[The Good Michael]

In fact, it was 'military appearance', which could mean anything from the way he stood (at attention), or some article of clothing that he wore (wideawake=Teddy Roosevelt cavalry look). We need to nip this height and stoutness thing in the bud as it cannot be proven, nor dicussed rationally... not that I'm always rational, mind you.

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Ben

Surprisingly,the "military bearing" has to do with.....bearing - not height.

But ripperology being what we know it is, it had to be confirmed...

And Bunny made it clear.

Bestest my dear

[Ben]

Excellent find, Archaic!

I hope your information will have a deterring effect to any further suggestion that the phrase referred to physique, since it is clear that the sources have put paid to any such suggestion.

Many thanks,

Ben

[Archaic]

re: "Military Bearing"

Hi everyone.

Regarding the phrase "military bearing", this thread might be of interest: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...786#post167786

It's a thread devoted to Ripper-related Victorian vocabulary, phrases, jargon and slang. I had already saved up a bunch of mid-to-late 19th C. definitions and "military bearing" was one of them, so since I saw its meaning was under discussion I went ahead and posted it first. Hope you find it helpful.

Alas, I have no military bearing... I'm sleepy and slumped on the sofa most disgracefully.

Best regards,
Archaic