Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[DVV]

Oh, that's right, Mike, sorry.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DVV]

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

Cheers

[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?

[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.

[Archaic]

"Military Appearance" & "Military Bearing"

Hi guys.

I should have clarified that the Victorian dictionaries & other publications gave the meaning of "Military Appearance" as "Characterized By Military Bearing And A Soldierly Attitude". That's why I looked up further definitions of "Military Bearing''.

The definitions all had a great deal to do with demeanor and comportment. In other words, it was a phrase used to describe a subjective impression.

In everything I read it was looked upon quite favorably. The word "manly" was used a lot.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Sally]

United Operative Plumbers

Founded in 1865, was hugely popular as the trade union of choice for plumbers nationwide; and had hundreds of lodges across the country by the turn of the century.

The attempt by the Worshipful Company of Plumbers to establish an industry standard test should be seen at leas in part as an attempt to establish control over an industry which was showing every sign of having outgrown its traditions.

The idea that there were no apprentice plumbers in this period is untenable. There were, obviously, as records survive. The Worshipful Company of Plumbers may have been complaining about the wane of traditional indentured apprenticeships; but these are still in evidence, and in any case, the most usual way for a person to train as a plumber would have been through a familial connection.

Not all children (depends on the number of children as much as anything) but conservatively about 70% of children whose parents had a profession (in contrast to a mere job) followed them into that profession. Not all of them always stayed in that profession, of course, although many did.

[Lechmere]

A soldiery attitude was standing erect, ramrod stiff, stomach in chest out. Also this may be of interest...
From ‘Underwear through History’.
“As for men, they too often used stiff corsets to give themselves a sleek, military appearance.”

Mr Ben – you have put yourself – not the first time – into a ridiculous position where you are now arguing that there is no such things as a ‘military appearance’ as it can encompass all possible appearances. If that were the case, the term would have no meaning and would not be used. It is a term used by the journalist in order to conjure up a mental image of Hutchinson in the mind of the reader. Yes I confess I only just figured out your perverse logic – as it is so perverse it took me some time.

Incidentally the army could control aspects of physique. They had minimum height requirements and engaged in training to ensure that the soldiers were fit. Indeed the uniforms were designed to enhance the idealised notion of ‘military appearance’ – to pull in wasp waists and enhance height.

Mr Wroe – check back – it was your colleague Mr Ben who put great emphasis on the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test – not me. You thought you were having a dig at me when I had attached no great significance to the test.
It is also clear from the context in which I used the word ‘prevalent’ that I did not mean majority.
There really is something about Hutchinson that brings out the most precious remarks from Hutchinsonites.

Sally – I don’t think anyone has suggested there were no apprentice plumbers in the 1880s.

[babybird67]

Mr Ben – you have put yourself – not the first time – into a ridiculous position where you are now arguing that there is no such things as a ‘military appearance’ as it can encompass all possible appearances.

I dont think this is what Ben said. He said the term was not linked to physical appearance in terms of height/weight but more of attitude. Which is borne out by the source material Archaic kindly discovered.

[Ben]

Many thanks for the additional information, Archaic and Sally. Much appreciated.

Lechmere,

Why don’t you try reading the sources for once rather than waxing lyrical about how “perverse” I’m supposed to have been? I never said there was “no such thing” as a military appearance. I have merely pointed out that the term, as used in the late 19th century, did not apply to height and weight but rather to carriage and demeanour. Here again, are the definitions of military appearance or bearing:

'Military Bearing' is a term used to describe subjective impressions of professionalism, manliness, and dependability.

-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.

Fortunately, for those who then attempted to claim very falsely that “military bearing” meant something different from a “military appearance”, we then learned that the latter expression was “Characterized By Military Bearing And A Soldierly Attitude”. Once again, this has nothing to do with physique. What you describe as my “perverse logic” or my “ridiculous position” is in reality a simple recognition and acceptance of the relevant sources. All you’re doing, by contrast, is attempting to create some mythical schism between Hutchinson and Lewis’ wideawake by attempting to suggest that the two were physically dissimilar. That attempt has failed, and it’s about time you accepted this.

“it was your colleague Mr Ben who put great emphasis on the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test”

No, it was you who decided to dredge up the source mentioning the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test, despite the fact that Gareth first provided it on this thread (where it was discussed at length) in June 2009. Until then, I placed no “emphasis” on it whatsoever.

Edit: Thanks, Beebs. Precisely what I was getting at!

[Lechmere]

The fact that there are two terms - 'military bearing' and 'military appearance' - one relating to comportment and one to visuals - should tell anyone that the second can only have meaning when related to physical appearance, unless the person is in uniform, which clearly Hutchinson wasn't.
Mr Ben is trying to claim that a short fat person could be of 'military appearance' if he comported himself in a soldierly manner or adopted a military manner while in conservation. I say this is nonsense.

[babybird67]

my friend is married to a soldier

who is short and not thin (though I wouldn't call him fat either!).

I also dated a soldier who was also on the short side, and had a belly on him!

Not all soldiers are thin and tall. Which is why it makes sense that the military appearance relates to how he conducted himself, not what he looked like, as borne out, I repeat, by the source material Archaic has found.