The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Archaic
    replied
    Question re: Servant's Aprons (1887 Home Manual)

    Hi Sarah! Thank you.

    Someone has asked me a question about the aprons of women who did domestic work for others. When a woman was regularly employed in a "nicer" home she was supplied with a clean apron to wear while working, but it was considered a "uniform" and not her personal property. The one-piece bib-style aprons with pretty frills were almost exclusively worn by the "front parlor" servants and "ladies' maids" who waited on the family or its guests, not by the cooks, washer-women, etc.

    Liz Stride was reported to have done cleaning for Jewish families. I doubt she was provided with a work-apron by her employer, though it's possible) but it wouldn't have been anything fancy, and it wouldn't have been hers to keep.

    All the popular manual for ladies include cautions regarding whether one should ever "give" articles of clothing to servants, and all of the ones that I have seen advise the lady not to do so- not even inexpensive articles like caps and aprons. It was believed that to do so only "encouraged" the working woman to "abscond" with said articles of clothing.

    Attached is an excerpt from an 1887 'Home Manual' giving advice on this point. (This is happens to be from an American book, but the English ones say the same thing.)

    I have often wondered if some of the clothing Polly Nichols was said to have stolen from her employer was actually Polly's everyday work clothing that had been supplied by her mistress and that Polly happened to be wearing at the time she went away. In those days even taking a maid's apron would have been considered theft.

    Best regards,
    Archaic
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Nurse Sarah
    replied
    Thanks A.

    Excellent reply Archaic, clear and thorough, thanks for your informative post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Archaic
    replied
    About Victorian Aprons: Measurements, 'Strings', etc

    Hello everybody. Hi Janie, how are you? I've enjoyed your posts on this thread.

    I thought I might be able to help here. I've been an Antique & Vintage Clothing collector, dealer and appraiser for years, and have seen many Victorian and Edwardian aprons. I looked through a few Victorian store catalogs and sewing books and found some measurements.

    Judging from several American clothing catalogs c.1890, the average ready-made apron was approximately 35"-39" Wide x 36"-40" Long. Nearly square. Small-waisted women simply wrapped it tighter around themselves. The catalog illustration I attached also offers a 50" Wide apron for larger women. An immaculate new apron such as one of these was beyond Kate's dreams, but the illustrations are a good indicator of their very simple and practical design.
    We don't know precisely how old Kate's apron was in the autumn of 1888, but Victorian aprons were a utilitarian item and styles didn't change much, especially among the poorer classes. What mostly differed was the quality of the fabric. As seen in Jane's photos, inexpensive solid white or solid black were what the poorer classes generally used. White was popular as it looked brighter and neater (at least when clean) but black hid stains better.

    My guess is that Kate's apron was probably either home-made or 2nd hand. If sewing for oneself, an 1890 'practical sewing' book advises making the apron come to 2"-4" above the hem of the skirt, and giving the apron itself a 4"-6" wide hem to help prevent fraying. Skirts at this time were quite long (visible ankles were a no-no!), so as Jane says this would be a long apron. A long apron would offer one's skirt more protection from being soiled by the dirty streets, etc.

    But an impoverished woman might not have had the luxury of that much fabric, or she might have had to cut down and re-hem an old frayed apron, thus making it shorter. We know that Kate's apron had been patched, but I don't think we know if it was ever cut down. However, she obviously prized it and needed it enough to patch its hole.

    Aprons were an important part of a Victorian working woman's wardrobe. The fact that an apron helped keep her skirts clean was critically important to a poor woman, as it was much easier and cheaper to scrub an apron than to wash and dry what might be one's only change of clothing. Soaps were terribly harsh in those days, as was the prevailing method of boiling one's laundry, stirring it, hand-scrubbing it on a raspy wash-board, and wringing it out before hanging it up to dry. A skirt would wear out much faster if it was washed frequently, so it was obviously much more economical to wash the apron. Aprons served multiple purposes, especially for the very poor. They gave a woman a handy place to dry her hands and even a way to carry items to and from market. They also provided a (very slight) extra layer of insulation in the cold and a much-needed feeling of "propriety" and "respectability". For example, Mary Jane Kelly's neighbors commented upon the fact that she kept herself neat-looking by always wearing a clean apron.

    Now to the subject of the cut apron: based upon the above measurements, half an apron would be somewhere on the order of 17.5" W x 18" L if it was cut vertically. If it was cut horizontally it would be more like 18'' W X 20" L -not much difference really.

    By the way, the report mentions the "strings" of Kate's apron. The "strings" of an apron are the ribbons used to tie it at the waist. I got the impression that some might have thought "strings" referred to twine or something, but it's just the common Victorian parlance for apron-ribbons. The use of the plural term "strings" makes it sound to me as if the apron was cut horizontally, leaving the strings (ribbons) tied around Kate's waist, and I believe I read in a report that such was the case.

    As others have pointed out, Kate may have been malnourished and post- or a-menopausal. I think Hunter had a very good point when he mentioned that Kate's 12 rags might have been used not as sanitary napkins, but to help her clean herself up between clients. They may also have been used for general personal hygiene. Of course, the rags may have served multiple purposes, and perhaps that's why she carried a dozen of them.

    Hope this helps a little.

    Best regards,
    Archaic
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Jane Coram
    replied
    Hi Errata,

    All very good points, and I'd not thought much about how important the size of the apron piece was. I would still go with it being a bibless one, from the description, but if it was half of one of those long white aprons, that's quite a lot of apron miss!

    Hugs

    Janie

    xxxx

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    Domestics used a "Bridey" apron, which had a bib. It's sort of the typical Irish housemaid apron. And while I think it unlikely that Eddowes worked as a uniformed domestic, that doesn't mean she didn't have access to one of those aprons.

    And the only reason that's even remotely relevant is that "Half" could mean the top or bottom half of such an apron. And if it's the bottom half then we are looking at a swatch of cloth the size of a Turkish bath towel.

    And the the only reason even that would be relevant is that a PC could be excused for overlooking a piece of cloth the size of a washcloth or even smaller, but unless he didn't actually pass that building, there is no way hes going to miss a big effing bloodstained towel.

    So he says it wasn't there, but if its small it could have been. But if he says it wasnt there and its yards big, then either he skipped a patrol or it really wasn't there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jane Coram
    replied
    Here are some more.

    The one in the middle looks more like a bit of old sacking, but the length is similar to the others.


    xxxxx
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Jane Coram
    replied
    Hi,

    Right, here are some photos of everyday aprons worn by the average woman in the area at the time. They all seem to be very similar. I'm going to look through and see if I can find any other kinds being worn by the average doss house, poor working class woman, just to make sure that it's a fair cross section. Other people might have some that I've not come across anyway.

    The first one of the woman on the wall, always reminds me of Kate, I don't know why. That apron seems quite a short one in comparison to the others.

    The second one is a doss house kitchen, but those aprons do seem to be very typical of the ones worn. If I had to guess I'd go for that sort. The last on seems to show a fill length apron being worn by the girl on the right. I don't think she would wear a skirt that colour.

    Hugs

    Janie

    xxxx
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Jane Coram
    replied
    Hi,

    I think it's still worth discussing the size of the apron/ and or piece. Errata brought up some good points. We don't actually know what size it was, although we do have a lot of contemporary photographs which seem to show that it was probably a long apron that went down to well below the knees, but without a bib. Common sense would seem to dictate it needed to be that length to keep most of the skirt clean. It would appear from the photos that the ones used day-to-day were bibless, those being reserved for cooks, nurses and nannies etc.,.

    I'm on the wrong machine, I'll switch over and post a few up for comparison.
    I'd like to see what Hunter's got though . . . and I so should have thought that sentence through before I typed it.

    See you in a minute.

    Much love

    Janie

    xxxxx

    Leave a comment:


  • DrHopper
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    It's nice that we are all adults here and therefore can openly discuss a subject like....uh....well, you know.

    c.d.


    I'm still giggling at the word 'vagina'...

    No, in all seriousness, this is/was and interesting thread, and one that does indeed have relevance. Thanks to all posters.

    hehehe, vagina... heehehehe

    Leave a comment:


  • jason_c
    replied
    I think we have lost Trevor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter
    replied
    Those are good points, Dave and considering that this now should be enough, I will not post further evidence I found to substantiate that. We'll let it ride for now. Even without written evidence the ladies here have contributed the common sense and experience that only they posess on subjects like this.

    But, someone has asked about the size of the piece of apron that was found. Many imagine that it was a small piece but actually it seemed to be about half of the apron itself... maybe more. Dr. Brown mentioned the piece that was left with Catherine Eddowes as being a corner with the string attached. Though much of Henry Smith's depictions in his book have been questionable, he was at Mitre Square and did acompany the body to the mortuary. He stated that the apron was cut in half. There is a report from DC Halse that is supposed to say the same.

    The excerpts from both can be found in this dissertation for those who are interested:



    The most sensible members on these boards are the ones that don't have members.
    Last edited by Hunter; 02-01-2011, 03:57 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    It's nice that we are all adults here and therefore can openly discuss a subject like....uh....well, you know.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    perhaps in the future the boys that choose to speculate on the menstruating habits of the victims should leave the speculation to thems that do the menstruating. Not that it is a completely ineffable subject for the masculine mind, but the things a Victorian woman has to do is sort of the advanced calculus of menstruation, and most guys can barely count. Start slow, work your way up is my advice.

    I think the pure scientific method approach to a case like this is worthless. No one can assume nothing. Well, you can, but then you have a 4th grade science project, where you only ask questions you know you find the answers to. I can do experiments to prove that gravity works, but I already know gravity works. So what an utter waste of time. Experiments to prove the universe collapsing power of magnetars? Now that's a challenge.

    People unwilling to stipulate that people act like an average human until proven otherwise are either pathologically obstreperous, or unable to stipulate such a thing because it would render their own beliefs moot.

    Like the guy next door who thinks that Jesus saying so much as an "ow" while being nailed to the cross is impossible. Never mind that it clearly hurt enough for him to start yelling "Father why you forsaken me?". Which if your dad is the Lord Almighty all knowing all powerful, means its gotta hurt pretty bad. Yeah that was random.

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    Thank You Jane. I do ask to be mean. It is hard enough to make sense of these cases without expending energy running down an alley constructed on unprovable,outside, possibilities. I understand the evidence is very ambiguous in many cases and that sound interpretation is the best friend a ripperologist has. It needs to be clear here on the boards for future students to see because in just the 2 yrs I have been looking at these cases this very issue has been put down and resurrected a half a dozen times. It needs to be clearly understood that the resurgence of this issue is not based on the merit of resolving interpretation, but on the postulator reasserting the same idea, as if he does not except the previous proof or that the whole of Casebook is on some vendetta to belittle him. If we want to move forward, this behavior has to be pointed out and corrected. We all make mistakes. I make so many it makes my head hurt sometimes. I try and admit when I do. I try and correct what I am doing wrong or thinking wrongly. I do not continually reassert the same idea, adding more personal vitriol and accusations of those who disagree rather than addressing the issue with evidence. I agree Jane, the issue is as dead as dead can be! Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Jane Coram
    replied
    Hi Dave,

    Well, we're talking about Kate here, so let's look at it solely from her perspective.

    She and John are so desperately poor that they had to pawn John's new boots to get money for food and necessities, that very day. She had stitched a new patch onto the old apron, which must mean that she didn't have the money to buy herself a new one. She was so poor she had green hopping string to tie up her boots.

    We know what Kate had more than enough rags and bits in her pocket to make herself a make-shift sanitary pad, even if she had to improvise a bit. Why on earth would she want to tear her apron up? If she had nothing else on her to use, I still would say that she didn't do it, simply because the apron wasn't torn, it was cut cleanly (which some additional tearing to help it along), which couldn't have been done with a butter knife.

    Even if the rags were very small pieces, she would have used them as a make-shift tampon, so the size of the rags has nothing to do with it either. Whatever size they were, they were usable.

    As Errata said, Kate's clothes were so dark that it's far more likely she would have just let nature take its course if she hadn't had the rags in her pocket. On top of which we don't even know if she was still menstruating anyway!

    So I would say that taking everything into consideration it is totally out of the question that she used her apron as a make-shift sanitary pad. And it's not often you'll get me to state something as baldly as that!

    Much love

    Janie

    xxxxx

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X