Expert "Discrepancies"

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

Thank you! I just noticed a few typo's from my last posting involving the stats... they should read...

At age 45 in 1881-1890 males were expected to live a further 22.1
years..average age at death therefore 67.1 years of age, females a further 24.1 years..average age at death therefore 69.1 years of age.

At age 65 in 1880-1890 males were expected to live for a further 10.3 years of age..average age at death therefore 75.3 years of age, females a further 11.3 years of age...average age at death therefore 76.3 years of age.

I blame in on the 'flu...back to the chicken soup!

best wishes

Phil

[Barnaby]

Hello all,

The final set of figures may help us to appreciate the actual age of living persons born in around 1841 and still alive in 1888..

In the years 1881-1890, baesd on English life tables, the following is recorded:-

At birth during these years, age expectancy:- Males 44.1, females 47.8

At age 45 in 1881-1890 males were expected to live a further 22.1
years..average age at death therefore 66.2 years of age, females a further 24.1 years..average age at death therefore 71.9 years of age.

Thanks for the numbers. So women who were lucky enough to make it until their mid 40s (actually quite an accomplishment) on average lived until their early 70s. I'm actually quite surprised that they lived that long given the primitive to nonexistant medical care. I'm wondering how well these tables correspond to life expectancy in Whitechapel.

[Barnaby]

Well, a lot of people are theorizing that she had trouble standing her last night on Earth, not because she was drunk, but that she was ill.

Occasionally I will read a post like this and it will make me feel incredibly sad for these poor women.

It also suggests that Jack wasn't interested in challenges; he was picking off the sickest and weakest.

[Fisherman]

Adam Went:

"Honestly, Tom, if you think the average life span was particularly high in the time Jack was around, it's back to the drawing board for you my friend....."

You know, Adam, Tom has suffered the bad luck of getting caught between a rock and a hard place here, since he has on an adjacent thread based a crucial assumption of his own wiew that William Marshall would have meant the age of around 52 when he stated that the man he saw with Stride was "middle-aged", as he put it.
My argument in that particular discussion was (and is!) that when Marshall said that the man he saw was middle-aged, that does not in any way mean that his assessment would be unreconcilable with what Schwartz said about BS man - that he was around 30. In 1888, around 30 would have been middle-aged, that is perfectly clear. But not to Tom ...

I do like threads like these, that offer hardcore information and strenghten my arguments at the same time ....

The best,
Fisherman

[Adam Went]

Phil:

Those are indeed very interesting stats. Great stuff.

Fisherman:

Yes, you're quite right. Tom gets caught out as being wrong more often than he would care to admit, i'm sure.

Trying to understand somebody else's interpretation of "middle-aged" is a difficult thing to do in any case, because everybody has different interpretations, but what was probably considered 40 in 1888 would be considered 50 or more now, and so on.....it all comes back to viewing these things from a Victorian perspective rather than a modern one.

Anyway, good stuff.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fisherman]

Adam Went:

"Trying to understand somebody else's interpretation of "middle-aged" is a difficult thing to do in any case, because everybody has different interpretations"

That is true. The fact of the matter is that there are TWO middle ages - the statistical one, as used by different authorities (who in Swedenīs case start counting the younger middle age from the day you turn 25, depressingly enough), and what we PERCEIVE as middle age. And an 1888 Eastender would not have perceived 52 as typically middle-aged.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, you're quite right. Tom gets caught out as being wrong more often than he would care to admit, i'm sure.

Whatever gets you through the day and your next article, Adam.

Trying to understand somebody else's interpretation of "middle-aged" is a difficult thing to do in any case, because everybody has different interpretations

Not really, the closer in age a person is to the person they're describing, the more accurate they're likely to be. When a 52 year old man sees a 30 year old man, all things being equal, he will describe him as young or youngish. When a 52 year old man sees someone his own age he'll described him as 'middle-aged', not elderly, as a 17 year old man might. Marshall described his man as 'middle-aged', so it's safe to imagine the man was not 28-35, but probably 45 or older.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[claire]

If we look at examples from Victorian literature, we find that when characters are referred to as 'middle aged,' they tend to be in their forties...this is certainly the case in, eg. Dickens' Flora Finching (Little Dorrit), who appears to be around early-mid 40s. There are other examples, but in general, it looks like that's the sort of ball-park we might aim at. Eastenders didn't live in a bubble, so it's unlikely that someone of 30 would be described as middle aged. Sure, lots of people looked a bit past their prime a lot earlier, but unless someone was really down and out, half dead and all the rest of it, then a person of 30 wouldn't really be called 'middle aged.'

Just a tuppence worth from the literature of the time.

[Adam Went]

Fisherman:

Exactly. As Claire alluded to as well, the fact that many of the lower class individuals looked well beyond their years due to the lifestyles they had led, could and probably would have had an effect on such a description is well. It's just unfortunate that the term "middle-aged" was used, because it's not really specific to anything and obviously has caused some confusion.

Tom:

"Whatever gets you through the day and your next article, Adam."

C'mon, you know you enjoy them.

Really it just all comes back to individual interpretation. Middle-aged at 40 to one person might be middle-aged at 60 to another, it's difficult to say and we can't be mind readers.

Cheers,
Adam.

[claire]

As far as I'm concerned, at my age, 84 is middle-aged.

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"When a 52 year old man sees a 30 year old man, all things being equal, he will describe him as young or youngish. When a 52 year old man sees someone his own age he'll described him as 'middle-aged', not elderly, as a 17 year old man might."

Mmm - and when Walter Dew, at the age of 75, described the Ripper victims, he stated that they were "past middle-age".

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Some people on this thread must think the phrase 'three score years and ten' was thought up yesterday, to refer to average life expectancy in modern times.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/380400.html

As Don and others have pointed out, infant mortality in 1880s Whitechapel would have brought the average right down artificially, which means that women were not routinely dropping dead in their mid-forties at all.

I have a book here called An Everyday History of Liverpool, which is described as 'A Concise Chronicle of Everyday Events on Merseyside from the Earliest Days to the end of the 19th Century...' and I was amazed to find several examples of people in workhouses who lived to over 100.

Genes must be as important as living conditions and lifestyle when it comes to determining how long each of us can expect to last.

And I have to agree with Tom that it's relative. I'm an old bag to a teenager, middle-aged mutton to a thirty-something and a spring chicken to an octogenarian. No way would I describe anyone under 40 as middle-aged. And I can't see it being so much different in the LVP because each generation has a new set of hurdles to clear - these days they are more likely to be self-inflicted ones here in the West, like obesity through bad diet choices and lack of exercise. Some scientists are warning that many children are now likely to die before their parents.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"And I have to agree with Tom that it's relative. I'm an old bag to a teenager, middle-aged mutton to a thirty-something and a spring chicken to an octogenarian. No way would I describe anyone under 40 as middle-aged. And I can't see it being so much different in the LVP because each generation has a new set of hurdles to clear - these days they are more likely to be self-inflicted ones here in the West, like obesity through bad diet choices and lack of exercise. Some scientists are warning that many children are now likely to die before their parents."

Right, Caz - now all you have to do is to explain why women of fortyfive-something were described as being "past middle age" by not only a 75 year old Walter Dew, but also by the papers of the time.
The human perception of middle-age is, just like you say, relative to each individual. And that opens up the field for many suggestions, Tomīs as well as mine. It does nothing, however, to establish what ages could GENERALLY be regarded as middle age in 1888 - that, however, is taken care of by Dew and the papers: Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes were on the brink of, or slightly into, old age when they were killed. And Marshall was getting on too - he would not have regarded himself as middle-aged. He would have joined Packer in the cardigan brigade years before he saw Stride in Berner Street.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the way - those of you who keep claiming that people around 30-something would never have been regarded as middle-aged in the Victorian East end; have a look at the photos and drawings of George Chapman, for example. Who of you see a boyish, youngish man?

Chapman was 37 years old as he walked to the gallows back in 1903 ...

Take a look, if you will, at the picture of Chapman together with Bessie Taylor. She was 32 when they met, and 36 when she died. Does she look like a young woman to you? Chapman himself is between 31 and 35 years of age in the same picture. Does he look like a young man or a middle-aged one?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hereīs two more snippets to establish what was middle age and what was not back in 1888:

East London Advertiser, October 6 1888:

”...Mathew Packer after two or three interviews made and signed a statement in writing. On Saturday night about 11:45 a man and woman came, he says, to his shop window, and asked for some fruit. The man was middle-aged, perhaps 35 years ...”

So, this is Matthew Packer, 56 years of age, giving HIS wiew on what was middle age.

The Star, November 15, 1888:

Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends...”

...and 34-35 was the age Hutchinson had given for his middle-aged suspect.

Please remember that this whole discussion originates from a claim on behalf of Tom Wescott that men around 30 would not have been regarded as middle-aged by men of above 50. It is not as if we have the age 30 pin-pointed – it is Schwartz who describes BS man as being around 30 years of age, whereas William Marshall says that his man was ”middle-aged”. For all we know, the man Schwartz thought looked like 30, may have been judged somewhat older than that by Marshall. Any which way, it should be perfectly and unavoidably clear at this stage that persons in their early or middle thirties were described as middle-aged back in 1888, not only by younger people, but also by the likes of 56-year old Matthew Packer!

Now, can we please drop this and move on?

The best,
Fisherman