In Amy Levy’s The Romance of a Shop, The Sycamores is the name of Sidney Darrell’s studio in St. John’s Wood. Though the name of the studio is not traceable—it is likely fictional—St. John’s Wood  was a wealthier area. The majority of St. John’s Wood was primarily upper and middle class (Charles Booth). Considering that Sidney Darrell is of a higher class, it makes sense to place his studio in this area. The Sycamores is mentioned and visited several times throughout the novel, and is even important enough to be the title of an entire chapter. The first time this place is visited, Gertrude is going to photograph one of Darrell’s paintings. The place is described as “fitted up with all the chaotic splendour which distinguishes the studio of the modern fashionable artist; the spoils of many climes, fruits of many wanderings, being heaped, with more regard to picturesqueness than fitness, in every available nook” (Levy 72). This description emphasizes the social class of Darrell, as well as the difference between his and Gertrude’s classes. The fact that Gertrude explains this place as being so grand and the fact that “she only carried away a prevailing impression of tiger-skins and Venetian lanterns” reveals her lower class. She is not accustomed to the expensive tastes of the high class.

The next important and lengthy mention of the Sycamores is in the chapter titled “The Sycamores.” In this chapter, Gertrude and Lord Watergate go seeking Phyllis, who has decided to run away with Darrell and marry him. At The Sycamores, Phyllis has evolved into a whole new person. This transformation is perceived because of the expensive clothing and makeup that she wears: “a beautiful wanton in a loose, trailing garment, shimmering, wonderful, white and lustrous as a pearl … her brown hair turned to gold in the light … with diamonds on her slender fingers” (Levy 146). She has been removed from her modest surroundings and has become immersed in high class life. This strongly emphasizes the theme of social class because it shows how intensely one’s image can change by assuming the wardrobe of high class. Though Phyllis is still the same class she was before, she is seen as more beautiful and glorious because of the clothing she is wearing.

In Amy Levy’s The Romance of a Shop, Marylebone Church is only mentioned once: “Fanny was quietly married at Marylebone Church” (129). The location of this church emphasizes the idea of social class. The surrounding area primarily consisted of a number of homes ranging from middle-class to poor (Charles Booth). There is a distinct boundary along Devonshire Place—a road not far away—that marks the beginning of upper class society. The fact that higher classes are concentrated within a separate, distinct area suggests that this church was typically frequented by lower to middle class Londoners. Though the upper class homes are nearby, the church was surrounded by middle to lower class. These people were more likely to be the ones who went there. The upper class would have gone to a church within a wealthy neighborhood. The theme of class is also suggested in the text by the fact that Fanny would have preferred to have a better wedding: “She would have dearly liked a ‘white wedding’; and sisters would suggest what she dared not … Truth to tell so an idea never entered the heads of those practical young women; and poor Fanny went soberly to the altar in a dark green travelling dress, which was becoming if not festive” (Levy 129). If Fanny or Edward Marsh, her groom, had been wealthier, they would have been able to have a white wedding in a prestigious church. Instead, Fanny must wear a plain, presumably cheap dress, and marry in an affordable church. Her sisters do not suggest a more expensive, white wedding because they are not of a high class and have other, more practical, things to think about. Someone like Constance Devonshire would likely marry in a more luxurious, class appropriate place. Having Fanny marry in this church fits with the theme of social class that is woven throughout the novel. Throughout the novel is clear that there are distinct places that certain classes are expected to go, and certain rules that they should abide by. It makes sense to have this family in this church because it is in an area that someone of their social class could afford. Franny being able to marry in a better church would not have been realistic or logical.

The Charles Booth Poverty Map reveals that Piccadilly was largely populated by the upper and middle classes with “fairly comfortable” in some areas. On The Proceedings of Old Bailey the results for crimes committed on Piccadilly show that the majority of them were variations of theft ranging from burglary to shoplifting and only a few of the crimes were considered violent. The high amount of theft seems logical considering it was a richer area with plenty of shops. There would have been quite a few places to target.

According to British History Online, “Piccadilly has for centuries been one of the two most important highways leading to the metropolis from the west” (BHO). Clearly, this street has always been well-traveled and essential to getting around the city. There were several well known places on this street such as Burlington House, Burlington Arcade—described as “a long, covered avenue lined with small, but beautiful shops”—, the Royal Academy, and the Egyptian Hall (Historical Eye). In The Picture of Dorian Gray, this street is mentioned by Dorian Gray when he is explaining to Lord Henry how he had reacted to Henry’s words which had “filled [him] with a wild desire to know everything about life” (Chapter 4). To quell this wild desire, Dorian explains that he strolls down Piccadilly and watches people: “As I lounged in the park, or strolled down Piccadilly, I used to look at every one who passed me and wonder, with a mad curiosity, what sort of lives they led” (Chapter 4). Piccadilly would be a good place to watch a variety of people, especially considering the attractions located along the street; the shops and other popular places drew in all sorts of people. Dorian’s adventures on Piccadilly—a relatively safe street, at least in terms of violence—eventually lead to his exploration of the “grimy streets” of London—presumably a more dangerous, lower class area—where he discovers Sibyl Vane (Chapter 4).

I researched Charing Cross in the Sherlock Stories. In “The Man with a Twisted Lip” Charing Cross is only mentioned when Sherlock says “I think, Watson,  that you are now standing in the presence of one of the most absolute fools in Europe. I deserve to be kicked from here to Charing Cross” (Doyle). This is when Holmes has figured out that Neville is Hugh Boone and the mention of Charing Cross is rather brief and insignificant. In “A Scandal in Bohemia” Charing Cross plays a bigger role. The woman at Irene Adler’s house explains that Irene “left this morning with her husband, by the 5:15 train from Charing Cross, for the continent” (Doyle). According to The Historical Eye, at Charing Cross there are “two railway stations within a stone’s throw of each other. One of these is the west end terminus of the South Eastern Railway, and the other is a station on the Metropolitan District Railway” (Historical Eye). Using Victorian Google Maps I could only find Charing Cross Station. However, the tracks appear to lead in the direction of the mainland, so it is likely that this is where Irene and her husband fled to in search of a train. The station isn’t technically on the road labeled Charing Cross. It is on West Strand which connects nearby. The map also shows that several different hotels surround the station, indicating that the immediate area was often full of tourists and travelers.

Since the station played a larger role than road itself I looked more into it. According to the Charles Booth Online Archive, the area around the station was mostly well-to-do middle class or fairly comfortable people. This makes sense considering the amount of hotels (and likely other businesses). Having plenty of people coming and going would be good for business. When looking for information about the station on British History Online, I found a section that explained the havoc that had developed due to the creation of railways. The author quoted a writer of an illustrated newspaper who describes the building of railways rather negatively: “the task of destroying houses, or of snapping off odd bits of streets, and leaving maimed and melancholy fragments—unsightly, untenantable, forlorn débris; then the shapeless scraps of land, unneeded by the railway, and unavailable for other purposes” (BHO). This writer has nothing good to say about the railway and continues his rant by explaining “the abominable bridges that cross the roads at ugly angles; of the viaducts that provide dry arches for the congregation and accommodation of street Arabs and gutter children; of the cucumber frames that supply light and air to the underground traffic; of the colossal sheds of stations, notably those that mar the river’s banks” (BHO). It’s interesting that there was such a negative view on the railways while railways remained so important and relied on. This description of the railways shows that the railways had a double edge; they were useful for people to get around but also made a mess of the city. Unfortunately, these background details about Charing Cross don’t seem to reveal anything deeper about the stories. It’s a rather straight forward situation: Irene is fleeing to mainland Europe on a train which is presumably leaving Charing Cross Station. It could be important that there was actually a train station at Charing Cross. If Doyle had made a place up, or chosen a place where she could not have truly caught a train, it would have diminished the authenticity of Irene Adler, the woman who escaped Sherlock Holmes.

Charing Cross is the name of a T shaped intersection near Trafalgar Square in London. According to The Victorian Web, the area gets its name from the Queen Eleanor Memorial Cross located nearby, though it is not named after the cross itself. Apparently the word “Charing” comes from the Old English cierran, meaning to turn: it was meant to indicate to turn at the cross “from the Strand towards Westminster” (The Victorian Web). According to the Charles Booth poverty map, the surrounding area was a mixture of upper class, upper middle class, well-to-do middle class, and poor. Closest to the actual road labeled Charing Cross, however, there appears to be mostly shades of blue, indicating poor or very poor.

The high population of poor people in the area explains why when searching just “Charing Cross” (with no further criteria) on The Old Bailey, the search came up with 1835 results. Not all of these results described crimes that happened at Charing Cross, instead they might have been testimonies that involved Charing Cross in a manner unrelated to the crime. Many of the crimes that did actually occur at Charing Cross were murders of various degrees, theft, or deception (forgery). Crimes that would be typical in an area of poor people with nearby middle class homes.

When searching Charing Cross on British History Online, I found information on the architecture of buildings. One section explained that “the deep decline in the standards of London’s street architecture during the late nineteenth century is nowhere more evident than in Charing Cross Road. The southern half of the street is dominated by the ugly repetitions of Sandringham Buildings, multi-storey artisans’ dwellings with shops at ground-floor level, which extend along both sides of Charing Cross Road between Litchfield and Great Newport Streets” (BHO). These buildings were erected to provide for the rehousing of 2,000 of the laboring classes (BHO). This re-emphasizes the fact that Charing Cross was filled with the poor, lower classes.

In “A Lost Masterpiece” Charing Cross is the bus stop where the narrator completely loses their “little masterpiece” (Egerton). This masterpiece had been disrupted when the narrator saw a woman running to catch the omnibus. The narrator explained that this annoyed them because they “could not help wondering why she was in such a desperate hurry” (Egerton). The narrator apparently cannot relate to having to rush. When the bus stops at Charing Cross the narrator says “Of course, naturally! Here she comes, elbows out, umbrella waning!” (Egerton). Considering my research seems to indicate a high population of poorer people in the area, this scene seems to be speaking directly to the idea of class divide. Clearly referring to the woman who was rushing earlier for some unfathomable reason, the narrator’s statement “of course, naturally” indicates that it makes sense that a woman who was getting off at Charing Cross would be rushing. She would be of a lower class and not have the time to sit on an omnibus nursing the ingenious masterpiece forming in their mind. It has already been made clear that the narrator does not understand the need to rush, showing that they are probably of a higher class.

Work Cited

Booth, Charles. “Booth Poverty Map & Modern Map (Charles Booth Online Archive).” Booth Poverty Map & Modern Map (Charles Booth Online Archive). London School of Economics & Political Science, n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2015.

Egerton, George [Mary Chavelita Dunne Bright]. “A Lost Masterpiece.” The Yellow Book 1 (Apr. 1894): 189-96.The Yellow Nineties Online. Ed. Dennis Denisoff and Lorraine Janzen Kooistra. Ryerson University, 2010. Web. 09 Sept. 2015.

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/barryem/4.html

“Shaftesbury Avenue and Charing Cross Road.” Survey of London: Volumes 33 and 34, St Anne Soho. Ed. F H W Sheppard. London: London County Council, 1966. 296-312. British History Online. Web. 8 September 2015.

“The Proceedings of the Old Bailey.” N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2015

While exploring Lee Jackson’s “The Victorian Dictionary” I noticed that there was a significantly long list of sub-categories under disease. Among this expansive list of diseases I found the topic “disinfectors.” I was intrigued by this because I didn’t think there was such a thing during the time period. The name brought to mind current day custodians. I learned that public disinfectors were men who went around and, as their title suggests, disinfected areas that had been inhabited by diseased people.

Due to the fact that London was dirty, unsanitary, and crowded, disease was able to spread rapidly. In response public disinfectors were sent out because “the germ or virus … will, it is known, retain all its fatal power, sometimes for months, if proper measures are not taken to destroy these seeds of infection” (Jackson). Though many diseases may not be fatal nowadays, for Victorian London simple diseases were deadly. Without germ killing disinfectant sprays or bleach, these men were entirely responsible for removing infected materials: “Alone and unseen, they remove, one by one, all the clothes, bedding, carpets, curtains, in fact all textile materials they can find in the room, carefully place them in the hand-cart, and drag them off to the disinfecting-oven” (Jackson). They were not allowed to let anyone else be in the room at the time to prevent further infection.

The article also explains that there were laws that stipulated that people suffering from infectious diseases had to be hospitalized or isolated to a room that would be cleaned after the patient passed away or fought off the illness (Jackson). These rules ensured a greater chance of preventing the spread of disease. I thought it was interesting that the inspector—it is unclear whether the inspector and disinfector were the same person—was occasionally faced with detective work. If a person denied the presence of an infectious disease, he used strategies such as interrogating neighbors or servants in search of the truth (Jackson). After finding evidence the inspector was able to seek police assistance and those who broke the law were faced with the consequences.

Another interesting fact was that the disinfectors of St. George’s, Hanover Square, considered their jobs an improvement over their last jobs: they were previously employed as “road men” and after the job change their pay became much higher (Jackson). As disinfectors they worked steadily and often worked overtime. It seems that these men were either very brave or in great need of money. Every day they faced peril and potential death from disease to help keep the city safe and sanitary. As road men they had a fairly safe job, they merely fixed roads. As disinfectors they might have a higher income, but it came with a higher chance of dying.

Jackson, Lee. ” Victorian London – Publications – Social Investigation/Journalism –  Street Life in London – by J.Thomson and Adolphe Smith, 1877.” Dictionary of Victorian London. Web. 26 Aug. 2015.

 

 

My name is Marriah Jennings. I am a senior and an English major with a minor in Histoy. Honestly, I do not know much about modern day London, let alone Victorian London. Before looking at the map of London I really have no concept in my mind of how the city was laid out. I had never really thought about it before. While it probably sounds like I live under a rock, I did not know that the Thames River ran through the middle of it. The reading emphasized what I suspected when I saw the map: there was a immense separation between the north and south. The southern part of the city was “the location for those industries banished from the city proper – tanneries, timber yards and factories making vinegar, dyes, soap and tallow” (Robinson). These were goods that the rich inevitably wanted yet the industries were unfavorable and were pushed across the river. This caused the southern city to be a place for undesirables. This segregation of the south helped widen the distinct gap between classes. The rich inhabited their scrubbed up western land while the poor lived in the southern slums (Robinson).

The south was eventually attached with several bridges but not many people wanted to take a leisurely visit. It had always been a place for the undesirable people and places. When the aristocrats pushed the development of west London into high speed, the Thames became crowded and merchandise started to be damaged in transit, causing the creation of more ports (Robinson). Before Londoners knew it more and more technological innovations were popping up and revolutionizing their lives. The introduction of the railways was surprisingly good for the working class. It allowed them to commute to work, therefore they no longer had to live in the cheap, dangerous areas of London, instead they could move to the suburbs (Robinson). This gave them a safer place to live that wasn’t as expensive as central London.