Mourning again– Black Plumes and Jewellery

Black Plumes by Margery Allingham

pubished 1940

 

 


Last week I looked at mourning clothes: something that was a huge part of life for hundreds of years, with complicated rules and implications, but has practically disappeared now.

Of course it featured a lot in books, and in particular the Golden Age detective fiction that is so big on the blog. So much so that there is plenty of material left over for more entries.

This one is triggered by a Margery Allingham book, Black Plumes.

Now, until a few weeks ago, if asked, I would probably have claimed that Black Plumes was a book in Margery Allingham’s Campion series and that I had read it many years ago when I read all those books. If pushed I would have thought about funerals – unhappy families – bad atmospheres among upmarket arty types. An imagined mishmash of Police at the Funeral, Coroner’s Pidgin, More Work for the Undertaker (based on the title).

But it is actually a standalone murder story, (although the rest of my predictive description holds) and I do not think I have ever read it. So that was a treat  - an undiscovered book from an author I have loved for years. Very recognizably Allingham, and just a good read, without being the best crime story ever.

The mourning is important:

She did what she was told and bought black for herself, Phillida and every servant in the house… Startled dress-shop women with a couple of mannequins apiece were shown into Gabrielle’s bedroom, where she kept them parading up and down in funereal splendour until she was satisfied that her granddaughters were to be suitably clad. Nobody wept. There was a grim purpose in the proceedings and a strange element of gallantry. Frances, her arm full of black chiffon, ran into David outside Phillida’s door on the night before the interment.

 

Later, Phillida is ‘a graceful greyhound figure in her black suit’. (I liked the top picture for mourning, but she should be wearing black stockings.)

But then – the young heroine, Frances, is invited out by family friend David (this is days after a death in the house):

 

“Put on a nice blue dress and I’ll fetch you at seven-thirty.”

“Gabrielle says we’re all to wear black for a month.”

“Does she indeed? I say, I like her. Old Grandmamma Intestinal Fortitude, isn’t she? Have you got a mourning dance garment?”

“Yes.”

 

They go to a nightclub – ‘outrageously expensive, comparatively exclusive, pleasant without being in any way good’. And whom should they see there but the grieving widow…

 


Sitting well back and dressed in a dark frock, but nevertheless there in public not ten days after the disaster, was Phillida herself. David looked from one to the other of them. He was white and his jaw had set. “You blithering fools,” he said, the old-fashioned expletive giving the remark an emphasis which no stronger word could have done.

Phillida was wearing the chiffon which she had thrown so carelessly on one side on the night before the funeral. The smoky drapery mingled with the shadows and was hidden, but on her corsage glittered an enormous spray of diamonds. Frances gaped at it. Phillida had a good many jewels, but a staggering effort of this sort was not a thing one brought out lightly from a drawer in the dressing-table or even from a safe in the wall. It seemed incredible that she should never have seen it before.

To me it’s slightly surprising that any of them can go out to a nightclub at all at this stage – just wearing black doesn’t seem to make it OK. And my 1940s etiquette book says this:

Even the most generous-minded will find it hard to believe that the one who chooses to go to dances, night clubs, or [large] dinner parties really feels very sad.

(This book, which is full of good sense, also feels that it needs to be spelled out that those in deep mourning shouldn’t go to prizefights, ie a boxing match. The mind boggles slightly.)

The big thing, and something we probably can’t instantly see in 2024, is the jewellery – in the earlier post there was mention of a heavy necklace of old jet, and that gives a clue: wearing diamonds is a dreadful faux pas. The only jewellery – certainly for a widow within days of the death – should be black or maybe pearls, maybe touches of silver. No diamonds, no coloured stones, no gold. What is Phillida thinking?

jet jewellery

An older member of the family has a better idea of how to dress:

she came forward alone. She was in full mourning, made almost bulky by a fox cape hanging to her knees and surmounted, most unexpectedly, but very charmingly, by an old-fashioned widow’s cap with a starched and goffered lining and a long dark veil hanging down behind. Her natural dignity saved the situation.



The veil from a startlingly enjoyable collection of mourning pictures at the NYPL, collected (as they so kindly do) into a digital book to gawp at. Jet jewellery, same source.

And there will be more to come on mourning and on the Allingham book... 

Comments

  1. Allingham had a thing about old ladies in white lace caps - especially goffered!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, Police at the Funeral surely? Great Aunt Caroline. I love that book, and when I moved to Cambridge I used to walk around thinking 'THAT looks as though it could have been their house.'

      Delete
  2. Oh, I didn't even know she had a standalone, Moira! Goes to show you how much I know! At any rate, it does sound like a solid read. And so interesting how important mourning clothes are!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, me too, it was such a surprise! And it did seem a familiar title, I'm puzzled by my lack of realisation. However it was very good timing when I was thinking of posting on mourning...

      Delete
  3. Mrs Oliphant's "A Country Gentleman and His Family" begins with the death of a father and describes the family members' attitudes towards mourning. The two daughters are scandalized because their mother goes outside of the house before the funeral!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marty, you are going to fill up my reading plans for the whole year! But this does sound good, and I definitely need another Oliphant on my list.

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't say it was one of her better books, if that will remove some Must Read pressure....

      Delete
    3. Tee hee - and there are certainly plenty to choose from! I haven't had a bad one yet.

      Delete
  4. Were there any expectations around appropriate mourning clothes for men? I can't remember ever coming across such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An excellent and interesting question!
      My 1940s etiquette guide says this: 'women are still the predominating and decisive influence in determining what the period and degree of mourning shall be.'
      And then specifically: 'A black armband, white shirts and handkerchiefs, black neckties socks and shoes are considered deep mourning.'
      Then there is some considerination of sports and hunting clothes - basically, not too bright and a black armband and tie where possible.
      Really not much fuss compared with the women!

      Delete
  5. There seems to be a bit of controversy over whether or not the modern version should have been edited to remove multiple instances of a highly offensive racial slur... although Allingham makes it plain that this is the attitude of one of the secondary characters and not the author. "Working on the theory that when Mrs Sanderson said ‘nxxxxx’ she might easily mean a high-caste Hindu whose ancestors were discussing theology while her own were still leaping from twig to twig,"

    https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20190246/html.php

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm doing a second entry on the book, and I was coming to that, though I have no idea what the correct answer is.
      I recently suggested that a racial slur might be quietly and easily removed from an Agatha Christie - and was really surprised that there was a lot of online pushback, ie people were shocked that I even suggested it.
      It would be harder to remove from this book - there are 12 instances I think, and the character is always referred to that way.
      I just don't know what would be the best response to this...

      Delete
    2. Even the slightest whiff of censorship makes a lot of people nervous. There are always questions of how far it will go, and who gets to do the censoring, and will it change the nature of the censored material. I don't know about Britain, but in the States there are lots people trying to get books banned because they're offended by the books' conte

      Delete
    3. Hit Publish by mistake....that last word was "content" and I was trying to say that neutralizing offensive material may not be as innocuous a practice as it seems. Sometimes I want to figuratively hold my nose when reading books from other times, but the authors wrote what they wrote and we have to "agree to disagree" with them.

      Delete
    4. I can see both sides of the argument, and obviously would strongly resist banning books or doing serious censorship. And there is always the 'thin end of the wedge' argument. But seeing certain words used casually is off-putting. I guess I just have to learn to live with it.

      Delete
  6. If we read old books, surely we read - in part at least - to see the past's attitudes.
    There are books which would be pointless without their prejudices - take away Flashman's racism, sexism and snobbery and what's left? Elsewhere it's deliberately revealing (as in your quotation): Huckleberry Finn helps Nigger Jim because his humanity overpowers his and his time's prejudices, even if he cannot escape using the slur.
    Some time ago I got into a net argument (there were people who didn't want a discussion, so it was an argument!) about whether "niggard" in Jane Eyre should be cut out because it might be mistaken for a racial slur.
    I'd say that my attitude - indifference to words, hostility to the underlying attitudes - dates back to "O-levels" when we studied The Nun's Priest's Tale and had historical racism pushed in our faces. We had an excellent teacher, which meant that just how much of a foreign country the past was was made plain to us, and that our own certainties weren't quite as certain as we assumed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All good points. I think it bothers me when the slur isn't there for any reason, it's just a word - which should make it better, but doesn't! and not every instance has people improving.
      I do think the second level argument - objecting to a word which is only superficially similar, like the one you mention - is very dangerous.

      Delete
    2. I find these questions difficult - I reread the book today in part because of the post and because I had a train journey.
      An argument that occasionally tempts me is that when the word is not being used to make a Huckleberry Finn point but to make a politeness/education point, it would be better to substitute a slightly less offensive slur because the connotations the original now has sends a radically different message to the reader about the character from what the author was trying to give back then. The renamings and revisions of Then There Were None are an example of that approach, perhaps.
      That then runs into another problem—rereading, I noted that the old Victorian character used a (possibly nowadays only slightly) more neutral term, which is the one I might have substituted. This would have left the problem of how one differentiated her from the other characters.
      In the end, perhaps the BLCC-type disclaimer is the way to go. While my reaction to those and to trigger warnings for plays and films is one of mild irritation, I can see that they may be the best compromise.
      On a slightly more modern use of the word to shock, on YouTube it's not hard to discover Milicent Martin using the word in a TW3 sketch about incidents in Mississippi in the early 1960s.
      Roger mentions Flashman. Although, towards the end of his life, GMF liked to wind up people who liked to take offence, his books were the only ones I remember reading growing up that told me about the atrocities after the Indian Mutiny or the fact that the UK fought wars to force the Chinese to buy Opium from us. Also, he wrote one of the best books about being a private/corporal in a modern war in Quartered Safe Out Here about his time in Burma.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your thoughtful and perceptive remarks, which express many of my own doubts and feelings.
      Obviously George Macdonald Fraser is making different effects because not writing at the time: he makes decisions which are not contemporary. But I think we all agree on what an interesting writer he was, and both hugely entertaining and hugely informative. After some discussion here a while back I reread his Hollywood HIstory of the World, which is a marvellous book, and teaches the reader a lot of history.
      I note that I haven't directly covered any of his books on the blog, which surprises me. (Though often gaps reflect authors I read a lot of when I was a lot younger, and the internet didn't exist)

      Delete
    4. I defy anyone to read "Quartered Safe Out Here" and his PVT McAuslan books (the British Army's answer to Piltdown Man) without laughing so hard they have to lie down. Possibly because I spent two decades in the service, but I had tears in my eyes and my ribs hurt.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Shay - I need to read more by him....

      Delete
    6. Macdonald Fraser is using the shock effect to make people think about what went with the words, I think. It's interesting how the use varies - The Nigger of the Narcissus's race is irrelevant, and there it's used by seamen - did they use it as a term of offence? Did the Polack Conrad know of its offensiveness? I came across a quotation from an English cricketer's diary from around then in which he said bemusedly "Niggers don't like being called niggers."
      In the 1930s when Orwell wrote an essay "Not Counting Niggers" he was using it to criticise people who thought they didn't matter. In The Riverside Villas Murder Kingsley Amis looks at jazz as "nigger music". The hero's lower-middle class father is contemptuous and ignorant, where a gay upper-class detective uses it admiringly.

      Delete
    7. Words change their meanings and implications, and it is hard to judge there exact status in the past. And as for people's intentions....one can never know for sure.
      I haven't yet got fixed opinions on all this

      Delete
    8. I suspect that we will resume this debate in later columns. Some references are easy to call - for example, when J K Jerome in either Three Men in a Boat or Three Men on a Bummel refers to N-----r minstrels, it is clear that it is used descriptively.
      Conrad, for me, is a person who tells complicated truths. He is a bit like Kipling in that every so often, he takes one up short. In that regard, Orwell's essay on Kipling is fascinating reading - it is possible to quote it to say that Kipling is an unrepentant imperialist and also that he is a serious man who takes seriously that with power comes responsibility. In these days, that message seems all too relevant.
      Others are more difficult—when did, for example, coloured move from being a polite term to being used by people pretending to be polite but pronouncing it with the intonations which meant that it was clear that it was merely a smokescreen. Presumably, authors normally used it in contexts when it was clear which way it was used, but there must have been some who used it ambiguously. It may have been clearer when they wrote which way they meant it, but those clues may not make sense now.
      A weird one is that Uncle Tom's Cabin was. in some ways, one of the works which made slavery repugnant, but Uncle Tom is also used as an insult to black men who are too accepting of their place as inferior.

      Delete
    9. Yes indeed - there are no definite answers and always a topic for discussion.
      It is always astonishing that the Black and White Minstrel Show ran on the BBC until 1978 - Lenny Henry has written about his having taken part in it.
      and as you say, the changes in language are subtle and nuanced, and it IS vey difficult to take a reading from a past author.
      Orwell is still always one of my favourite writers on literature - in particular his essays on Kipling, Tolstoy and Dickens: I don't think anything else I've read has increased my understanding of those three as his essays did.
      I wrote about Kipling and mentioned Orwell here https://clothesinbooks.blogspot.com/2022/11/mrs-bathurst-and-it-girl.html - and am just about to do another post on him.
      I've always been much struck by Orwell's perception (in the Kipling piece) about the changes in attitude towards war, his view that it changed in the WW1 trenches. I mention it here. https://clothesinbooks.blogspot.com/2018/11/armistice-day-achilles-in-trench.html

      Delete
  7. Re: jewellery - the Victorians had memorial jewellery as well as mourning jewellery, including the slightly creepy stuff made of or incorporating hair. There was an article in the Girls' Own Paper - can't recall the date and the volume is now gone from my shelves, but I think it was in the late 1880s - warning that if you take your loved one's hair in to the jewellers you should be very suspicious if the finished piece is delivered back to you too quickly because this is likely to mean they've palmed you off with a piece they had in stock, containing the hair of a total stranger.
    Sovay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh that's priceless. And yet somehow terribly sensible. And these days we are being told even ashes are a bit random, so hair - meh. No DNA to check in those days.

      Delete
  8. The weirdest Victorian mourning accessory I have encountered is the tear vial. Apparently "sometimes worn on a necklace, sometimes merely held" it was "used to gather the tears wept by mourners at funerals, to hold the tears of people mourning the passing of loved ones".
    https://detournementsmineurs.tumblr.com/post/130055902031/collection-of-lachrymatorys-or-lachrymosas

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've made exactly the same assumption about Black Plumes, which means I have another Allingham to read for the first time! And before we start thinking that weird mourning customs are a thing of the past, I read recently that having a tattoo using the loved one's ashes is a thing. Chrissie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO! That is - no, I'm not sure I have words. It sounds very unhygienic apart from anything else.
      Isn't that funny about Black Plumes, that we had the same experience?

      Delete
  10. I would have guessed that Black Plumes was a Campion and would have been published around 1930. I have only reread the Allingham books from Sweet Danger onward. I will be looking for a copy; maybe an ebook, but not my favorite choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't it strange that so many of us have misplaced this one 😊? I felt silly when I started looking into it, but now feel better because it wasn't just me.
      I enjoyed it, and keep thinking about it.

      Delete
  11. Replies
    1. .... loved your blogpost on it. It's here for anyone else:

      https://wordcount-richmonde.blogspot.com/2024/07/margery-allinghams-black-plumes.html

      Delete

Post a Comment