Dying Girls and Dead Theses

It is an unenviable end, doing a vast amount of research on a particular subject and discovering your insights have already been made by others. I recently set about studying the historical trope of “the dying girl,” imagining I would write my thesis, to conclude my second master’s degree, on the topic. Unfortunately, while it was clear from primary sources that the dying girl had much to tell us about past American thought, the more scholarship I read the more it grew equally clear that the subject had been thoroughly covered. That is the way of things. Your work has to offer something new, but you cannot know if you have something new until you’ve read everything that everyone else has already written on the matter, a mammoth task, or at least read enough to come across your ideas. I also find it unnatural to try to find something new under the pressure of the clock (ringing at the end of the semester). Historical discoveries and meaningful insights cannot be rushed or forced — they may take months, years, or decades to find, and I’d rather come across them organically.

But it seemed a shame to not do something with this work, so I thought I would take some of my notes and craft a short piece.

In the nineteenth century, the archetype of “the dying girl” or “the dying woman” pervaded art and literature throughout the West, from the United States to Britain to Australia. A young female on her deathbed was the subject of a deluge of poems, short stories, novels, plays, songs, paintings, photographs, and sculptures. However manifested, the dying girl did a great deal of cultural work — as cultural theorist John Storey writes, works of art “always present a particular image of the world” and “win people to particular ways of seeing” it (Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction). The dying girl broadcast ideas on sexuality, religion, and perhaps even industrialization, the latter representing one of my few (somewhat) original insights or theories on this matter.

The archetype arose from various causes. While historians and English scholars have marked the nineteenth century as a high point of the archetype, it was hardly new, having appeared in preceding centuries. It was perhaps an outgrowth from imagery of the virgin Mary’s death. Compare Henry Peach Robinson’s photograph Fading Away (1858) with Death of the Virgin by Rembrandt (1639), Bruegel (1564), or Christus (1460). Jessica Straley, associate professor of English at the University of Utah, writes, “Scholars explain Victorian attitudes toward death as the result of the timely confluence of three traditions: the Gothic fixation on the mysterious and the melancholic, the Romantic veneration of nostalgia and decay, and the Evangelical view of death as a lesson for the living.” Thus, alongside an explosion of dying girls in art, “the nineteenth century uniquely transformed death into an elaborate performance: the century saw the invention of the modern cemetery, the elaboration of the funeral into an extravagant and expensive visual spectacle, and the codification of mourning attire and etiquette.”

There is likely a connection between the dying girl and tuberculosis, which killed large numbers of people in the nineteenth century. Scholars such as English professor Katherine Byrne of the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland (Tuberculosis and the Victorian Imagination, 2011) and Ashleigh Black, doctoral student of visual culture at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland (“Even in Death She Is Beautiful: Confronting Tuberculosis in Art, Literature, and Medicine,” 2022) have considered this. Tuberculosis, or consumption, was a “wasting disease” that British Victorians saw as enhancing feminine beauty, offering “pale, waxen features and a thin figure.” Red cheeks and glittering eyes were other key traits. Thus, real-world deaths, and ideas of beauty, bled into art. In depictions, dying girls were always young, fragile, and pretty. Symptoms of TB include cough, exhaustion, fever, weight loss, aches, and headaches, some of which are referenced in the American poems and short stories I examined (though what the dying girl is dying of is never worth directly mentioning, in the same way her name is usually unimportant).

A typical example of such a primary source (and it cannot be emphasized enough how uniform these writings are, right down to their identical titles, which limits mineable meanings) is Mrs. John K. Laskey’s “The Dying Girl” from Godey’s Magazine in 1843. The dying girl is “lovely,” “gentle,” and “youthful,” with “light curls on her brow.” Laskey depicts a struggle between the natural desire to live and the will of God, his invitation to paradise. With a warm and beautiful summertime, and a garden she “worshipped,” reminding her of the “thousand lovely things of earth,” the dying girl feels the “deep yearning of the soul for life,” longing to “delay” the end. She cries out: 

To die, alas, to die!
To say farewell to all my heart holds dear;
To pass from earth while yet the summer sky
Resounds with gladsome voices, sweet and clear, —
Oh! would I might yet longer tarry here! 

The dying girl eventually comes to her senses (“Father in heaven, my reason half departs!”), overcomes her fears, and accepts God’s will. 

Yes, yes! I will submit! — 
Forgive the spirit that has dared rebel! 
And, holy Father, if THOU thinkest fit, 
Take me from earth, for THOU dost all things well! —
With THEE, henceforth, I would for ever dwell!

Here you see the three key elements of the dying girl’s beauty, her noble Christian example, and her love of nature. These appear throughout my sources, whether written by men or women (typically white and middle or upper class). Of course, scholars have seen sexual connotations in the dying girl’s beauty and weakness. The archetype has been described as “a male fantasy of women’s bodily surrender.”

Magda Romanska, theatre scholar at Emerson College, explores the connection between the dying girl and sexuality in “NecrOphelia: Death, Femininity, and the Making of Modern Aesthetics” (2005). The nineteenth century, she writes, “was a period of morbid aesthetics and a peculiar and apparently inexplicable fascination with deadly eroticism.” Indeed, the “poetic and artistic imagination of the time began conceiving of the erotic as invariably ‘touched by death’ and of death as invariably touched by the erotic.” European artists, for example French sculptor Auguste Clésinger (“Woman Bitten by a Serpent”), offered in their work naked or semi-naked dying women, whose limp, sprawled forms could be read as post-orgasmic as easily as post-mortal. The dead or withering female body was inherently pornographic. The male gaze, Romanska argues, had a particular impact on artistic depictions of Shakespeare’s Ophelia, who became a central necrophilistic subject: “dead, yet sexually appealing.”

Of course, the nineteenth-century writer could not get away with descriptions of the nude body or various stages of undress and hope to be published; the painter and sculptor had more freedom in this regard. The furthest one could go would be where preacher and historian Timothy Horton Ball went in his 1893 Annie B., The Dying Girl: the girl is “very fair,” a “maid” (virgin) of “faultless form” and “native grace,” her cheeks and lips a “rosy hue,” her eyes “tender,” “bright,” and “blue.” This is alongside a beautiful voice and loving nature. Her lips and skin of course grow pale from illness. Not exactly erotica, but certainly pleasing to the male gaze. Elsewhere vulnerable girls are “sad and languid, weak and faint.”

And the dying girl is indeed at times explicitly a maiden, a sexual prize. (Though not always: see Deborah Deacon, “Seduced and Dying: The Sympathetic Trope of the Fallen Woman in Early and Mid-Victorian Britain.”) Professor of English Susan K. Martin of La Trobe University (Australia) explores this in her 1995 article “Good Girls Die; Bad Girls Don’t: The Uses of the Dying Virgin in Nineteenth-century Fiction.” After pointing out that nineteenth-century Western narratives confined young middle-class women to very few roles (“she can marry; she can fall; she can die”), Martin turns to the dying virgin, finding in her an “unthreatening ideal.” By ideal, Martin means that the dying girl is successfully trapped in a “closed system of virginity.” The only way to preserve her sexual purity is to kill her. The dying girl is unthreatening because her agency and power — sexual, social, economic, political, and so on — are curtailed through illness and eventual termination. In much Australian literature, Martin observes, including works by women, female characters who are transgressive, who push against class or gender boundaries, are both punished and cured of “over-active and over-assertive” traits by illness and death — they are made powerless and passive. 

However, various interpretations, and myriad authorial anxieties, are possible: the “death of young women on the brink of sexual maturity” could also be read as escape “from repressive models of nineteenth-century female maturity, the sexual economy and gender boundaries which burden the adult female.” Martin also notes that dying girls issue commands and instructions to men that can hardly be refused (they also provide religious teachings to men, for instance in Ball’s piece). Narratively, the deathbed is a place of power: with the tale about to end and the dying girl showered with love and adulation, anything can be asked for. Further, in some instances, as with Beth and Jo in Alcott’s Little Women, the interpretation that a dying (ideal, domesticated) young woman enables the more radical path of another young woman is possible. Other scholars have noted that Poe’s dying women tend to return from the grave. Dying girl stories can thus be seen as sites of negotiation or feminist subversion, not solely as weapons of male supremacy and the gender order.

However, it must be said that the short nature of the works that appear in American magazines and newspapers do not allow for substantial narrative (and, again, there exists little variance). There is no before or after, no time for the girl to be transgressive, for other characters to walk a life path, etc. The girl is introduced on her deathbed and described physically, she comforts a loved one, reminisces about her childhood in nature, accepts God’s will and delights in seeing heaven, and dies. It is a steady drip of specific ideas into the cultural body. While we certainly see commands that cannot be refused, they tend to service the religious indoctrination. In Daniel Cooledge’s 1833 The Dying Jewess, the girl begs her father to find Christ as she has; she passes away and he does just that.

Beyond the alluring femme fragile and sexually untouched object, beyond the exemplar of the good Christian death (which was a staple of children’s literature in the nineteenth century and prior centuries, featuring more than just dying girls), only the adulation of nature appears to have received little commentary.

Samuel D. Patterson’s “The Prayer of the Dying Girl” was published in Godey’s Magazine in late 1848. The titular character remembers fondly her childhood home, and pleads to be taken there to die. She recalls the green valleys, streams, mountains, and plains she would explore, the “happy days that there I spent when health and strength were mine,” when she “never knew a pang of sorrow or of pain.” The Mourner’s Chaplet: An Offering of Sympathy for Bereaved Friends from 1844, edited by John Keese, contains three works entitled “The Dying Girl,” seemingly by different authors. In the first poem, the girl lifts up the natural world left behind: “Speak of me, when the summer day is bright / With glorious sunbeams, and the golden light / Streams through the lattice of my own green bower / Let me be there, in that rejoicing hour.” Heaven is likewise described as an everlasting spring, with flowers and streams and peaceful skies. The second poem speaks of exploring the ocean shore and picking flowers in childhood. In the third work, the dying girl admires the “golden sun” that warms her “lovely” “native land,” remembering herself as a “careless merry child” who “twined me garlands of sweet wild flowers — no hot-house denizens.” This is an explicit rejection of an urban structure. She regards each “rock and tree as old remembered friends,” and lauds the sparkling river and soft grass. Finally, consider abolitionist and suffragist Mattie Griffith Browne’s “The Dying Girl,” prominently positioned as the first poem in her 1853 collection. This dying girl laments she will not be buried at their family home but rather in “this cold, strange land.” No further explanation is given.

Straley argues that the Victorians linked death and childhood (death is returning home and becoming a child again, returning to a state of innocence), an idea existing alongside a connection between death and the erotic (see Romanska), and between death and woman (both seen as Other, outside the norm, in male-centric societies). But the dying girl’s rejection of her current place and the craving to return to nature could reflect attitudes toward the increasing urbanization and industrialization of nineteenth-century America — in other words, these are works of the Romantic movement (think Thoreau, Emerson, Bryant). Cities grew rapidly in the early 1800s and they were not always pleasant, nor was industrial labor. Philadelphia, Boston, and New York saw large influxes of rural migrants — these are the cities with the magazines and newspapers that received and published most of the dying girl stories I surveyed. While the idea that these works contain expressions of yearning for old ways of life is interesting, it is a bit interpretive for my tastes (like some elements of the sexual analysis) and could not carry a lengthy thesis.

Similarly, my suggestion that the dying girl archetype began to die out with the transition from Americans dying in the home to dying in the hospital in the late nineteenth century (the good Christian death was supposed to happen in the home, the hospital is a less sentimental setting, you may be less likely to be surrounded by family at the end, etc.) would be difficult to prove and quick to discuss.

It is time, then, to find a new topic.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

When Did Jesus Finally Get the Name Jesus?

In my massive article The Bible is Rife With Contradictions and Changes, I introduced the fact that bible stories and verses have been changed over the centuries, at times significantly, with the following:

Christians don’t want to believe that biblical translations over time altered original stories, but one small way they obviously did was by giving characters altered names. Jesus did not consort with John and James. They were in the Middle East, not an English pub. Instead, Yeshua (ישוע) consorted with Yohhanan (יוחנן) and Ya’akov (יעקב). Hebrew and Aramaic names were translated into Greek and later into English (and other tongues), resulting in names of different pronunciation than were actually used. Mattityahu became Matthaios and finally Matthew. (No, English speakers did not independently have a name like “John” and then “translated” Yohhanan [Hebrew] or Ioannes [Greek] to the pre-existing John, as if there was some magical lingual match or a “Hey, this name sounds a bit like one of ours” situation! Study the etymology of these names. The only reason John existed in English is because over centuries the name Yohhanan, thanks to the bible, spread beyond Palestine, through other parts of Europe, and finally to the English-speaking world, changing along the way.) If something as simple as names and their pronunciations could change from actual people to written text, and then translation to translation, could other things have changed, too?

This is one of those things that is right in front of your face as a devout Christian, which I was until about 12 years ago, but you somehow never notice. Of course the bible has changed over time! To me, all this speaks to how blindly, how absolutely, we believe the bible to be true — if it says his name was John, his name was John — and how little the gears of critical thinking will turn under the stunting influence of religion.

But when exactly did “Yeshua” evolve into “Jesus”? The authors of the New Testament, written in Greek in the later half of the first century A.D., took the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע) and made it Iesous (Ἰησοῦς), pronounced EE-ay-soos. A change was necessary because the Greek alphabet lacked the “sh” sound; further, Greek male names ended with an “s” sound, so “ς” was added. A few hundred years later, in the fourth century, Latin translations were authored. The Latin Iesus (IESVS) was pronounced similarly to the Greek name. Overall, the Greco-Roman pronunciation ruled for some 1,500 years, a much longer life than the modern version (for now at least). However, one should note that by the 12th century, the spelling “Jesus” was used alongside “Iesus,” but they were both pronounced like the latter. See, the letter “J” began as a fancy, elongated “I” in the Middle Ages, and was applied to all kinds of words and names. Not until the 1500s did J more and more come to sound like the letter we know and love. The modern pronunciation of Jesus began and grew from there, though it took a century or two to become standard. The letter J made the jump from Latin to English in the 1600s. Some readers will recall that Shakespeare did not use the letter J (sorry, Juliet), since it was not part of the English alphabet in his day, and the 1611 King James Bible spoke of Iesus — the 1629 revision spoke of Jesus.

This is not intended to be framed as breaking news. Many know that Yeshua was this figure’s actual name, that it was a common name at the time, that “Christ” isn’t Jesus’ last name, and so on. Plenty of Christian sites will walk you through the transformation of Yeshua. Further, the evolution of a character’s name across time and languages doesn’t automatically make stories about him untrue (we know the gospels are probably fictional for many other reasons). But it is suggestive. Again, if character names can be altered by later human beings, why not the stories the characters are in? Why not whole verses? See the article cited in the first sentence of this piece for examples.

Overall, I find it quite striking to examine the etymology of “Jesus.” More tongue in cheek, there’s thoughts of Darwin, with this slow evolution and a common ancestor of splintered descendants — Yeshua became both Jesus and Joshua. It’s interesting to me, for some reason, that before 500 years ago, no one had ever said the name Jesus, not how we say it; were you to time travel, English-speaking Christians wouldn’t be fully sure who you were talking about. Most importantly, there’s the human fingerprints all over Jesus’ name, in the same way they are all over the tales about him. What human beings believe in, who they worship, the name they cry out to — these things can easily be man-made constructions. Why do we call him Jesus? Because of a limiting Greek alphabet, a Greek tradition regarding masculine names, and a bunch of medieval scribes who wanted to write fancy.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Announcing My 3rd Book

My latest book is now available for purchase! It is a bit different than my prior works. It is entitled Becoming Missouri State: Conversations on the Great Name Change Battle.

Missouri State University was known as Southwest Missouri State until 2005. The Bears fought for the name Missouri State for 25 years, overcoming fierce opposition from the University of Missouri and Columbia legislators, who acted like “the sky would fall” if Southwest succeeded, to quote a Mizzou graduate. This is that story.

Becoming Missouri State can be found on Amazon here. I do hope you enjoy it.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Taylor Swift & Drake: 12 Bangers Each

Taylor Swift and Drake are, according to a recent piece in The New York Times, the only modern artists who have a chance to overtake The Beatles in popularity, though this remains a daunting task. They have without question defined their respective genres for a generation. Having recently crafted a playlist for a family member to introduce her to Drake, I thought I would pass it along here and create a similar selection of the Taylor Swift songs I most enjoy.

Drake is one of my favorite hip hop artists, alongside Lil Dicky and others who generally seem to be having the time of their lives, and he is certainly who I listen to the most in this genre. I decided to pick 12 songs, exemplifying a healthy mix of his styles, for the Drake Starter Kit. It’s a fun challenge to limit the selection.

And hopefully it generates some curiosity: what 12 Taylor Swift songs would this guy go for? I think my overall interest in Swift remains modest due to a preference for folk over pop (or country, though do see Begrudgingly Acknowledged Country Bangers). To me, much of her work feels a bit empty compared to, say, Una Walkenhorst or Dead Horses. Nevertheless, plenty of Swift songs absolutely slap. Taylor Swift Bangers features a dozen of my favorites. Skirting potential controversy, some songs are the originals. With art, there can be a certain magic and innocence to original creations that is hard to recapture later, and some of the content and spirit of her early work surely benefits from her youth. At other times, the more mature voice of Taylor’s Versions lends a new and beneficial gravitas to the song, a wiser and older woman looking back at something in the true distance (“All Too Well,” for example).

Enjoy.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Wokeness in November

Regardless of one’s personal feelings about wokeness and the culture wars (I think such things are important for many reasons, but have also spilt plenty of ink in critique), it seems likely they are one factor, out of many, holding back Democratic electoral success.

Some commentators have recently insisted that “The working class isn’t woke. That’s a huge problem for the left,” and that we need to recognize that the ideas of the “populist economic left” are popular but those of the “woke cultural left” are not. Perceptions that the Democrats are the crazy woke people may contribute (while not being the sole cause) to the fact that blue candidates will not garner votes even while progressive policies will — states that voted for Trump also voted for abortion rights, higher minimum wages, and so on.

The idea is to lean into bold leftwing policies that tangibly help ordinary people (which is the correct course of action when people are struggling and rightwing authoritarians and extremists are promising shelter) and lean away from what most of the country views as violations of common sense, unnecessary oversensitivity, language or thought policing, and so forth (let alone inaccuracies). People all over the political spectrum would love free healthcare or money deposited into their bank accounts by the State, but dislike getting beaten up for not using terms like Latinx. The Democrats are associated with the latter, not so much the former. And that’s trouble, because, conservatively, about 25% of independent voters and 10% of Democratic voters do not want a “woke” presidential candidate. Other research suggests that 58% of Democrats and 74% of independents are either concerned that politicians are too woke or are distracted from serious issues by wokeism. Some voters who have abandoned the Democrats will tell you directly they were tired of being told “how to talk,” with Democrats consistently “going too far.” They “lost touch with our priorities” and framed anyone who disagrees with wokeness as a “bad person.” A perceived focus on cultural issues rather than helping the middle class was the top reason swing voters chose Harris’ opponent.

There are those who saw Harris as properly progressive and having downplayed the culture war stuff, which is all debatable, but we’re talking about years-long, society-wide trends that are bigger than one campaign or candidate. Democrats would have to offer much more to help struggling people and work for some time to separate themselves from the woke Left, which is perceived as insane by too many badly needed voters.

To reiterate, an analysis of unfortunate effects and the perceptions of the masses can be acknowledged regardless of personal support for woke Left ideas. Sometimes the things you think are right hurt your electoral chances. Sometimes you’re the square peg being rammed into a round hole, at odds with most of the nation. Maybe Latinx is a better term, but 96% of Hispanics decline to use it. So you decide what hills are worth dying on; at times what’s right must be pursued regardless of electoral cost, while other things can be let go. Some woke battles are worth fighting, in my view, but if the larger culture war in any way helps hand the branches of government to the Republicans, it seems worth questioning. Many recent articles have screamed that the woke era had nothing to do with Harris’ loss, while others make it the main culprit — it seems reasonable to reject these absolutes, and most intellectually honest to say it is part of the story, and then consider how to act in response moving forward.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.