GEORGE HUTCHINSON

The following poem, The Ruined Maid by Thomas Hardy, 4 serves as a satirical and sly tongue-in-cheek commentary
on these comically misguided standards, idealistic attitudes, and denial-philosophy of upper Victorian British
society. O tempora, o mores!
‘O ‘Melia, my dear, this does everything crown!
Who could have supposed I should meet you in Town?
And whence such fair garments, such prosperi-ty?’
‘O didn’t you know I’d been ruined?’ said she.
‘You left us in tatters, without shoes or socks,
Tired of digging potatoes, and spudding up docks;
And now you’ve gay bracelets and bright feathers three!’
‘Yes: that’s how we dress when we’re ruined,’ said she.
‘At home in the barton you said ‘thee’ and ‘thou’,
And ‘thik oon’ and ‘theäs oon’ and ‘t’other’; but now
Your talking quite fits ‘ee for high compan-ny!’
‘Some polish is gained with one’s ruin,’ said she.
‘Your hands were like paws then, your face blue and bleak
But now I’m bewitched by your delicate cheek,
And your little gloves fit as on any la-dy!’
‘We never do work when we’re ruined,’ said she.
‘You used to call home-life a hag-ridden dream,
And you’d sigh, and you’d sock; but at present you seem
To know not of megrims or melancho-ly!’
‘True. One’s pretty lively when ruined,’ said she.
‘I wish I had feathers, a fine sweeping gown,
And a delicate face, and could strut about Town.’
‘My dear - a raw country girl, such as you be,
Cannot quite expect that. You ain’t ruined,’ said she.
Whereas the upper classes, blinkered as they were in these sexual matters, were generally sympathetic toward
the plight of those trapped within the Ripper’s killing ground, the working classes of the East End showed sympathy
and empathy for the victims far beyond anything that had ever been observed previously. Turning out en masse
for the pauper’s funerals of the Ripper’s victims, thousands of East Enders paid their last respects to one of their
own, shedding tears and doffing caps in genuine displays of grief and emotion. 4 These feelings ran high, and they
indubitably complicated the Ripper’s actions in his subsequent crimes. With public sensibilities aflame, dozens
of ‘penny-dreadful’ newspapers fanning those fires on a daily basis, police everywhere, and the blood-lust of the
multitudes aroused, the Ripper no doubt realized that his would be no easy task if he were to continue his bloody
work. Against such forces arrayed in opposition, not even a series of disguises would prevail. What the Ripper
needed was a game plan.
One might wonder if the Ripper did formulate any detailed plans for securing a victim or murder site other than
the general preparations necessary. Were some of the murders, such as that of Annie Chapman, merely crimes
of opportunity, quite likely if the Ripper was always ‘on’? If so, were his victims merely streetwalkers who were
in the wrong place at the wrong time? After all, as Philip Sugden 5 suggests, there were only four-eight probable
Ripper victims, and consecutive sevens have been rolled against the odds numerous times at gambling tables in
many casinos. It might conceivably have been nothing more than dumb luck, carried through with extraordinary
audacity; however, the much greater probability is that the crimes were very well planned in their entirety.
Several serial killers have murdered for years without detection, much less capture, and only a little over two
months had elapsed since the murders of the Canonical Five. Disregarding the presumably inactive month of
October 1888, we find that the Ripper killed over a period of only six weeks! With so few murders to analyze
statistically over such a relatively short period of time, it may be impossible to interpret with a significant level
of confidence any discernible planning patterns from what little we know. The murders themselves might have
4 Blake, Wilfong: www. wondersmith.com.
5 Sugden, Philip: The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, London, Robinson (revised 2002).
Ripperologist 146 October 2015 31